FJ>But in the
>case of ID there are more problems than this, ID fails to show that natural
>designers can be excluded.
See above. ID fails to show that Big Bird's imaginary friend "can be
excluded" too!
>>
Non sequitor. If ID cannot exclude natural designers then what does it have
to offer.
SJ: << If FJ has any examples of "natural designers" he can always post them.
In
fact he should send them to SCIENCE or NATURE and win a Nobel,
prize!
>>
Non sequitor. I do not have to show natural designers, ID has to show that
natural
designers can be excluded. But I can give one example: mutation and selection.
<< Mind you he would destroy archaeology, forensic science, SETI and
Darwinism in the process, but what they heck?
>>
Unsupported assertion based on flawed logic. Darwinism and the other sciences
do
not exists through the elimination of other explanations.
[...]
SJ: << See above. We await FJ's unveiling of this "natural designer".
>>
Actually we await ID to be able to exclude this natural designer. I have
shown what
I consider a natural designer: Natural forces.
<< FJ>In case of the Discovery institute it seems
>>that the sociopolitical motives are more important than a scientific
>process.
SJ: What evidence does FJ have of this?
>>
The Wedge document that sets a time frame, the absence of truely peer
reviewed publications.
<< >FJ>You cannot force science to follow a timed path.
SJ: What does FJ mean by "a timed path"?
>>
See the Wedge document?
<< SJ>In any event, who cares? If design is shown by the ID movement to be
real,
>then it will be irrelevant what the "sociopolitical motives" of those who
>showed it was.
FJ>True but since it seems that ID is far from able to show that design is
real,
>at least real in the sense they had hoped for,
SJ: In what "sense" would FJ accept that "design is real"?
>>
When natural designers can be excluded.
<< FJ>the insistance to get ID into
>our schools makes the motives important.
What "insistence" is that exactly?
And why is it OK for FJ to attribute motives to people he does not know,
but shameful for me to do it:
>>
http://www.infidels.org/secular_web/feature/1999/wedge.html
<<
SJ>ID would "add to our scientific knowledge" that intelligent causation in
>natural history is *real*, not just apparent as the Darwinists maintain.
FJ>It would add to our knowledge that something that we claim is designed
might
>have an origin in natural forces as the designer? We already knew this.
SJ: Again, perhaps FJ could state what these "natural forces as the designer"
that "We already knew" that are not law and chance (or a combination of
the two) are exactly?
>>
They are that which fell through the filter of law and chance. For instance a
natural
pathway but the supporting evidence is absent or a new pathway that science
has
yet to consider. You seem to suggest that the filter has not false positives.
But
also you ignore Wesley's argument about design vs designer.
<< FJ>ID does not add anything to our knowledge.
SJ: FJ should speak for himself. If ID is detected empirically it will
revolutionise science and culture, more than the Copernican or Darwinian
revolutions did. It would be bigger than the discovery by SETI of
intelligent life on other planets.
>>
Yes indeed IF ID is detected. So far ID however does not add anything to our
knowledge. Perhaps Steve
hopes for better days ahead?
<< FJ>You seem to jump to the conclusion
>that ID has shown that intelligence is needed and that nature cannot provide
>this intelligence.
SJ: See above. FJ is welcome to provide this evidence "that nature" (other
than
chance and law) can "provide this intelligence".
>>
See Wesley's argument. Care to rebut it?
<< FJ>So far design seems based on equivocation and wishful
>thinking more than on actual arguments.
SJ: No doubt it "seems" that way to FJ!
>>
Indeed. Unless intelligent now suddenly means something different.
<< FJ>You claim that ID can exclude apparant design but I have shown you it
cannot
>exclude a natural designer.
SJ: No, FJ hasn't yet.
>>
See Wesley's argument.
<< FJ>So natural forces designed something, if you call
>it real design then you have a problem,
SJ: *I* don't "have a problem". I don't claim that "natural forces designed
something" in the sense of "real design". *FJ* is claiming it and *he* has "a
problem" because even the Darwinists would disagree with him.
>>
Unsupported assertion and irrelevant. I am claiming that natural forces can be
the designer of ID. Or better phrased I argue that ID cannot eliminate natural
forces as the designer.
Wesley Elsberry:
"The apparent, but unstated, logic behind the move from design to
agency can be given as follows:
1. There exists an attribute in common of some subset of objects
known to be designed by an intelligent agent.
2. This attribute is never found in objects known not to be designed
by an intelligent agent.
3. The attribute encapsulates the property of directed contingency
or choice.
4.For all objects, if this attribute is found in an object, then we
may conclude that the object was designed by an intelligent agent.
"This is an inductive argument. Notice that by the second step, one
must eliminate from consideration precisely those biological
phenomena which Dembski wishes to categorize. In order to conclude
intelligent agency for biological examples, the possibility that
intelligent agency is not operative is excluded a priori. One large
problem is that directed contingency or choice is not solely an
attribute of events due to the intervention of an intelligent agent.
The "actualization-exclusion-specification" triad mentioned above also
fits natural selection rather precisely. One might thus conclude that
Dembski's argument establishes that natural selection can be recognized
as an intelligent agent. "
http://inia.cls.org/~welsberr/zgists/wre/papers/dembski7.html
<< FJif you call it apparant design then
>you have disproven your own thesis. Either way you seem to lose here.
SJ: No. It is the *Darwinists* who call it "apparent design".
