[extropy-chat] Intelligent Design -- take *this*...

[Hughes, James J.]

> Discovery Institute, I was forced to conclude that 
> their current efforts pushing I.D. are indeed a 
> front for a conservative agenda. 

Their Senior Fellow Wesley J. Smith is also one of the chief opponents
of transhumanism-qua-transhumanism:

http://www.wesleyjsmith.com

Wesley J. Smith on Transhumanism on National Review Online
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-smith092002.asp

As to your assessment of the scientific debatability of ID theory I
agree that the kinds of statistical evidence that IDers point to should
be considered legitimate scientific evidence in support of a hypothesis
of intelligent design. Evidence of the cosmological unlikelihood of a
universe that could support life is precisely what Nick writes about in
regards the "anthropic principle." If there is no multiverse, Occams
razor suggests we wouldn't be here just by chance. 

On the other hand, as the critics say, lack of support for the
hypothesis of random evolution doesn't support any specific theory of
intelligent design. If there was a body of evidence of statistical
unlikelihood of our reality, the Simulation hypothesis seems a lot more
supportable than an Abrahamic God. 

In any case, as you point out, there is no reason IMHO for
transhumanists in particular to dismiss the ID debate out of hand.

--------------------------------------------
James Hughes Ph.D.
Executive Director
World Transhumanist Assoc.   Inst. for Ethics & Emerging Tech.
http://transhumanism.org     http://ieet.org
director at transhumanism.org   director at ieet.org
Editor, Journal of Evolution and Technology
http://jetpress.org

Mailing Address: Box 128, Willington CT 06279 USA 
(office) 860-297-2376