RE: Fibbonacci and other mathematical patterns in shells

From: Josh Bembenek (jbembe@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri Aug 15 2003 - 20:36:08 EDT

  • Next message: Sarah Berel-Harrop: "Re: Fibbonacci and other mathematical patterns in shells"

    David Wrote-

    "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."

    Let's review webster's shall we?

    Implicit: not expressly stated, implied.

    Imply: to indicate or suggest without being explicitly stated.

    Explicit: fully or clearly expressed or demonstrated; leaving nothing
    implied.

    Strawman: a conveniently weak or innocuous person, object or issue used as a
    seeming adversary or argument.

    Since when does attacking the implications of a theory derived in the mind
    of a critic NOT fall into the category of strawman? I feel like I'm back in
    grade school: that is a strawman argument, no its not, yes it is, no its
    not, yes it is, no its not, yes it is...

    "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."

    Hmmm, the ability of RM&NS to problem solve natural systems says nothing
    about the origin of RM&NS and its association with a creator, so I'm afraid
    you aren't following closely to what I'm saying. Perhaps you need to read
    up on Van Till to avoid this kind of either/or thinking about evolution.
    Besides that, the category of "others" may or may not include yourself, but
    Howard and Glenn certaintly fit there. Neither does the ability of RM&NS to
    problem solve have anything at all whatsoever to do with appreciating design
    in nature. Now your doing it to me, STOP!

    Josh

    _________________________________________________________________
    Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
    http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Aug 15 2003 - 20:36:39 EDT