From: bivalve (bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com)
Date: Fri Aug 15 2003 - 11:36:03 EDT
>-This falls well in line with your GAINFIST analogy. You are creating strawman-like arguments out of ID here. Specifications in protein sequence aren't dependent upon us defining some sort of semantic meaning out of them, but directly relate to function. My toes were created without my personal intelligent design, however this says nothing about their derivation from ultimately intelligent causation.<
The main claim of the current ID movement is that specifications in biochemical systems are evidence of direct, intervention-style action in the construction of the system, rather than, e.g., creating the universe in just the right way so that the proper systems would evolve. This reasoning would also imply that the mollusks must be intelligent to make such well-designed shells. Thus, it is unfortunately not a straw man.
>I'm willing to accept that RM&NS may not solve all of the riddles in light of the ignorance we have about these systems (NOTE: This is in sharp contrast to arguing that RM&NS and Sarah's mechanisms will NOT solve any riddles--something I do not advocate despite the occasional abuse of my words), others seem quite committed to never permitting such a ludicrous possibility, despite our ignorance.<
You are falling into the same error that you are objecting to. Asserting that current ID approaches are unsound does not necessarily equate to rejecting the possibility of supernatural mechanisms, much less does it reject the possibility of appreciating design in nature.
Dr. David Campbell
Old Seashells
University of Alabama
Biodiversity & Systematics
Dept. Biological Sciences
Box 870345
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0345 USA
bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com
That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at Droitgate Spa
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Aug 15 2003 - 11:36:19 EDT