tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post7775639587341513419..comments2024-03-28T21:43:44.433-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Reply to Torley and CudworthEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-53165966431308899152011-05-11T17:10:18.236-07:002011-05-11T17:10:18.236-07:00Bilbo: "I could be wrong, but I think Thomist...Bilbo: <i>"I could be wrong, but I think Thomists would say that the living form is already potentially in the non-living form, and divine intervention isn't needed."</i><br /><br />To get back to your point. This is a scientific question - not a philosophical one. The question of whether non-living matter has the active potential for life can only be established by experimentation. Likewise the question of whether one substantial form can evolve into another substantial form is also one for science - not one for philosophy.<br /><br />If you read what I wrote yesterday Bilbo, you'll see that a true Thomist has no dog in this fight - he already knows that everything is designed by God. For the Thomist, it's only a question of whether this or that has active potential or passive potential - both being equally acceptable.Daniel Smithhttp://pulse.yahoo.com/_UXEGANXFFXZBLJT5ZVUGPNWJOA/blognoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-33175303721859194122011-05-10T16:11:53.037-07:002011-05-10T16:11:53.037-07:00Bilbo: "I could be wrong, but I think Thomist...Bilbo: <i>"I could be wrong, but I think Thomists would say that the living form is already potentially in the non-living form, and divine intervention isn't needed."</i><br /><br />Actually a Thomist would probably say that <i>all of nature</i> shows intelligent design via Aquinas' Fifth Way. And they'd actually be right (IMO).<br /><br />I've always felt that a weakness of ID was in arguing for design via complexity. Aquinas makes (what I consider) the ultimate design argument in his Fifth Way: Every physical thing is observed to act as if it is trying to achieve some goal. All observable matter does this. Since we <i>know</i> that matter does not have a mind and cannot set goals for itself, there must be a mind behind nature. That (IMO) should be the heart of ID. <br /><br /><i>"Yeah, that distinction isn't clear to me."</i><br /><br />It's not that clear to me either. I've searched through other writings by Aquinas trying to find out more about what <i>he considers</i> the difference between active and passive potency but to no avail. All I know is that he claims passive potency can <i>only</i> be activated by God. I'd really like to know why he says that.Daniel Smithhttp://pulse.yahoo.com/_UXEGANXFFXZBLJT5ZVUGPNWJOA/blognoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-3406432069384459672011-05-10T10:23:11.739-07:002011-05-10T10:23:11.739-07:00Chris @ May 5, 2011 10:54 AM had a good question, ...Chris @ May 5, 2011 10:54 AM had a good question, that was ignored. I'm curious about the answer my self.<br /><br />Another case: how about a bacterium that has been genetically altered to produce insulin? Natural or artifact?One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-84201541339256447912011-05-09T07:15:08.431-07:002011-05-09T07:15:08.431-07:00Daniel: "This is a potential avenue for "...Daniel: "<i>This is a potential avenue for "Thomistic ID" because it suggests that material forces cannot impose a living form on non-living matter. Only God can.</i>"<br /><br />I could be wrong, but I think Thomists would say that the living form is already potentially in the non-living form, and divine intervention isn't needed. <br /><br />"<i>This also agrees with Aquinas' distinction regarding active/passive potential in pre-existing matter.</i>"<br /><br />Yeah, that distinction isn't clear to me.Bilbohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06231440026059820600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-47325720101922507492011-05-08T11:34:43.432-07:002011-05-08T11:34:43.432-07:00"This is a potential avenue for "Thomist...<i>"This is a potential avenue for "Thomistic ID" because it suggests that material forces cannot impose a living form on non-living matter. Only God can."</i><br /><br />To expand on this a bit...<br /><br />I've been interested in the non-Darwinian saltational theories of evolution of such scientists as Pierre Grasse, Leo Berg, Richard Goldschmidt, Otto Schindewolf, John Davison and even Steven J. Gould (though he attempted to posit a Darwinian mechanism for PE.)<br /><br />What I find interesting is that all of these scientists sought to reconcile evolutionary theory to the real world and to the fossil record - which does not show gradual transformation of one form into another but rather shows the sudden appearance and rapid diversification of forms.