>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.
>FMAJ: I disagree, he is asking you how Natural selection can be eliminated by definition.
DNAunion: I disagree - this is just you steering everything back into your same-old stuck-record statement that you keep parroting ad nauseum, no matter how unrelated the current topic is to that issue. I don’t see Huxter saying anything in the above along the lines of what you suggest he is saying.
*****************
>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.
>FMAJ: Please support your assertion.
DNAunion: I already did with a long quote from Darwin’s “The Origin of Species” in another post to you: and you just snipped it out and replaced it with something like [irrelevant].
*****************
>FMAJ: 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
DNAunion: I assume that what you actually meant to say was that “ID excludes natural selection [as a potential intelligent designer] by definition.” Your actual statement - “ID excludes natural selection per definition” – is just plain wrong.
And who said ID cannot deal with the issue of excluding potential intelligent designers? Thought experiment: I show Mt Rushmore to someone who has never seen or heard of it before and they, on their own, conclude that it was intelligently designed. Can that person not deal with the issue of eliminating chipmunks as possible designers for Mt Rushmore? Can that person not eliminate their cat and their dog as the potential intelligent designers? Can he or she not eliminate their 2-year-old daughter as the potential intelligent designer? Can that person not eliminate random processes such as a hurricane’s blowing sand and pebbles around and/or thermal expansion and contraction resulting in ice fracturing the rock, as the potential designer?
***************
>FMAJ: 2. ID does not exclude natural selection as the intelligent designer but then it needs additional steps to exclude it.
DNAunion: Confusing as written. Please try again.
***************
>FMAJ: Your use of "intelligence and design in selecting" does not seem to be the same as the terms used by ID.
DNAunion: I may be wrong, but it seems to me that you are confusing Elseberry’s personal statements of what ID states, with what IDists themselves state. If you are making a case about what a certain party states, then listen to that party’s statements, not their opponent’s.
Once Dembski has authoritatively addressed, or confirmed that he cannot authoritatively address, Elseberry’s claim, then I will feel comfortable accepting one person’s position over the other. In the mean time, all I will state is what I have been stating for several days now: by Darwin’s definition, intelligence and design cannot be fitted into NATURAL selection.
*******************
>FMAJ: Such equivocation makes a discussion somewhat painful since you presume that these words had equivalent meaning but they don't.
DNAunion: You have yet to show how I am misusing any of the terms. Please give complete details on the multiple definitions I am using and how I am switching between them in order to maintain my position.
*******************
>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: The most I will say is that NATURAL selection excludes intelligence and design, as per Darwin. There can be no external conscious choices (neither from a deity or a person) and there can be no internal conscious choices (an organism cannot guide its own evolution). The only choices allowed are purely natural. There can be no future goal, end, or purpose in mind, towards which selection guides evolution. There can be no future template or blueprint used as a target by natural selection.
********************
> 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?
>FMAJ: Your avoidance is duely noted.
DNAunion: Also noted are your continual attempts to steer everything on this board around into the same issue, regardless how the topic began.
*****************
>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. 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?
>FMAJ: Non sequitor.
DNAunion: No, Mr Stuck Record, your non sequitor is non sequitor. Let me remind you what you said and to what I was replying.
[quote]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? “[/quote]
Now let us see how my reply works in conjunction with your statements.
“So [ice] and [water] include “that which is not [steam]”? That’s fascinating, so you have defined [steam] out of existence.” You will agree that my word-substituted version makes no sense: but it contains the same general logic as your original statement (because your original statement also did not make sense).
************
>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.
>FMAJ: 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".
DNAunion: Okay, now I get it. But I still don’t see how I am equivocating. Would you give the full definitions of the two different forms of “intelligence” I am using, and how I am misusing them?
***************
>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.
DNAunion: No, you seem to be using the definition that follows from Elseberry’s statements: the only definition you seem to accept. And that definition is NOT Behe’s and/or Dembski’s. Elseberry may claim that his conclusion follows logically from the statements of Dembski and Behe, but until they personally address it (since they know their statements better than any one else), it is still an open question. (I too would appreciate some closure on this: I wish Dembski would respond here or somewhere else).
***************
>FMAJ: What is the flawed premise? a. That you defined natural selection as the designer out of consideration?
[Quote] DNAunion: If you have any kind of intelligence and design involved in the selection process, then it is not NATURAL selection, b[y] definition. [End quote]
DNAunion: Actually, you have it backwards. As my quote makes clear, I defined the intelligent designer out of natural selection, not the other way around.
**************
>FMAJ: 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
DNAunion: That Elseberry concludes it follows logically does not mean “it does, case closed”. Even he seems to acknowledge this as from your quote he says, “One might thus conclude…”.
I too would like to see this point debated fully – by the people who actually made the original claims (Dembski and Elseberry) as they are obviously the most familiar with what their actual claims are. I don’t really think that FMAJ and DNAunion are going to settle this ourselves, do you?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Oct 06 2000 - 17:18:58 EDT