>DNAunion: I will not address Welsberry's claim that Demski's filter allows
RM & NS to act as an intelligent designer: I think Demski himself should
address the merit of that. But I will comment on another point you brought
up.
>FMAJ: Why will you not comment on this? Why should it be left to Dembski to
determine the merit of the argument?
DNAunion: One reason is because "YOU GUYS" won't accept anyone else's
answers in regards to Dembski's EF but Dembski's!
Was it Paul Nelson (I don't remember) who posted here a couple days ago about
Dembski's filter? Whoever it was, "you guys" would not accept the
calculations Paul gave references to, nor would you accept Paul's own words
either: "you guys" as much as demanded that Dembski himself answer the
questions: Dembski's word and no one else's. And at least one of "you guys"
stated this requirement explicitly. So why would "you guys" take my word on
something that Dembski himself has not addressed?
>DNAunion: First, I think the ID movement is not a single unified movement,
just as evolution is not a single unified movement (what I mean by that is
that even though all evolutionists agree that evolution occurs, they disagree
about the rate, the importance of different mechanisms, the proper ancestors
of different extant animals, etc.).
>FMAJ: Do all ID'ers admit that natural selection can be an intelligent
designer?
DNAunion: Can't you read! I said I would not address that. Don't tell me,
let me guess. From now on, in every post you direct to me, you are going to
ask that same question - right?
Okay, if you do, here is the one I will ask you every time in return. FMAJ,
can you explain in detail the steps involved in the origin of life?
>FMAJ: So we now have gradations of "intelligence" from non-intelligent to
computer programs "some intelligence". The issue with the use of the term
intelligence is exactly that it is so poorly defined.
DNAunion: The terms life, evolution, and species are also poorly defined.
So I guess we should stop using them too, huh? That's it all you biologists
- go home. Biology instructors, get a new job. We can no longer discuss
biology because its terms are too poorly defined!
>FMAJ: Does ID include natural selection as an intelligent designer as
follows from the thesis?
DNAunion: Okay, here we go: FMAH, can you explain to me in detail the steps
involved in the origin of life?
>DNAunion: However, other IDists reject such a notion stating that such
systems are NOT intelligent. >>
>FMAJ: Based on what premises and logic I wonder?
DNAunion: So, IDists are a bit wishy washy on a couple of terms. They might
as well just throw in the towel, right? But wait, are viruses living or not?
I guess biologist are a bit wishy washy on their terms too, so they too
might as well just throw in the towel!
By the way, Darwin stated the term SPECIES was "wishy washy" (i.e.,
disputable). So shouldn't his theory of the origin of SPECIES - note the
word - have been discarded immediately?
>DNAunion: In addition, I disagree with Dawkins that things like spider webs
are not designed or intelligently produced in any manner whatsoever. In
"Climbing Mount Improbable", Dawkins takes up about 4 or 5 pages explaining
all the details and intricacies that go into a spider's efforts to construct
a web - and the logic that is needed (before step X can be done, the spider
must - and does - first do step W or else....). To me, if some intricate,
detailed, and exacting process must be carried out to produce something, then
it is not generated purely-natural: it is either designed or intelligently
created or both. The laws of physics and chemistry alone do not produce a
spider web: the input of the spider is also needed.
>FMAJ: Exactly why algorithms cannot be excluded as sources of "intelligence
then".
DNAunion: What "exactly" are you talking about? Could you explain what I
said that led you to this conclusion, and more precisely state you conclusion
in addition?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 05 2000 - 23:46:20 EDT