In a message dated 10/5/2000 10:18:38 PM Pacific Daylight Time, DNAunion
writes:
> >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:
You are now conflating to meanings of the word elimination. In science indeed
competing hypotheses are eliminated based on performance and probabilities.
ID (Dembski, Behe) however has to eliminate all natural pathways before it
can infer design. ID does not propose a pathway that is then compared with
existing hypotheses.
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).
>
Based again on the probabilities of the events and the supporting evidence or
lack thereof.
> >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?
Nope, the origin of life argument is not based on elimination of all other
hypotheses. Nor does science claims to have no false positives.
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.
>
Non sequitor. You are avoiding the issue: If Dembski claims infallibility of
the filter, should he then not support his claim?
> >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.
>
How can pointing out a strawman being an ad hominem argument.
> Care to explain how mine was a strawman?
>
First you explain the ad hominem argument.
Okay, just this time then: Dembski claims infallibility of his filter. Do you
see any such claims made by scientists? Not to mention your unsupported claim
of "biopoesis as scientific fact" Any references to support this?
> >[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?
>
Strawman again. I never made such an assertion. But ID has made some claims
of certainty, these need to be supported. Furthermore since ID is based on
elimination of all competing hypotheses and naturalistic origin of life is
not so restricted, there are quite a few differences. So far the assumption
of a purely natural origins of life is quite reasonable absent any evidence
to the contrary.
> >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.
>
Are you sure? This surely sounds like a strawman to me. Could you show where
origin of life is accepted as a solid fact?
> 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.
>
Strawman. You are arguing something that I have not argued.
> >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?
>
Could you please show such claims by origin of life researchers? And if so,
how does this let Dembski off the hook. His argument made a claim of
infallibility. Should he not support this? Origin of life researchers have
pathways (correct or incorrect) to show how life might have arisen. Does
Dembski have evidence to support his assertions?
> >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).
>
You are again conflating the meanigns of "elimination". Darwin did not
eliminate Divine intervention and then concluded natural selection. He
proposed natural selection and as did not require divine intervention. Did he
claim that no intervention happened or that none was needed? That's quite a
difference.
> 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.
>
Could you support this with some actual quotes from Darwin? Because I doubt
that you can find convincing evidence of infallibility in Darwin's arguments.
Time to do some work.
> >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.
>
OOL evidence is based on positive evidence, it is based on observable
evidence and observable mechanisms. Perhaps you need to support your strawman?
So far we have seen the following strawmen
"purely natural origin of life on earth is a scientific fact"
"Darwin made a claim of infallibility"
"Darwin eliminated Divine intervention"
Any others?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Oct 06 2000 - 01:57:20 EDT