FMA:
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:
Nelson:
I'll repeat the point I made about natural selection:
"The point is that ninety-one membranes are more effective in
stopping photons than ninety, ninety are more effective than eighty-
nine, and so on back to one membrane, which is more effective than
zero. This is the kind of thing I mean when I say there is a smooth
gradient up Mount Improbable. We would be dealing with an abrupt
precipice if, say, any number of membranes above forty five was very
effective while any number below forty-five was totally ineffective.
Neither common sense nor the evidence leads us to suspect any such
sudden discontinuities. "
So 91 membranes
are more effective then 90
which in turn are more effective then 89
which in turn are more efffective then any lower number especially 0
We can't do that with an IC system like F-ATPase.
So 8 parts
are more effective then....nothing. I would fall off the mountain.
FMA:
If ID cannot identify the designer, merely design then it cannot exclude
natural forces as the designer.
Nelson:
This is a non-sequitur. You assume in your premise what you conclude, that
natural processes can make design. There are things only intelligent agents
can do and things natural processes cannot, foresight being one of them.
FMA:
That it requires 'intelligence' or 'design',
words that we would perhaps not easily attribute in the context of natural
forces is irrelevant.
Nelson:
That has nothing to do with any thing I have ever said. There are causal
patterns that are indicative only of intelligent design, not natural
processes. Complex Specified information is one of them.
FMA:
So now we have several issues:
1. It has been shown that IC systems could arise naturally
Does this disprove Behe's IC thesis?
Nelson:
Since it has not been shown that IC systems can arise naturally, Behe's
thesis still stands.
FMA:
2. It has been shown that even if design can be infered, ID cannot exclude
natural designers
Nelson:
No such thing has been shown, merely asserted.
FMA:
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?
Nelson:
Since this entire post was one huge handwave, nothing could possibly lead to
this conclusion.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Sep 12 2000 - 13:29:12 EDT