-----Original Message-----
From: evolution-owner@lists.calvin.edu
[mailto:evolution-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On Behalf Of FMAJ1019@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 12:04 PM
To: evolution@calvin.edu
Subject: Fwd: Definitions of ID
In a message dated 9/12/2000 9:01:37 AM Pacific Daylight Time, FMAJ1019
writes:
<<
<< 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?
======================
Nelson:
Your entire post seems to be one-line assertions. I am here to discuss, not
prove your negatives.
>>
I am here to discuss as well and you mentioned "ad hominem". I asserted that
it was not an ad hominem and asked you why you thought it was an ad hominem?
Nelson:
In my post I discussed exactly why it was an ad hominem. Susan seemed to
agree and turned the attention back to the evidence for design. Susan's
statement was:
"This
is one of the major objectives of the Discovery Institute which, at least
in part, bankrolls Behe, Dembski and Johnson."
Now this is unsubstantiated assertion. Not only that but it has absolutely
nothing to do with Behe's thesis of irreducible complexity among molecular
machines. Thus it is an ad hominim attack on Intelligent Design theory.
FMA:
I raised
quite a few important issues in the posting you responded to but you only
included a minor side discussion on whether or not Susan's comments were ad
hominem.
Nelson:
You didn't raise any issues, your entire post was simply "no it's not", "yes
it is". That is called "handwaving".
FMA:
There is a far more interesting issue: Can ID exclude natural designers. My
argument is that it cannot based on its claims that it does not identify
designers.
Nelson:
Your argument is a strawman. As my Dawkin's quote illustrated, irreducible
complexity fits the definition of a system that is devoid of functional
precursors.
FMA:
Combine this with the fact that we know that natural pathways
leading to IC systems exist and the absence of independent evidence of a
designer biological system and we have 'stumbled' on some very big problems
for ID.
Nelson:
Again, which natural pathways have led to which IC systems? The pathways you
have shown amount to speculation and error in analysis.
FMA:
Or do you disagree with that conclusion?
Nelson:
Of course not.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Sep 12 2000 - 13:28:58 EDT