<br /><br />An especially good read on this subject is <a href="http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/B/bo3636925.html" rel="nofollow">Schindewolf's <i> Basic Questions in Paleontology</i></a>. (He uses the term "type" but it realistically coincides with the Aristotelian "form", I think.)<br /><br />What these scientists attempted to do was find some mechanism to explain this sudden appearance. Davison's <a href="http://www.uncommondescent.com/documentation/Semi-Meiosis.pdf" rel="nofollow">Semi-Meiotic Hypothesis</a> offers a radical solution - what essentially amounts to a "virgin birth" of new forms.<br /><br />Anyway, I think these theories are in agreement with the view that new forms must be a product of God's intervention rather than gradual transformation by material forces. We don't actually have any evidence (that I know of) of a new form occurring gradually.Daniel Smithhttp://pulse.yahoo.com/_UXEGANXFFXZBLJT5ZVUGPNWJOA/blognoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-65127460851078676792011-05-08T10:57:20.929-07:002011-05-08T10:57:20.929-07:00I'll go out on a limb here and suggest that he...<i>I'll go out on a limb here and suggest that he would say if he had to interact with pure ideological bluster, he'd never have time for anything else.</i><br /><br />Sure, but this is at least semi-prominent bluster. And worse, it's bluster that many ID critics show considerable tolerance, even enthusiasm, for.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-48035371318194058052011-05-08T04:26:14.762-07:002011-05-08T04:26:14.762-07:00I'd love to see what Ed has to say about Micha...<i>I'd love to see what Ed has to say about Michael Dowd's theology sometime, if he's so inclined.</i><br /><br />I'll go out on a limb here and suggest that he would say if he had to interact with pure ideological bluster, he'd never have time for anything else.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-34877766143464256792011-05-08T00:47:05.910-07:002011-05-08T00:47:05.910-07:00I don't know about Dr. Feser, but I'll poi...I don't know about Dr. Feser, but I'll point out that Bateson's construction doesn't match what people actually do. When Christianity comes into an area that had nature worship, it brings with it a belief in universal benevolence (that is, that we should do good to everyone, not just family) that challenges the previous practice of tribalism. Our "survival unit" ceases to be family only and becomes the whole world. (Not to say that human cussedness won't slow it down. OTOH human cussedness can make a big "survival unit" into an awful thing too; consider Communism.) At least, that's what happened so far. Bateson forgets where the values he espouses (such as equality, general benevolence, and stewardship) come from.Poppasanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07459091437954100698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-44774146039768125932011-05-08T00:40:17.337-07:002011-05-08T00:40:17.337-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Poppasanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07459091437954100698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-67692528310088535612011-05-07T11:02:34.404-07:002011-05-07T11:02:34.404-07:00By the way.
In this whole ID versus Thomism debat...By the way.<br /><br />In this whole ID versus Thomism debate, I now and then mention how whatever problems Thomists may have with ID, plenty of ID critics (who often see Thomists as 'on their side' due to the ID criticisms) are worse.<br /><br />UD had <a href="http://www.uncommondescent.com/theistic-evolution/why-god-cant-be-outside-nature/" rel="nofollow">this quote</a> featured: <i>If you put God outside and set him vis-a-vis his creation, and if you have the idea that you are created in his image, you will logically and naturally see yourself as outside and against the things around you. And as you arrogate all mind to yourself, you will see the world around you as mindless and therefore not entitled to moral or ethical consideration. The environment will seem to be yours to exploit. Your survival unit will be you and your folks or conspecifics against the environment of other social units, other races, and the brutes and vegetables. If this is your estimate of your relation to nature and you have an advanced technology, your likelihood of survival will be that of a snowball in hell. You will die either of the toxic by-products of your own hate, or simply of overpopulation and overgrazing.</i><br /><br />I'd love to see what Ed has to say about Michael Dowd's theology sometime, if he's so inclined.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-36038825754584792862011-05-07T10:17:49.953-07:002011-05-07T10:17:49.953-07:00dmt117: "Matter and form exist in a hierarchy...dmt117: <i>"Matter and form exist in a hierarchy; The frog is composed of molecules (matter) and the form frog; the molecules are composed of atoms (matter) and the form molecule; the atoms are composed of neutrons, protons electrons (matter) under forms... etc., etc. As you go further down, you don't really get any closer to prime matter."