> > Nelson:
> > An irreducibly complex systems can only be built simultaneously. Thus
> > physical precursors are eliminated as the designer. It can not be built
> > gradually , step by step.
>
>So, ID (which, presumably, is implied by the presence of IC) is not really
>about "design" but about the manner in which something is "built" or
>assembled?
From an earlier post by Nelson:
FMA:
Indeed, that ID can exclude a natural designer has been merely asserted.
Nelson:
It is not an assertion. If I give you all the parts of the flagellum, you
cannot build it step by step through functional precursors.
If you mean actually, physically, build it--no, I couldn't do that. But
it is even more beyond me, or any one else, I think, to build it
simultaneously, as you say an IC system *must* be built. If, as you
say, natural pathways to IC systems are not possible, then are we
beginning to zero in on your concept of what or who the Intelligent
Designer must be? 1.non-natural 2.more intelligent (and/or capable)
than us.
ralph
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Sep 13 2000 - 14:14:53 EDT