>FMAJ: I am somewhat confused about the apparant/actual? contradictions
between the two statements made by DNAUnion.
[begin Quote DNAUnion] That sounds like an oxymoron to me. If you have any
kind of intelligence and design involved in the selection process, then it
is not NATURAL selection, be definition. What am I missing?[End quote]
[begin Quote DNAUnion] I will not address Welsberry's claim that Demski's
filter allows RM & NS to act as an intelligent designer: I think Demski
himself should address the merit of that. But I will comment on another
point you brought up.[End quote]
DNAunion: There is no actual contradiction in my two statements. In the
first, I eliminated intelligence and design from NATURAL selection (as per
Darwin's definition): in the second, I state I will not address whether or
not natural selection can operate as an intelligent designer. These are two
separate concepts. [PS: I moved the two statements of mine FMAJ referred to
so that they would be just under his original mention of them]
>FMAJ: On the one hand DNAUnion seems to defining natural selection to be
NON-ID. This is something that imho hardly follows from the premises of
Dembski and Behe.
DNAunion: No, you keep using Elseberry's statements, not Dembski's and
Behe's. Elseberry claims his conclusion follows from Dembski's, but that
does mean that it is so: case closed. You should contribute the ideas to the
proper person(s): in your case, that would be Elseberry and not Dembski
and/or Behe. (perhaps Elseberry has addressed this since the last time I
posted and has shown me to be wrong - but to the best of my knowledge,
neither Behe nor Dembski allow RM & NS as the intelligent designer (of
course, Richard Dawkins does!))
>FMAJ: And I encourage him to show us how he reaches that conclusion. On the
other hand he says he will not address the claim made by Wesley that ID
cannot exclude natural selection as the intelligent designer. He refers to
Dembski to address this. I presume that Dembski has not addresses his
assertion about natural selection having to be NON-ID nor Wesley's assertion.
Does this mean that DNAUnion will retract his first assertion or will he show
the merit of his assertion?
DNAunion: Sure, as soon as all OOL researchers retract their claims that
life arose on Earth by purely-natural processes (an unsupported naturalistic
assumption), and all evolutionists retract their claims that whales evolved
from wolf-like mesonychians (since they still have not ruled out hippo-like
ungulates as the proper ancestors), and all evolutionists retract their
claims that birds evolved from theropods (since it is possible that birds
arose before theropods did), and so on.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 08 2000 - 19:43:19 EDT