In a message dated 9/15/2000 8:59:17 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
nalonso@megatribe.com writes:
<< 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.
>>
FMA:
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?
Nelson:
Sure, I don't see the point of not looking at relevant designs but I can
make a design quite easily.
>>
I am merely showing that the fact that we can design something by copying it
from something we see in natura is not evidence of design in that related
system in nature.
<< << 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.
>>
FMA:
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.
Nelson:
I can say the same thing about evolution. What intelligent design seeks to
do is avoid apparentness.
>>
ID makes a claim that it was ID based on the absence of an identified natural
mechanism. Evolution makes a claim based on an identified natural mechanism.
seems that the two use slightly different approaches. But indeed evolution
cannot explain everything yet so "we don't know" is not an option that should
be discarded. Of course, we don't know should not be confused with "ID".
How do you know that ID seeks to avoid apparentness? What do you mean by this?
<< << 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
>>
FMA:
No evidence is provided that there was a goal. Perhaps in hindsight but that
is not evidence of a goal.
Nelson:
No, we can look at the evidence and see goal-oriented structures, such as
the genome.
>>
then the meaning of the word goal becomes as equivocal as the meaning of
intelligent design. A goal can be something that was looked at with foresight
or was adapted towards with hindsight.
<< 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.
>>
FMA:
ID is infered from the absence of a Darwinian explanation and that is
evidence of sterility of Darwinian explanation?
Nelson:
No, ID is not inferred from the absence of a Darwinian explanation. It is
inferred from the causal patterns that are indicative of intelligence.
FMA:
What happened to "we don't
know yet". After all we do know how natural pathways to IC systems can
exist.
Nelson:
It's not about "we don't know yet", I'd say monkeys were designed if that
was the case. It's about eliminating natural pathways and establishing
intelligent pathways. >>
One can of course show that natural pathways are elimated but IC presumes
that they are eliminated. Are intelligent pathways established? Could you
give an example of where ID establishes such a pathway?
<<
<< 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.
>>
FMA:
You presume design. Heck without design inference the researchers could have
done the same.
Nelson:
Nevertheless, establishing the utility of one theory has nothing to do with
any other theory.
>>
You seemed to suggest that ID had a utility when in fact that utility was
already there without ID. My argument is that there is nothing new about the
utility of intelligent design in the manner used by you. People have for
centuries looked at nature and tried to adapt what they saw.
<< << 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?
>>
FMA:
I thought you mentioned that IC applies to biological systems only.
Nelson:
Behe's point about IC systems is relevant to biological systems because
Darwinian pathways are sterile when trying to make these systems.
>>
So far but that is negative evidence for IC. It's saying that we don't know
how Darwinian mechanisms could have lead to such a system therefor it is
designed. It does not look at the many alternatives that might exist. There
is a common false dichotomy here between Darwinian pathway and ID. Unless of
course, as I argue, ID is "that which is no identified Darwinian" but that
includes a lot of natural pathways including unidentified Darwinian pathways.
<< FMA:
So why is
the mouse trap relevant.
Nelson:
It is an example of irreducible complexity.
>>
Then one can show also how IC systems can arise naturally. Therefor ICness
itself is NOT a reliable indicator of design.
<< FMA:
Also clotting and the flagellum might seem IC and
might even be IC but that does not show that they were designer.
Nelson:
Of course it does. I observe intelligent agents making these systems and
relize that they cannot be made naturally. That is my inference.
>>
You have not observed intelligent agents making clotting and flagellum.
Furthermore your 'realization' that they cannot be made naturally is a
presumption that needs to be shown correct.
<< FMA:
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
Nelson:
You are entitled to your opinion, but if you want to propose that these
systems evolved you are going to have to give me a pathway to work with.
>>
You are not reading my comments too carefully. IF Behe's argument is that
there are no natural pathways to these structures then it is up to him to
show this. If my argument were that the flagellum is a naturally designed
system then indeed it would be up to me to support this but that it not my
argument here. Of course people have looked at the flagellum and I am reading
several of the relevant papers.
http://www-personal.monash.edu.au/~ianm/flagella.htm
So possible pathways do exist. Have they been sufficiently proven? I doubt it
but it shows how science tries to expand their knowledge about these systems
to unravel these mysteries. Can you show some research by Behe or other
ID'ers that try to show independent evidence for their claims?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 15 2000 - 12:18:35 EDT