In a message dated 10/5/2000 10:35:51 PM Pacific Daylight Time, DNAunion
writes:
> >FMAJ: Because we have direct evidence of the "evolution" of life and
> species and mutation and natural selection.
>
> DNAunion: We have direct evidence of intelligent design: computers, cars,
> televisions.
Cool but a non sequitor. We do not have evidence of inteligent design as it
applies to biology.
But more importantly, we have direct evidence of intelligent design in
biology: genetic engineering and rational design
> in protein engineering. In addition, we have direct evidence of intelligent
> design creating circuits that can undergo
Again this is not evidence of biological design in existing biological
systems. That humans can manipulate nature is not in question.
mutation and selection, thus nature no longer has a monopoly on RM & NS as a
creative mechanism. In addition, we
> have direct evidence of intelligent design creating robots that can create
> other robots: and self-replicating robots are highly probable before the
> end of this century.
>
You are confused, that RM*NS can be used succesfully to design things is not
evidence that ID is required for RM*NS to work. On the contrary, it shows
that RM*NS can be powerful algorithms that can generate CSI.
> >FMAJ: IC however is based on elimination.
>
> DNAunion: No, IC is based on observation. At the most, it is the creation
> of an IC system that is based on elimination/inference. That's like
> confusing a feather itself with the evolution of a feather from a scale.
>
Please explain. IC is based on the observation of an IC system. It is
asserted that no Darwinian pathway exists, therefore it is designed.
"By irreducible complexity I mean a single system which is composed of
several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and
where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to
effectively cease functioning.
An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced gradually by slight,
successive modifications of a precursor system, since any precursor to
an irreducibly complex system is by definition nonfunctional." [Behe]
From Behe's Empty Box (http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/box/behe.htm):
"But read this argument carefully. Behe is not offering a way to detect
design, he is offering a way to falsify gradual Darwinian evolution,
and by elimination, conclude design. But there is one big problem- his
falsifier has been falsified. The conclusion that an "irreducibly
complex system cannot be produced gradually by slight,
successive modifications of a precursor system" is simply wrong. "
Behe does admit that indirect natural pathways to IC systems may exist but
considers such pathways unlikely. However Behe does not provide us with an
argument to support his assertion.
"One can never completely rule out such an indirect route, which is
tantamount to proving a negative. However, the more complex the
system, the more difficult it becomes to envision such indirect
scenarios and the more examples of irreducible complexity we meet, the
less and less persuasive such indirect scenarios become. It cannot be
that everything in life started out as something else.
" Behe, "Intelligent design theory as a tool" , pp. 179
It is clear that there is a problem for IC/ID here, if natural pathways
cannot be excluded beforehand then IC is not a reliable detector
of design. We can perhaps for individual IC systems try to show that the
possibility of a Darwinian (or non-Darwinian) pathway is diminishlingly small
but ICness itself is not a sufficient indicator of design anymore.
> >FMAJ: That's quite a difference.
>
> DNAunion: Sure, if it were true.
>
So far you have given no evidence of it falsity.
> >FMAJ: In the case of IC definition and clear definition is very important
> since design is infered through the absence of a Darwinian mechanism.
>
> DNAunion: I guess I don't get it.
>
No problem I am quite patient.
> DNAUnion: Suppose I am learning about the workings of a four-stroke
> reciprocating internal combustion engine and find that there is a single
> system composed of several well-matched and interacting parts, each
> contributing to the overall function, wherein the removal of any one of
> them leads to loss of function. Under those conditions, based on the
> properties of the system of interest alone, I would conclude intelligent
> design. And I wouldn't necessarily have to eliminate Darwinian evolution,
> the inference just followed from the inherent properties.
>
Cool but this is not what IC is all about. If you just infer design then you
have merely asserted something: Design is "single system composed of several
well-matched and interacting parts, each contributing to the overall
function, wherein the removal of any one of them leads to loss of function".
How does this eliminate natural selection? You would not have to eliminate it
to infer design but then design means nothing more than it's definition, it
does not show that the system could not have been designed by chance or by
natural forces or required a truely intelligent designer. So far ID has added
nothing to our knowledge other than an observation. Dembski's ID argument
goes beyond your argument as does Behe's so if you want to argue your
argument then you have to show what the use of ID is? It merely is an
observation. No explanation though. Design has become the equivalent to an
observation, it's not a conclusion anymore.
> Other instances of inferring design also don't need to neccessarily
> eliminate Darwinian mechanisms. Say I take someone who has lived pretty
> much in
seclusion for his whole life to see Mt. Rushmore. Seeing the specified and
complex
> figures - multiple heads, each with eyes with eyelids and eyebrows, and
> noses with nostrils, a mustache here, and beard there, hair on the heads,
> fully-developed lips, etc. - all in the correct places and all in the
> proper proportions, could that person not conclude intelligent design
> without necessarily having to eliminate Darwinian mechanisms?
Sure we have now known pathways and can eliminate alternatives that's how
design is infered through elimination of chance and regularity. Unlike your
handwaving though, Dembski's argument relies on elimination. The same applies
to the Rushmore argument.
>
> Of course, similar to what I did elsewhere, you could arge that in fact
> Darwinian processes were eliminated - i.e., they were not taken into
> consideration - we just didn't notice it.
In all cases ID was infered through elimination. In the latter case Darwinian
processes were not relevant since your switched to a non biological system.
But other explanations such as chance and regularity needed to be eliminated.
And positive evidence of designers of such structures exist. Unlike for
biology.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Oct 06 2000 - 02:10:42 EDT