Hi Chris:
Saying "nature" did something is no more informative than saying god did it.
The only questions science can try to answer is how they did it. ( either
"god" or this guy, "nature") Most IDs do not deny evolution, they are
skeptical of "accidental evolution"-- some process occurring without plan,
purpose or design.
Chris:
>Thus,
>whether living things were designed or not, they would not be, strictly,
>examples of design but examples of the *results* of design (and
>implementation).
Bertvan:
No ID would object to saying living things, or even this guy "nature", is the
result of a design rather than designed, if that is what bothers you.
Chris:
>there is a good chance that design, even
>if present, might not be detectable to us (especially if God is the
>designer, rather than aliens or "metaverse" residents).
Bertvan:
Or even if this guy "nature" is the designer, the design might not be
detectable to us?
Chris:
>But, again barring such evidential oddities, it is very risky asserting
>design of things in nature because it is *so* easy to be wrong about
>claiming that Nature can't do things.
Bertvan:
Personally, I wouldn't place limitations on God, "nature", or any other
unknown force.
Chris:
>Just because a *human*,
>such as Behe, or Johnson, or Stephen Jones, cannot think of a way for
>something to happen in Nature without outside purposeful help does *not*
>imply that it can't happen; they could be wrong. Their claims are nearly
>always claims based on their own ignorance or incredulity.
Bertvan:
Just because humans can't imagine a purpose in nature doesn't imply purpose
can't exist. Such claims might be due to ignorance or incredulity.
Chris:
>Behe's ludicrous assertion that alternate
>pathways to a particular "irreducibly complex" structure are inherently
>improbable is an example of the nonsensical results of this kind of
>self-inflicted no-nothingism.
Bertvan.
What are these "alternate pathways"? Sounds like some sort of design to me.
Chris
>Nature, fortunately for us naturalistic
>evolutionists, just "loves" to refute people like Behe.
Bertvan:
OK. Now your are revealing something about the characteristics of this guy
"nature". It loves to refute people like Behe.
Chris:
>Nature has time and quantity on its side, and it
>is limited only by physics, not by the accidents of concepts and ideas, not
>by preconceptions.
Bertvan:
But it is lacking intelligence and purpose? Right? You know for certain!
Chris:
>Thus, while Bertvan, following her
>usual pattern, might argue that it is in fact improbable that the bumblebee
>flies, or even that it must have outside (i.e., "designer") help when it
>*does* fly, the bumblebee nevertheless flies and does not in fact seem to
>be getting a boost from God.
Bertvan:
It's been a while since I "worshiped" any god, but I might adopt this guy
"nature" as a deity. Just tell me more about him.
Chris:
>Nature finds ways to create complex structures
>in *very* roundabout ways that Behe probably would not normally think of on
>his own even if he thought about possibilities for decades.
Bertvan:
That sounds pretty awesome, especially since this guy "nature" thinks of
things in roundabout ways -- and does it lacking even a smidgen of
intelligence.
Chris:
> Nature's limitation is different
>from ours. Nature is only limited by the lack of "fitness" paths in certain
>directions, where human minds are almost always limited *much* more
>severely (and certainly *differently*).
Bertvan:
Tell me more about these "fitness" paths in certain directions. Did they
evolve? They sure sound like some sort of design to me? Did they occur
accidentally, without plan or purpose?
Chris:
>If an organism needs a complex molecule of a certain sort,
>but does not have it handy and it cannot make one out of
>a *simpler* molecule, it *may*, just to spite "mainstream"
>ID theorists, create such a molecule by modifying one that
> is already *more* complex than the one it wants but
>which *is* achievable by more-nearly-direct means.
Bertvan:
An organism can make a complex molecule out of a simpler molecule? And
"nature" manages to do it without intelligence or purpose!! And they do it
to spite ID theorists? Awesome! (Apparently the simplest organisms can
"want" more complex molecules, even if lacking intelligence. I wonder how
they know what to want?)
All that is just kidding, Chris. I know what you mean by "naturalistic
evolution". The only thing you have added to "random mutation and natural
selection" are these vague things called "fitness pathways", which you insist
are not a design. Such speculations are fine -- so long as you don't try to
insist they be accepted as scientifically proven entities.
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 07 2000 - 13:06:49 EDT