Does complexity require intelligent design?

It has to do with actual relation of physicotheology to physical teleology (the former being perceptual while the latter is not dependent on human activity, per say). But because there is no study in the academy of either, really ,your correct noticing of the difference between the two-is-swamped by Kant's notation that in the end physicotheology is but a propaeduetic or prepartion for theology (hence biology does not inform physics as is classically taught), but as such is "only adequate to this design by the aid of a foreign principle on which it can rely, and not in itself, as its name seems to indicate."Kant Critique of Teleological Judement 85Of course if you refuse to accept the possiblity of any kind of teleological force a priori as Mayr did and Provine seems to have followed a two decades and a half later, not that you do, the seperation might get fused otherwise in your mind even to the point of accounting for the percepts by way of the physical connectivtiy.I suppose if physciotheology were informed by all of modern discussion in creation and evolution it is possible that this phrasing of Kant's need not apply (much more). It is my educated opinion that Croizat's panbiogeographic method DOES provide at least in part this preparation. I have no idea why Quine felt he had to insist that Aristotle's fourth cause does not exist. At least Mayr has not done due dilligence to Bertrand Russel's notions on Kant in terms of geometry of speciation etc,which he could have choosen to deal with in his having to mediate the tension of Wright and Fisher and Ford as editor of "Evolution" in '49. Quine's contribution to set theory felt there was no use for modern propositional functions of Russell beyond some formalisms (in short) and so somehow I think biology never got the chance to find that Croizat's paragon indeed is perceptive in the sense you indicated (as to a Woodger functor say to keep with Russell etc etc) but this would not be a universal thought but one bound to life tracks(etc etc etc) and I can not say if that in particular is absolutely able to answer(yours)... if the naming was necessary as Kant had it. It might be nonetheless.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 03-12-2005 22:45 AM

look behind the browser. The peek window is there.

Well, if I understand what you and the frog are jumping through, I would think that that "plagerized" DOES add a sense of anthropomorphism (but perhaps I didnt follow this thread back far enough).I was looking at Nelson and Plantick's SYSTMATICS AND BIOGEOGRAPHY once again and in trying to square the triple use of CROIZAT, HENNIG, and POPPER by these authors it is clear IN THAT CONTEXT (of what evolution is) this-that, while Popper (in Evolution and the Tree of Knowledge in OBJECTIVE KNOWLEDGE an evolutionary approach)

quote:

---

Now it is important that the simulated explanation - that is, Newton's theory - may be described as an approximation to Einstein'stheory and to the truth. The theory of natural selection proceeds in a similar way. In particular case it starts from a simplified model-situation - a situtation consisting of certain species in certain environmental conditions - and it tries to show why, iin this situation, certain mutatyions would have survivial value."

---

p269Oxford1972to me at least, that, whatever the physical relation of Newton and Einstein are to change biologically, plagerized"" goes beyond what is needed to have been said in CRITICISM, because if a "mutation" in this same sense of 'truth' is a "mistake"(it) might indeed make sense in the model but not the simulation etc. I just register my point though (Nelson and Platnick think that time is tested by form and space by time but I hold to form by time and time by space, but some of this WOULD depend on what Kuhn said about the same physically (that in analogy the mutation would not be a "mistake". Boyd disagreed)). I dont know without feedback if this is exactly what yous' guys are talking about?This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-06-2005 08:34 AM

There is no reason for a designer to copy mistakes from one generation to another but there is for an undesigner if one took the notion of ID at the level where 1-D time symmetries are not cashed out FIRST in terms of the fossil record as Nelson did for divine Providence in Lyell @ natrual process of endemism&this will be particularly evident in molecular biology.If one had accepted the comparisons I made
EvC Forum: How can evolution explain body symmetry?
of the 1D Fibonacci substitution system to Echinoderm ontogeny and phylogeny then an undesigned mistake that might alter the 1-D substitutions might be passed on in the simulation that WOULD thus model the change out of "thin air" but NOT by GOD. This is the same response to Geneger in the above thread We would have to discuss the god of Newton's General Scholium, the elsastic and electric Spirit, and Mathematical Additions by Cantor to Kant's "categories" of science(and geometric and algebraic analogies per Sausarrian signs etc) for any copyerrror transmission vs plagerized distribtion etc etc.The "plagerism" analogy works if FORM is tested by time ONLY if the above model IS. You all question that what I present IS. So I'll take the opposite in the mole bio case and say that TIME is tested by FORM but then palgerism as NOT an analogy, I was willing to consider, is but a duplication or copy only and there is no way "to trace" across dittos the plagerized vs the mistakes unless the 1-D temporalities be admitted which Nelson cashed out using Popper which can only be returned by the approixmation which we said is on too abstruse a level that is not the ID level but instead are cashed IN by popular notions and we are back at my contribution seemingly a plagerized version of reality rather than the futuristic contribution it is not.Now I see why you thought no one would be begrudged by avoiding my contributions and now I see that you were mistaken.There is a difference between the undesigned and not designed by carbon. One can even INTEND a shared function by cashing out instead 1-D symmetry temporally per endemism and find homologies in the relation of space tested by time or time tested by space as functionality across materials provided the relation of space and translation in space is not counterindicated. This the need for actual sequences to discuss further. But materials and genetic mistakes might acuire the same logic where triple errors are possible.Yes ID would be "beyond" science. but the expansion of science to meet ID seemed to be missed by a less intricate analysis. It seems to me that ALL the reasons for people reading the 74 SYSZOO article dissing centers of origin by Nelson and Croizat (which Croizat later repudiated) lay in the linguistic use of rejecting special creation by divine Providence as some others were using Lyell to do during the 1800s. The interconversion of material and plagerized material certainly works witout creationism.The space testing time might introduce mutations in forms testing approximations of time testing form provided the statstical realtion of the attributes across generations are fixed by a ratio. In that way the model and simulation can be the same thing. They might not be.Now it true that if one starts with Pink's species one is not necessarily involved with Nelsons' as I have worked up but Xevolutionist would still have his/her point. The issue is however suffiency not absolutely. I fugured this out by following the negatives against Xevolutionist not the postitives in that point.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-06-2005 11:34 AM