In a message dated 9/13/2000 9:19:16 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
nalonso@megatribe.com writes:
<< << FMA:
If ID cannot identify the designer, merely design then it cannot exclude
natural forces as the designer.
Nelson:
This is a non-sequitur. You assume in your premise what you conclude, that
natural processes can make design. There are things only intelligent agents
can do and things natural processes cannot, foresight being one of them.
>>
>>
Are you denying that natural processes can make design? I would like to see
that follow logically from the theses on ID. It's interesting how ID hides
behond equivocation and confusion. Intelligent design can not exclude a
natural designer. This follows logically from the claim that ID does not
identify the designer. Secondly, ID does not require foresight. Please show
that foresight is an integral part of ID and that it logically follows from
its premise. Perhaps the foresight we see is merely a hindsight on our part?
<< FMA:
Now you are assuming in your premise what you conclude.
Nelson:
How so?
FMA:
You see, ID has done
nothing to show that intelligent design excludes natural processes.
Indeed,
they are proud to claim that ID says NOTHING about the designer. Therefor
they cannot exclude natural designers. If you can show a logical argument...
Foresight is only looked at in hindsight so you have to show that foresight
exists. But without a designer identified you cannot show this.
Nelson:
As you can see, there is nothing specific here for me to respond to. You
just keep repeating the same thing over and over but you give no reasons.
>>
If you consider the arguments of ID'ers "no reasons" then indeed you have a
point. Your effort to avoid addressing my observations speak for themselves.
I notice that you do not disagree with my notion that ID does not say
anything about the designer, therefor it cannot exclude a natural designer.
You comment about foresight is something said in hindsight. How do we
determine if there is foresight in IC? Without understanding the designer,
you cannot determine foresight.
<<
<< FMA:
That it requires 'intelligence' or 'design',
words that we would perhaps not easily attribute in the context of natural
forces is irrelevant.
Nelson:
That has nothing to do with any thing I have ever said. There are causal
patterns that are indicative only of intelligent design, not natural
processes. Complex Specified information is one of them.
>>
FMA:
Unsupported assertion. As Wesley Elsberry has shown CSI can be generated by
algorithms.
Nelson:
Example?
>>
Traveling salesman problem:
http://inia.cls.org/~welsberr/evobio/evc/argresp/design/rev_tdi.html
http://inia.cls.org/~welsberr/evobio/evc/argresp/design.html
http://www3.cls.org/~welsberr/evobio/evc/ae/dembski_wa/19990913_csi_and_ec.htm
l
http://inia.cls.org/~welsberr/zgists/wre/papers/antiec.html
<< FMA:
It's up to the supporters of ID to show that natural processes
cannot lead to CSI. So far they have failed.
Nelson:
Please show me a natural process that produces CSI.
>>
See above
<<
<< FMA:
So now we have several issues:
1. It has been shown that IC systems could arise naturally
Does this disprove Behe's IC thesis?
Nelson:
Since it has not been shown that IC systems can arise naturally, Behe's
thesis still stands.
>>
FMA:
Right.... And yet possible pathways have been shown but that is not
evidence?
Nelson:
Which ones?
>>
Robison: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html
<< FMA:
So far we therefor have: "Evolutionary processes have not been shown to have
resulted in IC systems, although they have been shown to potentially lead to
them". Based on this we infer design.
Somewhat loses it's scientific appeal doesn't it?
Nelson:
Only if you can demonstrate what you assert.
>>
Doing fine so far. So now the question is, do you disagree?
<<
<< FMA:
2. It has been shown that even if design can be infered, ID cannot exclude
natural designers
Nelson:
No such thing has been shown, merely asserted.
>>
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.
>>
So? Are you sure of that ? That's something ID should show rather than assert.
<< That
it cannot exclude it is admitted when ID'ers claim that ID says nothing
about
the designer.
Nelson:
Nope, they say it says nothing about the identity of the design(God,ETI,
whatever). And it doesn't. If you see a webpage without knowing who authored
it you would still conclude it was intelligently designed you just don't
know by who.
>>
So if it says nothing about the identity of the designer then it cannot
exclude natural processes. Your example of the webpage is poorly chosen since
we have evidence that these are designer. ID does not have that luxury and
therefor cannot exclude natural designers.
<< FMA:
Keep ignoring the vaste holes in ID :-)
Nelson:
Which ones? You have given me none.
>>
Really.... You should look closer.
<< FMA:
You call it handwaving but you have shown that the handwaving is what ID is
all about.
Nelson:
Another handwave.
>>
Fine, we wave at eachother.
<< FMA:
My comments merely 'uncover' what others have found similarly.
Nelson:
Your comments assert what you cannot demonstrate.
>>
Incorrect again. Don't despair though, even with ID, religious faith will
remain to exist or should it be 'despite ID'?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 15 2000 - 01:27:02 EDT