I would like to hear from you how you believe ID can eliminate natural
processes. For ID you may use either the Dembski formulation or the Behe
formulation. The issue is that ID'ers claim that ID does not require
identification of the designer. But that works both ways and it's time to use
this argument against them to show why ID is not very useful:
If ID cannot identify the designer, merely design then it cannot exclude
natural forces as the designer. That it requires 'intelligence' or 'design',
words that we would perhaps not easily attribute in the context of natural
forces is irrelevant.
So now we have several issues:
1. It has been shown that IC systems could arise naturally
Does this disprove Behe's IC thesis?
2. It has been shown that even if design can be infered, ID cannot exclude
natural designers
So what is the value of ID then? It is infered based on the absence of
identified evolutionary pathways, it does not provide us with independent
evidence and it in effect claims that an unindentified designer with
unidentified goals, unidentified powers created using unidentified means a
system.
What's so scientific about that?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Sep 12 2000 - 11:51:41 EDT