</i><br /><br />Thank you. I think though that molecules lose their independent form and take on a different form when they are part of a larger whole. For example: a carbon molecule inside a frog, though still just a carbon molecule, now has the added "duty" of maintaining the form of the frog. So it has a different "intent" than a carbon molecule that is just floating around in space. Physically, the carbon molecule does not change - only its "intentions" (its job or duty) change. <br /><br /><i>"I think the "intent" you speak of is more appropriately located in the formal aspect of being rather than the material aspect."</i><br /><br />Yes, that's what I'm saying. The intent is not <i>IN</i> the matter. The intent is imposed from the outside, by God, via form.<br /><br />So, even pre-existing matter (from which God is said to have created life) has to have a new form imposed on it from outside. This is a potential avenue for "Thomistic ID" because it suggests that material forces cannot impose a living form on non-living matter. Only God can.<br /><br />This also agrees with Aquinas' distinction regarding active/passive potential in pre-existing matter.Daniel Smithhttp://pulse.yahoo.com/_UXEGANXFFXZBLJT5ZVUGPNWJOA/blognoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-73562373984940965152011-05-07T10:04:14.248-07:002011-05-07T10:04:14.248-07:00Daniel: "So this "intent" - which ...Daniel: "<i>So this "intent" - which directs one molecule to be part of a tree and directs another identical molecule to be part of a frog - must be imposed upon these elements from outside.</i>"<br /><br />But it's the <i>order</i> of the molecules that determines whether they will be part of a frog or part of a tree. At a slightly more basic level, it is the order of the amino acids that determines whether they will be one protein or another, or no protein at all. <br /><br />"<i>Isn't this the crux of the Fifth Way?</i>"<br /><br />If I understand it (I may not), Aquinas saw the world as exhibiting an <i>internal</i> order that resulted in specific ends. I think this would be different from God imposing an external order upon the world. <br /><br />Daniel, I think you're afraid that someday scientists may "create" life, and that this would somehow diminish its specialness or God's sovereignty. But the only way scientists could accomplish such at end, is if the pre-existing material already had the intrinsic property of becoming a living organism. And a living organism is not just a machine. There are no robo-bacteria. <br /><br />Your fear is based on the modern view that the world is merely mechanistic. The A-T view, if I understand it, is that the world is vitalistic.Bilbohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06231440026059820600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-67461863646948550032011-05-06T20:23:35.928-07:002011-05-06T20:23:35.928-07:00Daniel,
"Basic elements" are not basic ...Daniel,<br /><br />"Basic elements" are not basic in the sense that they are formless matter. Matter and form exist in a hierarchy; The frog is composed of molecules (matter) and the form frog; the molecules are composed of atoms (matter) and the form molecule; the atoms are composed of neutrons, protons electrons (matter) under forms... etc., etc. As you go further down, you don't really get any closer to prime matter. Molecules are just as much a composition of form and matter as are frogs. This is why prime matter exists only potentially; it exists actually only under a form. <br /><br />I think the "intent" you speak of is more appropriately located in the formal aspect of being rather than the material aspect.dmt117http://www.lifesprivatebook.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-79827487636053418692011-05-06T17:20:57.229-07:002011-05-06T17:20:57.229-07:00dmt117: "I think it helps (at least me) to re...dmt117: <i>"I think it helps (at least me) to remember that what exists are beings ; form and matter do not exist on their own"</i><br /><br />Why does that seem so counter-intuitive to me?<br /><br />We know that basic elements exist. We have classified the compounds that make up virtually everything in the universe in the (very finite) periodic table.<br /><br />Now, it's also true that every physical thing that exists is made up of elements that seem to be intent on making and maintaining that very thing.<br /><br />This "intent" cannot be intrinsic to the elements themselves - if it were, every element would always make up the same thing. The elements that make a frog would always make a frog. Yet we know that the elements that make a frog can also make a tree. So this "intent" - which directs one molecule to be part of a tree and directs another <i>identical</i> molecule to be part of a frog - must be imposed upon these elements from outside.