And Susan Replies:
Behe ceases to explore possible evolutionary pathways for his IC systems
with the simple pronouncement "God did it."
Nelson:
No he ceases to explore them because evolutionary pathways are sterile, and
it is better explained by intelligence.
FMA:
Note that Behe makes no attempt to show that they are better explained by
intelligence. No explanation is provided how intelligence lead to the system
observed. Intelligent design is infered through the absence of an identified
evolutionary pathway. Therefor it is similar to the god of the gaps
argument.
Nelson:
Nope. He explains it very well, and in detail on pages 187- on for about 4
or 5 pages. (don't have the book currently with me but there are about 2 or
more chapters dealing with intelligent design theory.)
The point is that we see intelligent agents making these systems and the
signs are all there.
Susan:
That's one of the main
objections to ID: it is stultifying to scientific inquiry.
Nelson:
Only if you equate "I understand this" with "It arose naturally".
That is simply not the case. One can use ID to understand any biological
feature.
FMA:
Really? How did the flagellum arise then?
Nelson:
The flagellum arose by multiple parts being added together, much like we see
bioengineers do to biochemical systems today.
Susan:
The purpose of
ID (and IC) is to "prove" the existence of the gods is a scientific fact.
Nelson:
No it is to detect intelligent agency and distinguish it from natural
process.
FMA:
So far however ID and IC are painfully unable to do so.
Nelson:
Again, how do you figure this? In my previous post I showed how IC
successfully eliminates natural selection.
Susan:
If you can do that, you can get around the major legal roadblock to having
Christian dogma taught in public schools--in science class, no less.
Nelson:
That is a clear cut unsubstantiated assertion.
Really?
Susan:
This
is one of the major objectives of the Discovery Institute which, at least
in part, bankrolls Behe, Dembski and Johnson.
Nelson:
It seems like your only "objection" to ID is an ad hominem with no basis in
fact.
FMA:
You have not been reading Susan's responses then. And the argument is not ad
hominem either.
Nelson:
I noticed that your post is simple handwaves. Why is that?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Sep 12 2000 - 10:53:18 EDT