In a message dated 10/5/2000 9:06:23 PM Pacific Daylight Time, DNAunion
writes:
> >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.
>
> >FMAJ: It's not a trick, it's an important question.
>
> DNAunion: No, it's a trick. He is "pretending" that there are only two
> mutually-exclusive possibilities: either something is natural or it is
> supernatural. He then draws conclusions and makes implications from this
> fallacious base. However, his very premise is flawed so all that follows
> from it should not be considered valid.
>
I disagree, he is asking you how Natural selection can be eliminated by
definition.
> >FMAJ: So intelligence and design do not exclude per definition natural
> selection? Based on what premise do you reach that conclusion?
>
> DNAunion: You misunderstood me also. If there is intelligence and design
> in the selecting, then it is not NATURAL selection: just ask Darwin.
>
Please support your assertion.
Also there is still a problem you have to face:
1. ID excludes natural selection per definition. In that case ID has to
explain why it wants to exclude designers when it does not deal with that
issue
2. ID does not exclude natural selection as the intelligent designer but then
it needs additional steps to exclude it.
Your use of "intelligence and design in selecting" does not seem to be the
same as the terms used by ID. Such equivocation makes a discussion somewhat
painful since you presume that these words had equivalent meaning but they
don't.
> >DNAunion: 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.
>
> >FMAJ: Please explain then why natural selection cannot be an intelligent
> designer?
>
> DNAunion: Okay Mr. Stuck Record. As I promised, here is my predetermined
> fixed reply to your repetitive question: FMAJ, can you explain in detail
> the steps involved in the origin of life?
Your avoidance is duely noted. Let's see if Dembski will come to your help.
>
> >DNAunion: 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.
>
> >FMAJ: 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?
>
> DNAunion: I don't know, but you sure did distort them to come up with that.
>
Then explain. Has ID defined natural existance as not being ID per definition?
> Let us accept for the sake of argument that one of "you guys" incorrectly
> said that the opposite of steam is ice. I then said, no, the opposites of
> steam are both ice and water. By stating this, how have I defined boiling
> water out of existence?
>
Non sequitor.
> >FMAJ: Does ID exclude natural selection as the designer?
>
> DNAUnion: There's that broken record again! Okay FMAJ, can you explain in
> detail the steps involved in the origin of life?
>
Your avoidance is duly noted.
> >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?"
>
> >FMAJ: So why is natural selection per definition excluded then?
>
> DNAUnion: SO what were all the steps involved in the origin of life, in
> detail?
>
Your avoidance is duly noted. But I am confused, you said that natural
selection per definition cannot be intelligent design. So why avoid
addressing your own comments?
> >DNAunion: Natural selection, as Darwin defined it, is 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.
>
> >FMAJ: That's the equivocation I am refering to. Now you define ID as "not
> having design".
>
> DNAunion: Excuse me?!?!?! Where the hell did I define ID as "not having
> design"? Please don't stuff your words into my mouth. And I see no
> equivocation in my statement - it must have come from your imagination.
>
You are equivocating the intelligence or design as used by Darwin with the
intelligence and design that follows logically from the ID inference. And I
misspoke "Natural selection as not having design".
> >FMAJ: 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.
>
> DNAunion: Since your whole paragraph seems to be based on a flawed
> premise, I cannot address it. Perhaps you could clean it up by eliminating
> all the logic errors and then repost it.
>
What is the flawed premise?
a. That you defined natural selection as the designer out of consideration?
[Quote]
If you have any kind of intelligence and design involved in the selection
process, then it is not NATURAL selection, be definition.
[End quote]
b. That if that is the definition of ID then it is not the same definition as
followls logically from Dembski and Behe?
"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
Where do Dembski and Behe prove that natural selection could not have been
the intelligent designer?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Oct 06 2000 - 00:21:35 EDT