<br /><br />Isn't this the crux of the Fifth Way?Daniel Smithhttp://pulse.yahoo.com/_UXEGANXFFXZBLJT5ZVUGPNWJOA/blognoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-51314040984466351842011-05-06T12:31:24.147-07:002011-05-06T12:31:24.147-07:00Will: "... but if ID means "we can dedu...Will: "<i>... but if ID means "we can deduce God's role as creator by observing life, by the principles of irreducible complexity and specified complexity," then ID is not inherently inconsistent with A-T.</i>"<br /><br />I think it's better to say that we can deduce <i>how</i> God created. <br /><br />"<i>Or maybe that's not true, and something about irreducible complexity or specified complexity is inherently non-Thomist.</i>"<br /><br />I don't think there is, though I wouldn't claim to know enough of Thomism to make that determination.Bilbohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06231440026059820600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-29002019069964035782011-05-06T08:41:43.587-07:002011-05-06T08:41:43.587-07:00It sounds like we're getting at this: ID prop...It sounds like we're getting at this: ID proponents are mostly if not all non-Thomist, but if ID means "we can deduce God's role as creator by observing life, by the principles of irreducible complexity and specified complexity," then ID is not inherently inconsistent with A-T.<br /><br />Or maybe that's not true, and something about irreducible complexity or specified complexity is inherently non-Thomist. (That is, you can't say those principles without making a mechanist assumption.) ?Poppasanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07459091437954100698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-84669009925582411562011-05-06T06:15:13.228-07:002011-05-06T06:15:13.228-07:00We need to keep in mind that prime matter, in itse...We need to keep in mind that prime matter, in itself, only exists potentially. When it exists actually, it is always under a form, and therefore has immanent tendencies, in the sense that the being of which it is a component has immanent tendencies.<br /><br />I think it helps (at least me) to remember that what exists are <i> beings </i>; form and matter do not exist on their own (except in the case of substantial forms, but that isn't pertinent). Form and matter are just components into which we analyze being, but have no separate existence apart from being (contra Plato on the one hand and modern materialists on the other).dmt117http://www.lifesprivatebook.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-35450433011214150182011-05-06T06:12:34.201-07:002011-05-06T06:12:34.201-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Marisahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07550543256489750474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-43015953973820609802011-05-05T17:12:25.439-07:002011-05-05T17:12:25.439-07:00Ed: "For something to be an “artifact” in the...Ed: <i>"For something to be an “artifact” in the Aristotelian sense, it is also necessary that its parts have no immanent tendency to function together as a whole,"</i><br /><br />Point 1: Isn't it true that all form is imposed on prime matter from outside? So the immanent tendencies of molecules that make up dirt are different than the immanent tendencies of the molecules that make up life - even though they are exactly the same type of meolcules?<br /><br />So all of nature is artifactual when viewed in that sense - since prime matter has no immanent tendencies.<br /><br />Point 2: There seems to be a distinct difference between the creation of <i>living</i> and non-living things in the biblical account:<br /><br />Non-living things are spoken into existence from nothing; "Let there be light". Living things, however, are "brought forth" from the earth; "Let <i>the land</i> produce vegetation" and "Let <i>the land</i> produce living creatures"<br /><br />Finally, when it comes to man: "the LORD God formed a man <i>from the dust of the ground</i> and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being." <br /><br />I think then that there is a definite distinction in the way God created living things and it seems that he chose, for reasons unknown to us, to create life from pre-existing matter rather than ex-nihilo.Daniel Smithhttp://pulse.yahoo.com/_UXEGANXFFXZBLJT5ZVUGPNWJOA/blognoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-84760032579206033052011-05-05T16:05:00.836-07:002011-05-05T16:05:00.836-07:00Prof. Feser,
