In a message dated 9/13/2000 8:54:43 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
nalonso@megatribe.com writes:
<< 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.
>>
We are all aware how intelligent agency can be used to produce something but
can we from this conclude how ID designed the system without reading the
papers? Can we distinguish natural causes from non-natural causes?
<< 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.
>>
Sure, that follows from the laws of physics. How did ID come into play here
other than through the obvious interventions? I can show you how an
intelligent agency can cause mushrooms to grow in circles, does this mean
that such circles are always caused by intelligent agency? Or does this show
that we cannot exclude without further evidence natural force as the
intelligent agency.
<< 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
>>
No evidence is provided that there was a goal. Perhaps in hindsight but that
is not evidence of a goal.
a<< gency 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.
>>
ID is infered from the absence of a Darwinian explanation and that is
evidence of sterility of Darwinian explanation? What happened to "we don't
know yet". After all we do know how natural pathways to IC systems can exist.
<< 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.
>>
You presume design. Heck without design inference the researchers could have
done the same.
<< 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?
>>
I thought you mentioned that IC applies to biological systems only. So why is
the mouse trap relevant. Also clotting and the flagellum might seem IC and
might even be IC but that does not show that they were designer. Can Behe
show that there is no natural pathway to these structures? Can Behe even show
independent evidence of the design of such systems?
Nope. IMHO of course
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 15 2000 - 01:26:48 EDT