Posted by stmx3 on September 05, 2003 at 11:17:25:
In Reply to: Re: Darwinian or Intelligent Design Poetry? posted by Diego Garay on September 05, 2003 at 09:40:25:
: Maybe that's actually more Deist than ID; we set up the rules in advance and in our surpassing wisdom allow them to operate for the ultimate benefit of our "creatures" the poems.
I think Deist is appropriate here. David created the program, the rules (the physics, if you will) and the creatures (words, phrases, etc.), and has turned it loose to "evolve".
: Sort of my point. We're making choices. Impersonal evolutionary forces don't choose.
The resultant of evolutionary pressure is a thing most fit for the environment. I think the same can be said here. Certainly there's no conscious choice being made in the context of "impersonal evolutionary forces", but, by David's rules, I think our conscious choosing of one disparate poem over another becomes, in the aggregate, a "psuedo-impersonal evolutionary force". I think you could argue ID if one person was making all the choices, or even one group hell-bent on propagating "fruchsia brown coffee". Yet, my choices combine with yours and others over the hours so that I have little effect overall.
If anything, by your standards, I think this experiment falls between an impersonal evolutionary force and ID...but closer to the former. After all, we are all biased as a whole based on, for example, the latest headlines.