In a message dated 10/8/2000 10:24:52 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
DNAunion@aol.com writes:
>
> >FMAJ: Irrelevant. You have to show that Darwin is using the same
> definition
> of intelligence as is used by ID. The equivocation of terms leads to a
> confusion of intelligence ala ID which cannot eliminate natural selection
> as
> being an intelligent designer and the use of intelligence by Darwin.
>
> DNAunion: What a load of bull! Let me set you straight on a couple of
> things. First, you are totally wrong about Darwin. He does eliminate
> intelligence and design from NATURAL selection.
So since ID cannot eliminate natural selection and Darwin could, according to
you, it's clear that something must be wrong with the ID argument?
>
> Second, it is YOU who needs to show that Elseberry is using the same
> definitions (such as those for intelligence and design) as are Dembski and
> Behe.
He uses Dembski's own arguments.
Elseberry drew personal conclusions from Dembski's statements that
> Dembski himself apparently does not draw (to the best of my knowledge): that
Of course not. If Dembski had drawn that conclusion he would have undermined
his own hypothesis. But if you disagree with Elsberry's conclusions based on
his logic then I urge you to show why.
> is where the problem lies, and it needs to be resolved before you can make a
> valid claim that Elseberry's conclusion follows directly from Dembski's and
> Behe's statements (had so many anti-IDists who are well-known scientists
> not
> already have misrepresented Behe's claims, then this might not be a
> problem:
> but the history of this debate is that the statements of Behe (and
> Dembski?)
> are frequently mangled - either intentionally or not - such that the
> conclusions reached do not represent those that Behe would have).
>
Please show that Elsberry's analysis did not follow from Behe or Dembski's
argument. Wesley's arguments are clear. What assumption was erroneous. Show
that there are mangled statements. Can you?
> >FMAJ: Where does it follow from ID that the intelligent design requires
> conscious choice?
>
> DNAunion: I never said that ID did REQUIRE conscious choice: I said the
> NATURAL selection excludes it. Get it yet? I doubt it. As far as
>
Why does natural selection exclude it and if so, what does this say about the
ID filter that apparantly disagrees with you?
i
> ntelligence, note that while intelligent direction is excluded from NATURAL
> selection, the word INTELLIGENT is in Intelligent Design.
>
Cool so since ID includes natural selection as the intelligent designer, it
seems that you have just pointed out that something is wrong with ID. Would
you not agree and if not why not?
> >DNAunion:: None that I can think of. The only "choice" I see that fits into
> Darwin's definition is that of the environment acting upon the pheontype:
> this is neither intelligent nor designed (unless you are going to claim
> that
> someone did it the hard way, indirectly, and modified the environment to
> obtain the desired organismal results).
>
> >FMAJ: Ah, you now assert that it is neither intelligent nor designed.
>
> DNAunion: No, that is basically what I have been correctly stating all
> along: that NATURAL selection cannot involve intelligence and design.
>
Cool and since ID cannot exclude natural selection as the intelligent
designer, what does this say about ID?
> >FMAJ: But is that correct?
>
> DNAunion: Of course it is!
>
I am glad that we agree then that if ID concludes that natural selection is
an intelligent designer that there is something really wrong with ID's
arguments? So any chance you will address Wesley's arguments now?
> >FMAJ: It surely does not follow from the definitions of ID as proposed by
> Dembski or Behe.
> Behe on Design: "Purposeful arrangement of parts."
> Ignoring the potential equivocation of purposeful, indeed natural selection
> can lead to purposeful arrangement of parts.
>
> DNAunion: No, we should definitely NOT ignore the very real equivocation.
> What unusual definition of purposeful are you forced to use here to twist
> Behe's statement to fit your point?
>
What definition of purposeful is used to eliminate natural selection ? Are
you now saying that ID is eliminating natural selection by definition? In
that case ID is not really that useful if it's arguments end up not being
able to exclude NS as the Intelligent Designer. Internal inconsistency...
> >FMAJ: What about intelligence? What is meant by intelligent design ala
> Dembski?
> Wesley Elsberry wrote on talk.origins:
>
> DNAunion: There's that problem of yours again! You claim to be stating what
> Dembski means, but you do so by quoting another individual who opposes
> Dembski's views! And you do this continually. You need to start telling the
> truth - starting telling us something like "This is what Elseberry believes
> Demski means…."
>
Your inability to address the comments are duely noted. Your suggestion that
I am not telling the truth is a clear ad hominem that only supports your lack
of argument.
> >FMAJ [parroting, er, uhn, I mean quoting Elseberry}: "I 've read it.
> Dembski merely claims that one can *detect* "design". Detection is not
> explanation. Dembski's "design" is just the residue left when known
> regularity and chance are eliminated. Dembski's arguments that natural
> selection cannot produce "specified complexity" are, to say the least,
> highly
> unconvincing. If "specified complexity" exists at all, …"
>
Nice ad hom.
> DNAunion: Problem #1. Specified complexity does exist. Leslie Orgel states
> that all living things possess specified complexity, and that it sets them
> apart from inanimate objects, such as crystals and random pools of
> biological
> macromolecules. In fact, my last sentence is an example of specified
Appeal to authority. But as Richard and others have already addressed,
Dembski has yet to show that his definition of specified complexity exists.
That Orgel says it exists is not a scientific argument.
> complexity. But Elseberry doesn't even acknowledge that specified complexity
> exists? Is this equivocation of terms. If Elseberry is addressing Dembski's
> CSI and not specified complexity (which Dembski himself does not
> distinguish
> between properly all the time), he should state so.
>
So does CSI exist in nature? Where has this been shown by Dembski?
