In a message dated 10/5/2000 9:50:51 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
DNAunion@aol.com writes:
> >Chris: Not so. For the same general burden of proof reasons, we may
> presume
> until evidence indicates otherwise, that the intelligent causes, if any,
> are
> naturalistic.
>
> DNAunion: So "you guys" win by default? You don't need a shred of
> evidence,
> you just simply win. "You guys" have no burden of proof to bear? Nice
> double
> standards.
>
No it isn't. ID is based on the elimination of naturalistic mechanisms (or
chance) and as such indeed we may presume either naturalistic causes (if such
can be formulated) or "we don't know". Either way, the conclusion is not ID.
Of course there is a burden of proof if the claim that a particular
naturalistic pathway did it but in order to show that ID applies it has to be
shown that no naturalistic pathway applied. That's quite a burden but
inherent to the ID argument.
> >Chris: Further, since we only have a theoretical means of recognizing
> intelligent design by naturalistically-occurring beings (i.e., humans,
> aliens
> (because they would necessarily live under the same *basic* conditional
> factors, limitations, and constraints as we do)), we have yet another
> reason
> for presuming that any "design" we claim to see should be regarded by
> presumption as design by metaphysically naturalistic beings.
>
> DNAunion: Okay, let me ask this. Are you saying that computers and
> airplanes and four-stroke reciprocating internal combustion engines are
> NATURAL because they were produced by "natural" intelligences instead of by
> a
> supernatural intelligences?
>
That's not what Chris said. A better analogy would have been that since
computers are designed by naturalistic occuring beings, they are not
sufficient evidence or require the presumption of design by supernatural
beings. We only have evidence of naturalistic designers.
> I agree that the items I listed are not supernatural, and thus could be
> somehow (mis)classified as "natural", but you cannot get away from the fact
> that they do not arise by purely-natural means: merely by the laws of
> physics
> and chemistry: that intelligence must direct their creation. You don't go
> out to a beach and see a computer or an airplane or a television set form
> before your eyes by the simple shuffling of atoms and molecules.
>
That by itself is not sufficient evidence of supernatural design. Your claim
that intelligence needs to direct their creation implies inclusion of natural
selection as the intelligent designer. You see intelligence is not necessary,
merely an algorithm, a process. The last example confuses natural selection
i.e. regularity with chance.
> If you want to classify intelligent input by ETI's, computer and other
> engineers, systems analysts and computer programmers, electricians and
> electrical engineers, geneticists, protein engineers, etc. as natural, that
> is your business. The general consensus is that such input is better
> defined
> as intelligent, and that the items produced by such intelligences (as
> listed
> above) are NOT natural.
>
By definition you are excluding natural processes as intelligent. If that is
the case then ID has lost its foundation in a scientific foundation and has
now become a definition of non-natural. While perhaps theologically
satisfying this is not scientifically satisfying.
> >Chris: If you, or Behe, or Johnson, or Dembski, or anyone else can come
> up
> with a *rational* way of specifying what divine design would necessarily
> look
> like, then go right ahead.
>
> DNAunion: If you, Elsberry, Dawkins, or Orgel, or anyone else can come up
> with a valid and detailed explanation for the purely-natural origin of life
> here on Earth, go right ahead. In the meantime, "you guys" should not
> state
> as fact that it occurred here on Earth by purely natural means: assumptions
> are not the same as facts, no matter how much "naturalists" wish them to be.
>
We have however evidence of natural processes. Does ID have evidence of
supernatural processes? Elsberry, Dawkins and others can come up with
detailed explanations of the origin of life. Will they be correct? Hard to
tell. Will there ever be a divine design pathway that is scientifically
stimulating? I doubt it
"During the Q & A, Simon Conway Morris was the moderator. When my hand
went up he called on me. [I took this as evidence supporting the
hypothesis that he liked my question during his talk :-) --grm] I
asked Behe that he has spent a lot of time talking about what wouldn't
work and asked him to tell us what would work--if not evolution, what,
then? Miracles? Behe stumbled around a bit and finally said that God
inputs information into living system all along the way."
Behe http://home.flash.net/~mortongr/wacoday2.htm
Is Behe's pathway one that allows us to put numbers to his hypothesis? Can it
be tested, can it be falsified?
"At no step --not even one-- does Doolittle give a model that includes
numbers or quantities; without numbers there is not science."
Behe pp. 95 Darwin's Black Box
> By the way, why must "you guys" always turn "our" arguments into GOD
> arguments. I notice that the word GOD (and divine etc.) come up far more
> by
> anti-IDists than by IDists. Why? Because "you guys" want so badly to
> label
> ID as a religious idea. What if all of "us guys" continually mislabeled
> evolution as an atheistic idea? If in every single reply "we" made - not
>
Then provide us with an ID pathway that is not supernatural. I'd love to see
you propose one and then we can determine what evidence exists to support it.
> just here and not just us, but every IDist and every Creationist on every
> board, book, and TV show - began driving in the "fact" that all
> evolutionists
> were atheists (or even Nazis): would you consider that fair? I don't think
Non sequitor.
> so. So why do "you people" keep doing to "us people" what you would not
> want
> us to do to you - that is, make the other person's beliefs out to be
> something they are not in order to gain some points.
>
Non sequitor, distraction from the issue.
> >Chris: But, until then, and until evidence is found that "works" better
> with
> that concept of divine design than with naturalistic design, divine design
> is
> verbal and conceptual fog.
>
> DNAunion: Great - so when was I talking about divine design? Who are you
> addressing? Surely not me. If you are going to respond to MY posts, then
> doesn't it make that you respond to MY statements?
>
So what do you suppose designed ID?
> By the way, using your logic, I come up with, "But until then, until
> evidence
> is found that works better with the concept of a purely-natural origin of
> life here on Earth than with an intelligently-directed model, then
> abiogenesis is verbal and conceptual fog."
>
A few problems with this argument: First of all concepts of a natural origin
of life exist. What is the intelligently directed model? Until ID stops
relying on elimination of natural pathways, ID can and will not contribute
much to science.
Let's focus on evolution for instance, ID in evolution is claimed to have
been detected/infered. What are your supposed ID pathways to a particular IC
structure? Please show the probabilities of such a pathway. Then we can do
some science.
"That definition has the advantage of promoting research: to state clear,
detailed evolutionary pathways; to measure probabilistic resources; to
estimate mutation rates; to determine if a given step is selected or not. It
allows for the proposal of any evolutionary scenario a Darwinist (or others)
may wish to submit, asking only that it be detailed enough so that relevant
parameters might be estimated. If the improbability of the pathway exceeds
the available probabilistic resources (roughly the number of organisms over
the relevant time in the relevant phylogenetic branch) then Darwinism is
deemed an unlikely explanation and intelligent design a likely one. "
Here Behe merely restates what science has already been doing. But he seems
to suggest that one has to do this in order to prove or disprove an IC
evolutionary pathway. I am looking forward to ID'ers taking notice from Behe
and start producing some evidence that measures probabilistic resources,
estimates non evolutionary pathways and if the improbability of the pathway
exceeds the available probabilistic resources then ID is deemed an unlikely
one. But unlike Behe I will not make the leap of logic to suggest that this
would prove a Darwinian pathway.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Oct 06 2000 - 01:25:26 EDT