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