FMA:
But perhaps you can tell us how ID designed the system?
Nelson:
I discussed in my response to Susan some of the methods intelligent agency
uses to produce molecular machines.
FMA:
Avoiding the question I notice.
Nelson:
Nope, I showed exactly how intelligent agency was able to produce a
molecular machine and how I can use one system to completely understand
another.
FMA:
ID is sterile in that it does not give any
other explanation than "in absence of an identified evolutionary pathway,
it's intelligent design". But no details about how, where, when, why etc.
Nelson:
The "how" has been answered. The "how" is what it's all about. Multiple
parts added together that adhere to a goal. You can look at how intelligent
agency works and that is what I showed in several posts. Intelligent design
isn't the default, it's not about "absence" it's about "sterility" of a
Darwinian explanation.
FMA:
Lacking such predictions, can we conclude that ID is falsified as well? See
how evolution leads to predictions and further research? What would ID do?
Nelson:
It does not lack such predictions. One can use the design principle of one
machine , to predict the principle of another.
FMA:
Not really since this presumes that evidence of such machines exists in the
biological IC system. One cannot compare apples and oranges. Just like Behe
uses a poor analogy of a mouse trap for IC systems.
Nelson:
I gave you such machines, the clotting and the flagellum. How is the
mousetrap a poor analogy? See what I mean by handwaving?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Sep 13 2000 - 11:54:02 EDT