I think this post brings a great de...Prof. Feser, <br /><br />I think this post brings a great deal of clarity to the debate, and I think it shows that there does not need to be a fundamental disagreement between A-T philosophy and ID theory. My guess is that if Dembski read this post, he will agree with what you have said, and correct or clarify his own statements regarding the incompatibility between Aristotelianism and ID. But if I'm mistaken about Dembski, then I would agree with you that Dembski's form of ID is philosophically and theologically problematic. But let's get down to details. You write:<br /><br />"<i>For something to be an “artifact” in the Aristotelian sense, it is also necessary that its parts have no immanent tendency to function together as a whole, and this is not true of corn any more than it is true of the various dog breeds or of human infants, while it is true of a hammock or of the other examples of artifacts.</i>"<br /><br />Agreed!!! It is patently obvious that the parts of living organisms have an immanent tendency to function together as a whole. I think Dembski would agree with this. If he doesn't then he's mistaken. However, I don't think this is what he meant by referring to living things as artifacts. What I think he meant is that it was exceedingly unlikely that the parts could be <b>brought together and in the right order</b> so that they could then function together as a whole. So unlikely, that a reasonable person would infer that an agent must have brought the parts together and in the right order. <br /><br />"<i>In the case of a snake or a strand of DNA, for example, there is for A-T simply no such thing as a natural substance which somehow has all the material and behavioral properties of a snake or a strand of DNA and yet still lacks the “information content” or teleological features typical of snakes or DNA. And so, when God makes a snake or a strand of DNA, He doesn’t first make an otherwise “information-free” or teleology-free material structure and then “impart” some information or final causality to it, as if carrying out the second stage in a two-stage process.</i>"<br /><br />Agreed!!! And this provides the answer to Mr. Green's question about the robocow. If a robocow has all the identical parts, arranged in the right way, of a living cow, then it is not a robocow. It is a living cow. <br /><br />Now whether the living cow evolved from a different kind of animal, without the need of an agent imparting additional information, or whether it evolved with an agent imparting additional information, or whether it had to be specially created is a separate question. <br /><br />So I see no fundamental disagreement between A-T philosophy and ID. Only, perhaps, between Dembski's version of ID. Let's hope he replies. I'm betting he will correct or clarify his position.Bilbohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06231440026059820600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-50147081621072858842011-05-05T14:23:33.446-07:002011-05-05T14:23:33.446-07:00I will add, though - after seeing ER Bourne's ...I will add, though - after seeing ER Bourne's comment - that one problem I have with ID proponents is that some of them do seem to make concessions I find insane. Reasoning that if macroevolution is true than God does not exist or that, at least, the evolved creatures are not ultimately designed by any agent. That's not necessarily a fundamental view of ID, but it's a very common sentiment and one I reject.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-77520664979580988402011-05-05T14:19:06.590-07:002011-05-05T14:19:06.590-07:00Mr. Green,
How so? If it's scientific then th...Mr. Green,<br /><br /><i>How so? If it's scientific then the Thomist will accept it like any other science. Unless you mean it's "science" rather than "philosophy" and so outside the scope of Thomism (and vice versa). But that gets back to my point that every physical truth must be grounded in a metaphysical truth, so there's still something waiting to be explained.</i><br /><br />I only mean that Thomists would not regard Thomism as 'a form of ID' if ID is defined as science rather than philosophy. I imagine this gets into the murkier subject of what is and is not science versus what's metaphysical speculation based on science.<br /><br />Whether Thomists can accept ID confuses me. Certainly if an ID argument requires a mechanistic metaphysics, then Thomism is out - that much I gather. But I also have sympathy with the view that ID in the broad sense is touching on something important - and whether all forms of ID are necessarily at odds with Thomism, I'm not prepared to answer. Again, too murky.