At 01:35 AM 10/06/2000, you wrote:
> >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. 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 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.
>
> >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.
>
> >FMAJ: That's quite a difference.
>
>DNAunion: Sure, if it were true.
>
> >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.
>
>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.
Chris
You mean, such as that metal parts such as those used in engines are known
to be designed? Yes, *if* the thing in question is built of parts that are
known to be designed, and assembled in a way that is already known to be a
product of design, then such an "inference" is trivially easy. But such
cases are essentially irrelevant to the question of whether life on Earth
is designed and has been manipulated along the way. If you can show me the
machining marks, the screws, the factories, and so on that indicate design,
please do. But, it is my understanding that few humans were around in those
early days, and we have not found any "ruins" of factories, no remnants of
design documents, and the production of life seems to occur today without
intervention, and we know that automobile engines do *not* reproduce themselves
>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?
>
>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.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 09 2000 - 12:20:01 EDT