[extropy-chat] against ID

[Samantha Atkins]

On Nov 19, 2005, at 11:03 AM, Harvey Newstrom wrote:

>
> Unless you rename "Intelligent Design" to "Simulation Argument".   
> If the "Intelligent Designer" is a computer simulator, and all  
> creation is a simulation, then you will not find quite as strong or  
> as univerasal opposition among transhumanists.  Many can and do  
> argue that we must at least consider the possibility that we are  
> living inside a simulation created by some intelligent design.  How  
> this differs from ID, I don't see.  But many transhumanists do  
> believe in ID in the guise of the Simulation Argument.
>

But none of us suggests that the Simulation Argument be taught  
alongside evolution in biology class.  AFAIK none of us have  
suggested that the Simulation Argument explains any of observed  
reality better than a non-SA set of explanations.

As Eliezer pointed out once, coming up with a plausible notion that  
does not violate known facts is not sufficient to claim the notion is  
true or even likely.  It merely says it is not impossible.If the SA  
is true and the SA created this universe (the SA has to have come  
from some timeline of some universe) or at least earth life, then it  
was a very deistic arrangement where the SA set up a very messy large- 
scale GA and took a look now and then to see if anything interesting  
turned up.   Biological evolution is not in the least questioned by  
such speculation.  So I do not agree that transhumanists who hold  
that SA is likely believe in a form of ID.

- samantha
  
  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20051120/4a266626/attachment.html>