Bertvan:
Saying "nature" did something is no more informative than saying god did
it.
But it avoids such embarassing God of the Gap arguments. We do know that
nature can do a lot. Until we have evidence that natura is incapable,
presuming God reduces the value of faith and science.
Bertvan: 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.
Why does there need to be design evident? Certainly that would also require a
strong and reliable design detector.
Bertvan:
Or even if this guy "nature" is the designer, the design might not be
detectable to us?
We can identify natural pathways that might or might not explain the
observations. But since nature is observable we can actually draw conclusions.
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.
True but likely remain unproven.
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.
I am glad that you realize that nature can design as well.
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.
Nature indeed provides us with evidence.
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!
Nope but there is no direct evidence that it has intelligence.
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.
Indeed, this shows how deceptive "design" can be. Hence the term apparant
design.
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?
Fitness is determined by natural parameters. Why does fitness require a 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!!
Indeed.
bertvan: 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?)
Are you sure that you are reading correctly?
Bertvan: All that is just kidding, Chris. I know what you mean by "natural
istic
evolution". The only thing you have added to "random mutation and natural
selection" are these vague things called "fitness pathways", which you insis
t
are not a design.
Natural selection and fitness pathways are one and the same
Bertvan: Such speculations are fine -- so long as you don't try to
insist they be accepted as scientifically proven entities.
But they are.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 07 2000 - 13:44:58 EDT