In a message dated 9/18/2000 9:42:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
nalonso@megatribe.com writes:
<< FMA:
Such forms of intelligent design happen all the time but
that's not the kind that interests the ID movement.
Nelson:
Of course it does. It is intelligent agency.
>>
That humans can use nature to design is intelligent agency? I thought that
ID wanted to explain the nature part not the obviousness of design?
<<
FMA:
That there is a
resemblance is irrelevant, the design inference has to show rather than
assert that it was designed and that the designer was not natural forces.
Nelson:
It's not a resemblance, it is the actual system, the function and the parts.
We can observe intelligent agency producing these systems, we cannot observe
natural forces producing them.
>>
Actually we did not see and have never seen intelligent agency create these
systems. We have seen
intelligent agency mimicking nature to adapt such systems.
That you said, We cannot observe natural forces produce them is something
that seems contradicted
by the evidence, unless you argue that each flagellum is built by a designer
and incorporated in the
animal?
Unless you can do this we see how natural forces can produce exactly these
systems.
PErhaps you would like to rethink your argument?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Sep 19 2000 - 00:00:56 EDT