FMAJ:
>Are you saying that those involved in an emotional
>defence of ID are interested in bashing darwinism?
Bertvan:
Hi FMAJ,
Sure, but I would be willing to leave their atheism out of it if Darwinists
didn't stress their opposition to any theory allowing the *possiblility*
of
a god.
Strawman. ID has been shown to be a problematic hypothesis based on its
arguments alone. However it is relevant to understand the underlying motives
for ID as well.
Bertvan:
>> Most IDs have nothing against "natural forces".
FMAJ
>Fine, then it is clear that there is no real value in ID?
>But I would like you to support your argument.
Bertvan:
ID is obviously of no value to you. Other scientists are finding it a
useful
concept. Why should you object?
For obvious reasons that I have yet to see explained why inferring design
when design can include natural forces adds anything? We are back at where we
started and where some see design in nature as evidence of a God. What's the
scientific value of ID?
Bertvan: As for IDs having nothing against "natural
forces", those on the ID discussion board acknowledge any "natural force"
for
which there is compelling scientific evidence. Everyone's definition of
"compelling" varies, but I find their arguments more reasonable than those
who dispute them.
But ID/IC is infered from a lack of evidence.
Bertvan: In fact, many more
>>details of the design - whether it was designed by a god or "natural
forces"
>>- will probably be revealed, once we get past this insistence that it
had
to
>>be "random mutation and natural selection".
FMAJ:
>You might be wrong although that is faith based assumption.
>And if natural forces cannot be excluded then ID still
>can point to random mutations and natural selection.
Bertvan:
I might well be wrong. It would appear your "faith" is stronger than mine.
Non sequitor.
FMAJ:
>For obvious reasons but ID'ers also seem
>to forget that nature can be the designer therefor
>ID has little value. It could be 'design' or 'apparant
>design' exactly as it has always been.
Bertvan:
Personally, I don't see much difference between God or nature as the
suggested designer. I just doubt that, whichever did it, they used "random
mutation and natural selection".
I understand your personal doubt and I have realized that you are not
interested in science (if I remember your comments correctly). But there is
solid evidence supporting the design through these (and other) natural
mechanisms.
Bertvan: Under Darwinism, "natural selection" was the
designated designer. Whatever the origin of the design, ID questions that
it
is "natural selection".
No it doesn't. It can't since it cannot exclude natural forces as the
designer. Quite simple.
Bertvan: I have yet to encounter an ID advocate arguing
against "evolution" as defined as "change over time". They argue against
"random mutation and natural selection" as having created nature's
complexity.
FMAJ
I wonder if all ID'ers were willing to accept evolution (common descent). I
doubt it. Fine, if there is a good reason to doubt that random mutations
and
natural selection created all complexity then show evidence. Even
evolutionists hardly believe that this is the only form of evolution.
Bertvan:
Most IDs accept more "common descent" than I do. Stephen does. I admit
some
form of common ancestry, but am skeptical of one common ancestor. The
Chinese are suggesting up to forty.
Possible as well. There is evidence that life might have arisen several
times. Perhaps there will be more common ancestors. But also remember that
common ancestor does not mean "first life" merely an ancestor common to two
species.
Bertvan: I doubt we can be certain of the number
of common ancestors until we have a better understanding of what actually
happened.
That's what science is all about.
Bertvan: You seem a rather reasonable "Darwinist", if that is what you call
yourself.
Most Darwinists are.
Bertvan: More like you and the controversy might disappear. Again, ID
isn't opposed to "evolution". ID is skeptical of Darwinism. (random
mutation and natural
selection as the creator of complexity.)
ID is no such thing. ID has nothing to do with skepticism of Darwinism other
than perhaps in Behe's IC argument but that argument is full of problems.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 02 2000 - 16:31:07 EDT