In a message dated 9/12/2000 10:29:21 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
nalonso@megatribe.com writes:
<< 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:
>>
Did Susan state that she agreed with your inference or is this just a hunch?
I do not think that you discussed why it was an ad hominem.
=========================
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.
========================================
Is it an ad hominem to claim that it is a major objective of the Discovery
institute?
Is it an ad hominem to claim that Behe et al are fellows at this institute
and are likely receiving funding for their research?
What is exactly the ad hominem.
<< "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.
>>
Why? How can you attack a theory with an ad hominem. Note that we were not
discussing Behe's thesis of IC-ness.
<< 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".
>>
I told you before, you seem to have a problem reading. My arguments went
beyond "no they are not" and provided my reasons.
<< 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.
>>
Your Dawkins quote does not show this. Dawkins addresses a direct path but as
Behe admits himself, indirect paths exists and indeed those are paths that
evolution far more likely is to follow. Behe dismisses these paths as
unlikely but provides no supporting evidence.
You seem to be using a strawman as well though. Dawkins argument merely
addresses a direct path. It does not address if by identifying design one can
exclude a natural designer. Of course one cannot since ID is so proud to
claim that it does not do this. What ID'ers thought to be the strong point of
their thesis now has become their achilles heel.
<< 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.
>>
Unfounded assertions to the latter. As far as the former: Since Behe claims
that no evolutionary pathway can exist, it is sufficient to show in rebuttal
that such pathways COULD exist. Even Behe admits that such pathways could
exist. So now the thesis "Natural selection could not create IC structures"
has been shown to be wrong. If Behe wants to argue for individual systems
that they did not evolve, fine but he cannot use IC-ness as a distinguishing
factor.
<< FMA:
Or do you disagree with that conclusion?
Nelson:
Of course not.
>>
You do not disagree with the conclusion and yet you support ID? That's
surprising. Or should I read your comments differently?
Please show btw the error in analysis in for instance Robison's excellent
rebuttal of Behe as found on talkorigins.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Sep 12 2000 - 23:10:16 EDT