In a message dated 9/12/2000 7:41:21 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
nalonso@megatribe.com writes:
<< Nelson:
Actually what they say is that natural processes cannot generate complex
specified information.
>>
And unsupported assertion by Dembski and furthermore disputed by Wesley
Elsberry. It's one thing to assert it's another to prove.
Nelson:
The cell, and irreducibly complex machines , body plans that characterize
phyla are all systems made "from scratch
=========================
They are all made from pre-existing parts indeed.
=========================
Nelson:
DNA itself is information, thus, it's design was also from scratch
=======================
Information can arise naturally as has been shown by several researchers now.
=======================
Nelson:
Only if you use straw man and faulty premises like it was done in this post.
It is extremely important that when attempting to mimic natural processes
that you do not let "intelligence" do all the work thus rendering the
experiment irrelevant. This is an issue that is not only brought up by
design theorists but also by evolutionists:
Steven A. Benner, "Catalysis: Design Versus Selection," Science 261 (1993):
1402-1403; p. 1403.
Thus it is a _real_ issue not just an apologetic.
=================
Any experiment will have an ID factor if that were the case. Does this render
the experiment irrelevant? Of course not
=================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Sep 12 2000 - 11:39:29 EDT