In a message dated 10/5/2000 6:38:10 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
DNAunion@aol.com writes:
> DNAunion: That sounds like an oxymoron to me. If you have any kind of
> intelligence and design involved in the selection process, then it is not
> NATURAL selection, be definition. What am I missing?
>
> >Huxter: So ID is not natural? If something is not natural, is it then
> supernatural?
>
> DNAunion: I see you trying so hard to get ID classified as supernatural,
> especially from an IDists, but your trick doesn't work.
>
It's not a trick, it's an important question. So intelligence and design do
not exclude per definition natural selection?
Based on what premise do you reach that conclusion?
> Simple question. The computer on which you typed your reply: is it natural?
>
> No - it is intelligently designed. Now consider this: according to your
> above question/claim "If something is not natural, is it then
> supernatural?",
> since a computer is not natural, then it must be supernatural? See, your
> logic produced the wrong result for something known, so we surely cannot
> trust it for things unknown.
>
Please explain then why natural selection cannot be an intelligent designer?
After all it's natural, and ID does not reject natural processes per
definition. So what then?
> Even if I did say that ID is not natural, that would not mean it was
> supernatural. The opposites (yes, opposites: plural) of natural are
> supernatural AND intelligent causation.
>
So intelligent causation and supernatural include "that which is not
natural"? That's fascinating so ID has defined natural processes out of
existence? Or do I misunderstand your use of the terms here? Does ID exclude
natural selection as the designer? Or does it exclude it per definition (as
you seem to suggest?)? But if it excludes natural selection per definition
then ID really is something different from the ID filters proposed by Behe
and Dembski.
> >"Charles Thaxton: The first objection to intelligent design of DNA is
> philosophical. Most scientists come into discussions of science,
> particularly
> origins, already with a natural/supernatural way of thinking. It is easy,
> therefore, for these scientists to conclude that the notion of intelligent
> cause is a ruse, that it is really the supernatural without the courage of
> the one promoting it saying so. And because we do not incorporate the
> supernatural into science, the objection continues, the only way to proceed
> in the investigation of any natural phenomenon is to assume a natural
> cause.
Certainly not supernatural. That would be the end of the story for science.
So if ID excludes natural selection per definition and it is not necessarily
supernatural, how does this all follow from the premises of Dembski and Behe?
> natural/intelligent natural/supernatural
>
> A better arrangement of terminology could not be devised if you want to
> deceive somebody. All you have to do is begin a discussion talking science,
> using the term natural in an appropriate way, and then somewhere along the
> way simply ease into philosophy, again using the term natural in an
> appropriate way. Just fail to inform your listeners or readers that you
> have
> moved on to philosophy. By this method of sleight you might "persuade" your
> audience.
>
The same applies to ID if ID equivocates the meaning of the terms
intelligent, design. So why is this different?
>
> >Huxter: This subject, in the past, got the usual round of dictionary
> definitions and such, but it seems that DNA is saying that Intelligent
> Design is beyond the realm of the natural.
>
> DNAunion: How did you manage to get those words out of my mouth when what
> I
> said was:
>
> "That sounds like an oxymoron to me. If you have any kind of intelligence
> and design involved in the selection process, then it is not NATURAL
> selection, be definition. What am I missing?"
>
So why is natural selection per definition excluded then?
> Where did I say that ID is beyond the realm of the natural? ID can be
> intelligence guiding and directing the natural. When computer
>
Or natural processes guiding the natural?
[...]
Natural selection, as Darwin defined it, it PURELY-NATURAL selection. Thus,
> it cannot have any design or intelligence guiding it: if it does, it ceases
> to be natural selection as defined by Darwin.
>
That's the equivocation I am refering to. Now you define ID as "not having
design". So you defined natural selection as the designer out of
consideration. If that is the definition of ID then it is not the same
definition as follows logically from Dembski and Behe. You are now conflating
intelligence in ID with intelligence as more commonly used.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 05 2000 - 21:49:44 EDT