Re: Definitions of ID

From: FMAJ1019@aol.com
Date: Tue Sep 12 2000 - 11:35:22 EDT

  • Next message: FMAJ1019@aol.com: "Re: Will the real designer please stand up?"

    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.

    =================
    The fact is that we have never seen intelligent agents make these biological
    systems. Furthermore IC cannot even exclude natural designers as the
    designer.
    More importantly it has been shown how evolutionary steps can lead to IC
    systems. Behe has given NO evidence of intelligent agents making biological
    IC systems.
    =================

    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.

    ====================
    Sure, ID includes "it arose naturally" and therefor does not add anything to
    our understanding. God did it also explains anything but does not lead to
    understanding.
    =====================

    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.

    ==============
    No evidence of this exists however. There are some quite good indicators that
    show us how evolution lead to the flagellum. No evidence of a designer though.
    ==============

    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.

    ===========
    No it is not. ID does not distinguish from natural processes. That's perhaps
    what people wish it could but both Dembski's ID and Behe's IC fail to be able
    to do this. Why? Because it can at most detect design not the designer.
    ===========

    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.

    ====================
    It does not do this. It basically cannot do this.
    ====================

    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.

    =======================
    Nothing ad hominem
    =======================

    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?

    ======================
    I repeat my assertion. You have not read the argument. Why call it ad hominem?
    ======================



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Sep 12 2000 - 11:35:48 EDT