>[unknown poster]: If they have not been done yet, then it is imho quite
important that they are done so that they can support what is now merely
assertions.
>DNAunion: Very true. But does this not also apply to the origin of life?
Why must Dembski have a 100% airtight, completely validated, empirically
tried and true, perfect hypothesis, generated and completed within a couple
years, before it is considered any more than an assertion, yet the
purely-natural origin of life on earth is accepted as scientific fact even
though it is not 100% airtight, it has not been completely validated, it is
not empirically tried and true, it is not a perfect hypothesis, and very many
researchers have been working on it for over 60 years!
>FMAJ: The reason is very simple. Dembski's argument is based on elimination.
DNAunion: OOL arguments are also based on elimination too: it is just
invisible as anything other than purely-natural processes are eliminated
without consideration. Possibilities ARE eliminated but mostly no one
realizes it: or do you claim that OOL researchers give alien design and
divine design consideration each time before eliminating them as plausible
explanations. (Even "natural" alternatives like panspermia and directed
panspermia are eliminated for the most part: abiogenesis here on Earth is the
default accepted position).
>Chris: And even more he claims that his elimination filter has no false
positives. Since his assertions not only rest on an infallible elimination
but also on the existance of apparant CSI then it is indeed important for
Dembski to do support his assertions. If your argument is that these gaps in
Dembski's arguments can be be closed then perhaps you are right but so far
the ID argument has quite a few problems to deal with.
DNAunion: As does the argument for a purely-natural origin of life on Earth.
Did you not get that from my post? It seems the main difference between the
two is not objective, but subjective: it is that as others have stated, "you
guys" get a free ride: the burden of proof is thrust upon "us" and off of
"you guys", who automatically win because "you guys" were the ones that made
the current rules.
>DNAunion: Sounds kind of unfair: absolute proof required for Dembski, while
only a couple successes here and there - out of millions or trillions of
steps - are sufficient to establish biopoesis as scientific fact.
>Chris: Nice strawman.
DNAunion: Nice ad hom.
Care to explain how mine was a strawman?
>[unkown poster]: I know that science can be painful, but in case of a new
thesis such as Dembski's it is quite necessary that such work is done.
>DNAunion: So we can't accept it until it is fully proven? But the
purely-natural origin of life is elevated to scientific fact on flimsy and
scant evidence?
>Chris: Nope, there is a lot of "we don't know" there.
DNAunion: No, you missed the point. They will admit in some circles (but
not to the general public) that there is a lot of "we don't know" in OOL
research, but those statements refer to individual steps: the overall concept
is fully accepted as solid scientific fact despite the lack of success and
the many hurdles facing the purely-natural model.
Would you allow IDists to just say "there is a lot we don't know, but you
must accept the overall concept that ID is scientific fact"? I seriously
doubt it. Double standard. Nothing short of absolute proof is acceptable
from "us people", while "you people" get to say just about whatever you want
is scientific fact, as long as it is purely natural.
>DNAUnion: It all sounds pretty much like double standards. If we are not
to accept Dembski's work then I suggest fairness dictates that we should not
accept OOL researchers' work either.
>Chris: Dembski is not making I don't know claims, he is making claims that
he is now asked to support. Is that too much to ask?
DNAunion: Origin of life researchers are not making "I don't know" claims
either - they are stating that the purely-natural origin of life on Earth is
scientific fact. I and others are asking them for support: is THAT too much
to ask?
>DNAunion: And let us not forget that Darwin's theory was also woefully
incomplete when he introduced it. If "you guys" had your way (and applied
"your guys" criteria equally), then there would be no Darwinian theory as it
would have been rejected at the very beginning because it did not have all
the answers right out of the starting blocks!
>Chris: Darwin's theory did not use elimination and did not make claims of
infallibility.
DNAunion: Sure it did. Darwin himself said that his theory eliminated the
need for divine intervention. He claimed to have eliminated something
completely: there was no longer any need to check on a case by case basis
(which Dembski DOES require).
And I think it pretty safe to say that Darwin was making a claim of
infallibility: that natural selection and (other natural processes) accounts
for all the diversity of life, and that this statement is true in all
instances and is infallible.
>Chris: Don't you agree that one should at least be able to support one's
assertions? Especially when ID argument is based on elimination not on
positive evidence?
DNAunion: Sure. And since the statements that OOL was purely natural are
not based on positive evidence, but on assertions and assumptions, will you
kindly inform all those studying the origin of life, and all those
pop-science shows on the Discover Channel and TLC, and all those journalists
in Scientific American, Nature, Science, Origins of Life and Evolution of the
Biosphere, etc. that they need to stop claiming that the purely-natural
origin of life on Earth is scientific fact? That is, until they support
their assumptions.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Oct 06 2000 - 01:19:03 EDT