N.Wells
Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005
|
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 29 2014,22:35) | The first sentence of the theory was just strengthened and now looks like this:
Quote | The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause whereby in biology (emergent from behavior of matter) a collective of intelligent entities at the molecular level combine to cause emergence of intelligence at the cellular level, which combine to cause the emergence of intelligence at the multicellular level, to create us who are thereby a trinity of self-similar intelligence levels at different size scales each systematically and behaviorally in their/our own image, likeness. |
http://ncse.com/blog.......1297353 |
You continue to be haunted by both bad English that does not say what you mean, and bad thinking, where what you mean does not make sense.
"Theory of Intelligent Design" should be something like "My new improved version of intelligent design", because your version is not what the standard version says (and it does not rise to the level of a theory).
"certain features": pointless without being more specific.
Your sentence is long and wordy: it would be cleaner as "My version of intelligent design holds that a collective of intelligent....."
What on earth is an intelligent entity at the molecular level? You need a justification for your assertion of the existence of intelligence at levels below animals with brains.
Your ideas also won't be complete until you explain precisely how intelligent entities combine at each level to form the next level: until then you are just making empty assertions.
"Design" seems a misnomer. It's entirely unclear why, even if we grant you everything you say about intelligence, this should qualify as "design".
"a collective ... combines" ("collective" is singular)
"size scales" is redundant
Your final expression basically says 'each in its own image', which is not a meaningful way of saying what you want to say. How could anything not be similar to itself?
"image, likeness" continues to be poor English. Insert "i.e." (or "or"), or better yet just go with one, as they are synonyms.
You need a definition of intelligence and a demonstration of why this is design. If intelligent molecules are self-similar to us, they should look like us, love and crap like us, and have governments and courts. We and they do not form a fractal system.
Your uses of theory, intelligent, design, collective, intelligent entities, intelligence, trinity, self-similar, and systematically all share the qualities of being non-standard and unjustified uses, being chosen because they sound like they give your ideas extra importance (all sound 'sciencey', except trinity, which you choose because you like its religious importance), and being used to drag in hidden meanings or agendas and to leap over gaps in your reasoning. You are basically relying on word magic.
And beyond this sentence you still need to resolve all the other issues raised in this thread.
|