>>
Irrelevant, whether it be apparant design, intelligent design, it shows that
intelligent
design cannot exclude apparant design since it cannot exclude a natural
designer.
<< SJ: The ID distinction is between unintelligent causes and intelligent
causes. It
is the same distinction that archaeology, SETI and forensic sciences make.
>>
All try to show evidence of design that we know had a designer not some novel
design.
<< >FJ>1. Since design can include natural forces why would Darwinists deny
it?
>SJ>The fact is they *do*!
FJ>Some do others hardly deny that 'design' exists, they merely doubt the
value
>of design if it is unable to exclude natural designers.
SJ: See above.
>>
See above for rebuttal
<< FJ>That's what's really
>relevant. Even if Darwinists were to deny design, that is hardly evidence
>that this is based on a good reason.
So FJ now claims that the "Darwinists" when they "deny design" don't do
so "based on a good reason"?
>>
Indeed, they are rejecting the common usage of design which means non-natural
but I am showing that ID cannot exclude non-natural designers.
<< >SJ>The reason is that Darwinism depends *absolutely* on the unproven and
>>unprovable assumption that *all* mutations in the 3.9 billion year history
of
>>life have been random with respect to adaptive improvement.
FJ>Randomness is shown through observation. There are some cases where it
seems
>that the organism can direct the 'randomness' but that is hardly a problem
>for Darwinism. Variation and selection is all that is needed.
SJ: No. "Variation" must be, according to Darwinism, "random with respect to
adaptive advantage":
>>
I disagree.
<< "There is a fifth respect in which mutation might have been
nonrandom. ... It is only in this fifth respect, the 'mutationist'
respect, that the true, real-life Darwinian insists that mutation is
random. Mutation is not systematically biased in the direction of
adaptive improvement, and no mechanism is known (to put the
point mildly) that could guide mutation in directions that are non-
random in this fifth sense. Mutation is random with respect to
adaptive advantage, although it is non-random in all sorts of other
respects. It is selection, and only selection, that directs evolution in
directions that are nonrandom with respect to advantage."
(Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker," 1991, p.312)
>>
Ah, according to Dawkins. Darwinism can easily incorporate non randomness.
SJ:
<< But Darwinists cannot possibly know that *all* mutations in the 3.9
billion
year history of life have been "random with respect to adaptive advantage".
They just *assume* that they must have been, because they believe there
was nothing (like an Intelligent Designer) to bias genetic changes in the
direction of adaptive advantage.
>>
True but that hardly means that therefore it was design. Darwinism has shown
how random mutations and natural selection could explain the observed evidence
of common descent. That there might be other mechanisms and that much of
the data will remain unknown forever is sad but hardly a problem. No science
can
have full confidence that they have seen all there is to be seen.
Show us evidence that it was not random and science will deal with it.
<< >SJ>If it is
>>established that there has been intelligent causation in the history of
>>life, then Darwinism's central assumption would be shown to be false.
FJ>It would disprove that their claim that all arose naturally was wrong.
SJ: Indeed!
>>
Hardly means that Darwinism is wrong.
<< FJ>But so far there is no evidence of intelligent causation
SJ: >>See above and previously.
Intelligent causation that can exclude a natural designer
<<
FJ>and worse ID has been
>unable to exclude natural designers as intelligent causers.
See above and previously.
>>
Intelligent causation that can exclude a natural designer
<< >FJ>2. Since design can exists together with Darwinism, i.e. God created
>>through evolution why should Darwinism deny design?
For starters they deny that "God created through evolution".
>>
Some do, others don't.
<< SJ>See above.
>The real question is are there any leading "Darwinists" who *don't* "deny
>design"?
FJ>I don't know. Hardly that relevant
It is "relevant" if FJ claims that Darwinism and design are not mutually
exclusive.
>>
Not necessarily mutually exclusive. Some might disagree but that's not
evidence.
SJ: << Then who does FJ think does "decide what Darwinism is and isn't" if it
is
not the world's leading Darwinists?
>>
Science is not defined by the world leading Darwinist.
<< >SJ>In my Biology course the textbook has a two-page interview with Dawkins
>at the start of its section on "Mechanisms of Evolution".
FJ>Cool. I bet you that it's an interesting anecdote.
SJ: FJ evades the issue. I take it he concedes my point!
>>
Nope. I merely point out that this an intereswting anectdote.
<< FJ>If FJ knows of any other "Darwinism" which is not "Dawkins' thesis"
>then let him state what it is.
FJ>Irrelevant. You have to show support for your argument.
SJ: I *have* shown support for my argument. It is FJ's counter-argument that
we are now discussing.
>>
Nope, it's the logical foundation of your argument that we are discussing. He
claims
that Darwinism denies that God did it. I can prove him wrong by simply
stating that I
consider myself a Darwinist and a Christian. Furthermore millions of
catholics also
accept evolution and Christianity.
[.......]
<<
SJ>There would be no problem if "Darwinian...evolution" was only
>"determined by the data". But as FJ's own post shows, Darwinists have
>erected elaborate philosophical and epistemological rules that ensure that
>Darwinism remains in power *irrespective* of "the data".
FJ>Unsupported assertion. Perhaps you can provide us with some evidence? Good
>luck. Rethoric like this hardly is convincing.
Unsupported assertion. Perhaps you can provide us with some evidence? Good
luck. Rethoric like this hardly is convincing.
>>
I notice that you failed to support your assertion. My assertion therefore is
supported.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Sep 17 2000 - 20:58:28 EDT