>
> > > 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".
I'm afraid the 2nd phrase is less clear than the first. Let's try it this way.
If we assume a bacterium with non-mobile flagella (flagellum? I'm no expert),
then you are saying there is no way that a molecular motor to make the
flagella moveable can arise from strictly natural (mutational, etc.) means,
even if you take small, intermediate steps. Is that what you mean?
>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.
Given our current level of knowledge about gene manipulation, I think we
are a long way from being able to generate a working molecular motor in a
biological organism that didn't already have one. Therefore, I think I will
stand by my previous prediction that your ID, as you propose it, has to
have intelligence and/or ability greater than what we possess. Since I
don't know of any natural entity that surpasses us in intelligence and/or
ability, then I think I have to keep my prediction about your ID being
non-natural, too.
ralph
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 14 2000 - 11:20:13 EDT