> > 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.
Ralph:
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.
Nelson:
I think you misunderstood me and I apologize if I was vague. However, when I
say "you cannot build it step by step through functional precursors" I
really mean "you cannot build this system by mimicing natural processes".
However, you are an intelligent agent, and therefore, you may build it by
adding multiple parts together, with foresight, and future usefulness. You
are natural selection with eyes.
These give some clues as to who the designer is, namely, an intelligent
agent with at least human intelligence.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 14 2000 - 10:26:58 EDT