The Chronicle: Colloquy: Responses

The historical philosophical view of vitalism does not properly represent intelligent design. Vitalism is dualistic. There is no reason to expect a quality of essence is necessary to distinguish living from non-living objects. It is instead expected there is a difference in the complexity of combinations of the same causes for the evolution of the universe as a whole. A dualistic viewpoint offers validity to materialism. My use of the word materialism in this context is meant to represent the mechanical interpretation of the operation of the universe. I do not discount the concept of the existence of things we can call material. There is a material existence for the universe. The difference is one of interpretation. Intelligent design must be monistic.

There can be no fundamental differentiation between life matter and non-life matter. Life has been formed by the activities of common matter, the very great majority of which has not produced life. The properties of matter giving rise to life and intelligence are not separate from the properties of matter currently used to support a mechanical interpretation. The advent of fundamental properties of intelligence will supercede the artificial mechanical properties credited with producing changes of velocity. The natural properties that produce changes of velocity will become low-level aspects of the properties of life and intelligence. Change is even more a property of life than a property of motion.

: -- James A. Putnam, author of newphysicstheory.com (posted 2/12, 3:10 p.m., U.S. Eastern time)

previous response

next response

JOIN THE DEBATE

STEP 1: Your contact information (required)

Your name:

Your title & institution:

Your phone:

Your e-mail address:

STEP 2: Your comments

STEP 3: Submit!

Be sure to include your name and affiliation. Legitimate requests for anonymity will be honored.

The Chronicle maintains Colloquy as an open forum where readers can comment on issues. Submissions may be condensed or edited for clarity, but editing is kept to a minimum. We correct errors in spelling, punctuation, etc. In addition, we remove statements that have the potential to be libelous or to slander someone. In cases in which people make claims that could be libelous, we will remove the names of institutions and departments. But in those cases, we will not alter the ideas contained in the submissions.

Please read our privacy policy or our Colloquy help page if you have questions.

Check this box only if you would like this submission to be considered for publication as a letter to the editor in the printed Chronicle.

APE-MEN
Our biological beastliness spawned our cultural greatness. But can our biological greatness save us from our cultural beastliness, asks David P. Barash, a professor of psychology at the University of Washington. (Password required; how to get one.)
(Illustration by Courtney Granner)