<HTML><BODY style="word-wrap: break-word; -khtml-nbsp-mode: space; -khtml-line-break: after-white-space; "><BR><DIV><DIV>On Nov 19, 2005, at 11:03 AM, Harvey Newstrom wrote:</DIV><BR class="Apple-interchange-newline"><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Helvetica; min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">Unless you rename "Intelligent Design" to "Simulation Argument".<SPAN class="Apple-converted-space"> </SPAN>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.<SPAN class="Apple-converted-space"> </SPAN>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.<SPAN class="Apple-converted-space"> </SPAN>How this differs from ID, I don't see.<SPAN class="Apple-converted-space"> </SPAN>But many transhumanists do believe in ID in the guise of the Simulation Argument.</FONT></DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Helvetica; min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><BR></DIV><DIV>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. </DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>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.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>- samantha</DIV><DIV> </DIV></BODY></HTML>