22 June 2006

Copy Cat article

I spent a few minutes today looking for some more direct answers for my friend Major, whose views on almost anything are interesting, insightful & often eyebrow-raising, but instead I stumbled into the Copy Cat article from MSU instead.

The article proposes to be pro-Intelligent-Design, but it’s... a little different.

No — to be honest, it’s a lot different. (-:

It proposes that all one need do to prove one’s origins concept is to copy a cat. Literally. Using only original parts. Here’s a fun snippet from near the top, to give you a brief taste for it:

The whole controversy can be settled by the ordinary house cat.
All one has to do is take any ordinary cat as a model and make a copy. This will prove or disprove evolutionary theory.
But you have to start from scratch. No Frankenstein kitties allowed or spare paws from the pound. But you can go to the store and buy whatever you want — flour, lumber, electric motors, asphalt [bitumen] shingles — whatever. But just go ahead and try to make a cat from scratch.
Now, I don't want to hear any excuses from you. It really can't be that hard to make a cat. The world is full of them. People are giving them away in the newspapers every day.
And note that I am not asking you to create a cat — simply to copy one from scratch. Cloning, in that it takes biological material from an existing cat, is not legal in this contest.
Copying is pretty simple. Someone has already done all the engineering and design work, and tested it. It already works. You just have to copy what they already did.
People in Taiwan are making fake Rolexes every day.

Can you hear the yowling that one pretty much has to be raising? (-:

Not saying that I agree with the prospect, or anything like that, but I very much appreciated the fresh, light-hearted approach to a traditionally conflicting discussion. (-:

Here’s a shorter, later snippet of Kerby’s reasoning, to help make your day, which has a lot more behind it than first glance might suggest:

Our best scientists can't even copy a potato. This is embarrassing.

There’s much more in the article, go ahead and have a read.

You are strongly advised not to be partaking of anything orally ejectable (such as drinks, or soft food) while you do so. (-:


Major said...

Manufacturing a cat from scratch would disprove vitalism, not creationism. As I understand it your version of Christianity does not require vitalism; certainly the less brand-specific forms of "intelligent design" do not.

Failure to manufacture a cat from scratch (yet) proves exactly nothing.

Thanks for the kind words BTW, I will try to live up to them 8-).

Leon Brooks said...

OTOH, my failure to remove a couple of cats (called "Buttercup" and "Alex") speaks to kindness and forebearance.

Here are two definitions of vitalism from a dictionary:

1 : a doctrine that the functions of a living organism are due to a vital principle distinct from physicochemical forces
2 : a doctrine that the processes of life are not explicable by the laws of physics and chemistry alone and that life is in some part self-determining

That would seem to imply that the cat would self-create, rather than be created. Or that if created, the forces bringing it to life would be extra to nature (which would tend to support Kerby's assertion rather than undermine it).

So... you are very much living up to those accurate^Hkind words. (-: Keep at it, because variety is the spice of life and in this case appreciated :-)

audry2 said...

My point was that manufacturing a cat would only disprove those versions of creationism which require a "vital principle distinct from physicochemical forces".

The Acme Cat Manufacturing Company producing 2,000 felines a day would not in any way inconvenience creationists (including, as I understand it, yourself) who did not require vitalism. Well at least not in their capacity as creationists; if Acme delivered said cats to your place to join Buttercup and Alex it might inconvenience you in your capacity as a home-owner.

And, as I said, failure to manufacture a cat from scratch (yet) proves exactly nothing.

Leon Brooks said...

I'm officially amazed that you missed coining the "Acme Cat Manufacture Enterprises" label... (-:

Nevertheless, I'm going to be greedy and expect a better disclaimer than "disproves Class 1 Vitalism only", since a From Scratch Cat of any sort would mean instant romping wealth to any worthwhile biological group. If it were merely a practical matter.