Teleology & Neo-thomism (Introduction)

by dhw, Friday, October 16, 2015, 11:42 (3327 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I doubt if your author really thinks his readers can't tell the difference between a living organism and a non-living machine, but in any case his observation fits in neatly with the studies of the eminent biologists you accuse of “hyperbole”.

DAVID: I don't see how. Either it is alive or it isn't.-And I reckon most people will be able to judge the difference. That is why I am suggesting that your author's comment that organisms are not machines may well have been referring to such attributes as sentience and cognition and intelligence rather than merely being alive. In any case, his comment fits in with that hypothesis.-dhw; I take them to mean that these organs are individual cellular communities (= organisms) within a cellular community (organism), all cooperating with one another, just as each ant is an individual organism within a community of organisms.-DAVID: Of course organs are intact cellular communities, each with strict instructions as to how to operate for the good of the whole. And they send instructions to each other automatically to conduct their business of a whole functioning organism. -You had challenged the hypothesis that organs such as liver, heart and kidneys were separate organisms, and asked who were the eminent biologists “out in left field”. I gave you the quotes and asked what else they could mean, and your reply is to repeat your own conviction that these cell communities act automatically. That is the point at issue: are cells automatons, or are they cognitive beings? I'm happy with the 50/50 you keep acknowledging, but unhappy with the “absolutely wrong” of your earlier posts, which you still seem to cling to. -dhw: Intelligent design (lower case) tells us absolutely nothing about the nature of the designer - that is a different subject altogether. Your author is simply imposing his own beliefs on the science. Free will allows for the possibility of your God detaching himself (deism), and design allows for the possibility that the design will reflect the designer (anthropomorphism).-DAVID: ID does not define the designer. Anthropomorphism implies human characteristics to God, which is a different statement than yours, unless you limit that definition only to the design of humans. ID looks at design in everything.-I agree that ID does not define the designer. That is why I argued against your author's assumption that “the relation between the Designer and the universe cannot be seen mechanistically, as the relation between a watchmaker and a watch (external teleology).” Design tells us nothing about that relationship, and so for the reasons given above, deism and anthropomorphism are perfectly compatible with intelligent design.