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-67522571490924382672011-05-05T14:15:10.965-07:002011-05-05T14:15:10.965-07:00If we say that we can detect “design” in nature, w...If we say that we can detect “design” in nature, what does that mean? It seems that Intelligent Design wants to argue that things come to be either by chance or design. If chance, no designer and if design is somehow detected, then there must be a designer. <br /><br />Inasmuch as this dilemma encompasses all of reality, both atheists and advocates of Intelligent Design are in agreement. Chance means no designer and design means no chance. But God is responsible for beings inasmuch as they are beings, not inasmuch as they are by chance or by design. This means that even if something comes to be by chance, which is only a cause per accidens, its existence as such depends upon God, the per se cause of existence. To say, then, that God exists because we can detect design in nature is to misconceive the nature of creation. God is the cause of all things in a way that is indifferent to whether or not chance plays a role. Also, keep in my mind that I am granting for the sake of argument that chance and design are our only two options. This, though, is false, and it leads to the next problem with saying that we can detect design in nature.<br /><br />As Dr. Feser has explained at length, there is a distinction between nature and artifact. The reason why we cannot say that natural things are designed in the same sense that artifacts are designed is precisely because nature is a motive principle. If Intelligent Design wants to say that God is a designer in the way that humans design artifacts then it is simply eliminating nature from the metaphysical picture. This is the critical error that results from seeing God’s creative act through the filter of human production.<br /><br />We do not have to say that an acorn becomes a tree by design in order to say that it is caused by God. We also do not have to deny that God is the cause of acorns becoming trees if they happen to do so by chance. Acorns, though, do not become trees randomly or designedly but naturally. To say this does not eliminate God as a cause, rather, it maintains the integrity of both God’s creative act and the causative power of nature in the world.<br /><br />“...Nature is a certain principle and cause of moving and of resting in that in which it is, primarily, in virtue of itself, and not accidentally.” Physics 2.1, 192b20-23E.R. Bournehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08847266600675489605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-74906233654722094992011-05-05T13:46:04.974-07:002011-05-05T13:46:04.974-07:00Crude: I suspect that the "scientifically&quo...Crude: <i>I suspect that the "scientifically" would be enough to sink the claim that a Thomist is automatically an ID proponent.</i><br /><br />How so? If it's scientific then the Thomist will accept it like any other science. Unless you mean it's "science" rather than "philosophy" and so outside the scope of Thomism (and vice versa). But that gets back to my point that every physical truth must be grounded in a metaphysical truth, so there's still something waiting to be explained.<br /><br />Chris: <i>I'm curious if such a heart would be considered natural or an artifact….</i><br /><br />My guess is that it ends up as a natural substance, or maybe only when it is successfully transplanted into a person, but (as per the robocow example) it depends on what sort of natures and natural powers God has decreed for our world. <br /><br />Since God can pick any rules He wants (that are logically consistent, at least), it is possible that injecting human cells is a natural way to grow a heart. But instead it could be that that process results in a "mechanical" heart. And since you can't count substantial forms under a microscope, I don't see how — apart from common-sense expectations — it's possible to prove one way or the other.Mr. Greennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-62610502235636076072011-05-05T12:53:26.068-07:002011-05-05T12:53:26.068-07:00Prof. Feser: Certainly, and it is right to critici...Prof. Feser: Certainly, and it is right to criticise specific claims or generalized hand-waving. At the same time, to be perfectly fair, no number of incorrect interpretations prove there cannot be a valid one; and from a <i>psychological</i> point of view, I can certainly appreciate why ID devotees are unwilling to let the matter go. (It's better than their saying, "Well, so much the worse for Thomism!") <br /><br />That doesn't mean anyone should accept sloppy arguments, but anything that encourages better arguments would be a good thing. (ID is new, and it was born into a largely philosophically-illiterate world. I couldn't expect it to be as polished as A-T with a two millennia head-start.) As I said in some other comment, there is <i>something</i> going on that ID picks up on, and there must be some valid metaphysical foundation for it. It would be very worthwhile to be able to understand what it really means.Mr. Greennoreply@blogger.com