Joined: June 2006
|Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 22 2006,18:08)|
|The stuff Allen complains about here is pretty mild. What about where Denyse and company refer to Allen's field as an (paraphrasing) "endless stream of nonsense"? MacNeill's behavior is weird.|
I suspect Allen doesn't read much of UD. He probably looked at this post only because it criticizes Pim's pointer to Allen's post.
True to form, DaveScot didn't read Allen's post. DaveScot says:
|Evidently the take-home point Pim wishes to make is that this is equivalent to seeing machinery in natural objects created by chance.|
Actually, Allen specifically said that they are not equivalent:
|Indeed, the faces at Mount Rushmore constitute a kind of “control” for this ability, as they are clearly the result of intentionality, and therefore can be used to anchor that end of the “agency detection” spectrum (at the other end of which are things like “faces” in clouds, tree foliage, etc.). Somewhere in this spectrum is a cross-over point at which actual intentionality/agency disappears and facticious intentionality/agency takes over. It is the location of that cross-over point that constitutes the hinge of the argument between evolutionary biologists and ID theorists.|
I suspect that Allen was unimpressed by Dave's completely off-the-mark criticism of something he hadn't read, as well as the immediate attaboys from the other sheep who didn't read it either.
"I wasn't aware that classical physics had established a position on whether intelligent agents exercising free were constrained by 2LOT into increasing entropy." -DaveScot