[Diamond]

So -- I want to be sure I understand your position -- are you saying that although intelligence can mimic nature, nature can't produce something that looks as if it were designed by intelligence?

That's a very perceptive question, but in order to answer properly I think it is necessary to clarify the meaning of "nature" as used in your distinction between "nature" and "intelligence".

Cordially

[PatrickHenry]

My question (from #450):
So -- I want to be sure I understand your position -- are you saying that although intelligence can mimic nature, nature can't produce something that looks as if it were designed by intelligence?

That's a very perceptive question, but in order to answer properly I think it is necessary to clarify the meaning of "nature" as used in your distinction between "nature" and "intelligence".

ARRRRGGGHHH! Boggled down in definitions. I'm pinging general_re because such definitions may affect his test. Without debating for a semester, and without trying to supersede the whole purpose of the thread, can we agree, provisionally, on the following:

Nature: By this, I mean something that happens, or that is formed, "naturally," in accordance with the laws of physics, chemistry, etc., and without intelligent intervention (ignoring the issue of whether Providence is deliberately causing everything to happen) -- for example, the Mississippi River, as it existed before humans lived in North America, is natural.

Intelligence (or Design): By this, I mean things or events that are the result of intelligent intervention in the otherwise natural processes of the universe -- for example, the Hoover Dam, the Panama Canal, etc., are not natural.