> But even this does not solve the riddle as Elseberry claims elsewhere that
> the solution to the "100-city-travelling-salesman" problem is an example of
> CSI. So just what is Elseberry saying here?
>
That an algorithm if it can generate (APPARANT) CSI cannot be differentiated
from ACTUAL CSI. If such actually exists. The argument does not depend on the
actual existence of CSI. If it exists then the argument shows some real
problems with Dembski's arguments. If it does not exists then there exists a
fundamental problem with Dembksi's argument. Either way...
> >FMAJ: [quoting Elseberry]: Dembski has not yet excluded natural selection
> as a cause of events with that property."
>
> So is intelligence logical consequence of the design inference or just a
> name
> for that which falls through the filter? It's the latter.
>
> DNAunion: No, you've done it again. DESIGN is what would fall out of the
> filter, not INTELLIGENCE. If one could then go from design to intelligent
> agency is a separate question.
>
Indeed, so design inference cannot exclude natural selection as the designer.
So what's the use then. So how is intelligence infered then? So ID is merely
"D" then? What's the "I" doing there then?
> >FMAJ: How does ID intend to eliminate natural selection as the intelligent
> designer?
>
> DNAunion: I have omitted this part of FMAJ's post as it is nothing but the
> latest in his long series of parroting the same Elseberry's posts from
> elsewhere. If anyone wants to read what I clipped, feel free to read just
> about any one of FMAJ's posts. And since I already informed FMAJ several
> times that I would not address the topic, well, I won't address the topic.
>
And I will remind you of your failing to address this fundamental topic. That
you will not address is further undermines your arguments. If you will not
even defend this major short comming of ID then what do you suggest we should
discuss?
> PS: FMAJ, why don't you provide us with material from Darwin where he DOES
> allow both intelligence and design into NATURAL selection. Go ahead - I bet
>
Non sequitor. You are now misrepresenting my argument.
y
> ou can't. Yet I did - despite your whinings to the contrary - support my
> position that Darwin does not allow intelligence and design into NATURAL
> selection. Go ahead - time to put up or shut up - show me to be wrong!
>
Obviously that shows then that the ID filter must be wrong. After all it
cannot eliminate NS as the intelligent designer. Does that not worry you?
> >FMAJ:Is there a purpose to its actions ?
>
> DNAunion: As was already stated, YOU are using equivocation on the term
> "purposeful". Why not give us your abnormal definition?
>
Why are you suggesting that RM&NS cannot lead to a purposeful arrangement of
parts? THe evolution of the middle ear bones come to mind.
> >FMAJ: Is there a purposeful arrangement of parts ? Is there a predetermined
> fixed goals? These assertions are all begging the question.
>
> DNAunion: How? I like how everything your opponents say is either "begging
> the question", "non sequitor", a "strawman", "irrelevant", or
> "equivocation".
>
If the shoe fits.
Y
> ou don't have the mental tools needed to properly defend your position, so
> you resort to mild-name calling and accusatory claims. And yet the only
Nice ad hominem. People had warned me that you would be doing this. I doubted
their stories but I am obviously shown wrong.
> support you have shown in any of this is your continual parroting of
> Elseberry, which even then, you continually incorrectly claim is Dembski's
> views.
>
I never made that claim. Stop misrepresenting me.
> >DNAunion: "If you have any kind of intelligence and design involved in the
> selection process, then it is not NATURAL selection, b[y] definition."
> Sounds right to me.
>
> >FMAJ: Sure, I understand that it sounds that way, which shows why ID is
> having such problems because it is a logical consequence of the ID thesis.
>
> >DNAunion: No, that is a Elseberry's conclusion, not ID's. Until you stop
> conflating the two, you are just making false statements left and right. If
> you are going to state what ID says, then quote a leading IDist. If you
> want
> to state what an anti-IDist says an IDist says, then you can quote
> Elseberry.
>
Please show that Elsberry's conclusions are erroneous. It's his and my
assertion that this is correct. Care to show it wrong? You are confused that
one need to quite a leading IDist to discuss ID, such appeal to authority is
not very useful. If you disagree with Wesley's argument then show where he is
wrong. But you already stated that you won't.
> >FMAJ: It does not identify the designer, merely design. That people then
> confuse ID with purpose, blueprints etc to eliminate natural selection as
> the
> designer is an ad hoc step, not one that follows logically from the design
> inference.
>
> DNAunion: Not one that follows from Elseberry's version at least!
>
Nor from Debmski's or Behe's. Please feel free to show otherwise.
> >FMAJ:Wesley Elsberry did a great job at showing this.
>
> DNAunion: Elseberry did a great job of telling us what Elseberry concludes.
>
Yep, such a good job that you won't address his claims.
> >FMAJ: I understand that you are waiting for Dembski to address this but his
> argument is not limited to Dembski but in general to ID.
>
> DNAunion: Then why does Elseberry keep mentioning Dembski and his EF in the
> quotes you keep posting?
>
Is Dembski's EF not part of ID? His comments however apply equally to other
ID arguments that identify design not the designer.
> >FMAJ: If you want to define ID to be a purposeful, conscious choice of a
> pathway requiring intelligent choices and a look towards the future
>
> DNAunion: No, I never defined ID as such.
>
Others did. Are you disagreeing with their interpretations?
> >FMAJ: … then this ID for all practical purposes although similar in name
> is quite different in origin and Dembski and Behe's arguments for design
> inference cannot be used to support this new version of design.
>
> DNAunion: You just can't seem to understand that "your" definition is
> Elseberry's, not Behe's and Dembski's. Until you acknowledge this, you will
> continue to make false statements repeatedly.
>
>
>
Please show that I am making false statements. Your ad hominems are surely
piling up.
Shame
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 11 2000 - 01:26:28 EDT