In a message dated 10/9/00 11:20:30 AM Central Daylight Time,
ccogan@telepath.com 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. 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.
DNAunion: It seems to me that even a person who has absolutely no idea how
car engines are produced (say someone from a "lost" civilization in the
Amazon) would still recognize that a reciprocating, four-stroke internal
combustion engine were designed if the operation of the device were explained
to him in detail.
>Chris: 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.
DNAunion: If you can show me the purely natural pathway from non-life to
life, then please do so.
>Chris: But, it is my understanding that few humans were around in those
early days, and we have not found any "ruins" of factories,
DNAunion: Irrelevant. I am not claiming that life was designed and
manufactured in factories here on Earth 4 billion years ago.
>Chris: ... no remnants of design documents,
DNAunion: Irrelevant. I am not claiming that life was designed and
manufactured in factories here on Earth 4 billion years ago.
>Chris: ... and the production of life seems to occur today without
intervention
DNAunion: Irrelevant. The origin of life does not occur today.
>Chirs: ...and we know that automobile engines do *not* reproduce themselves.
DNAunion: We also know that prebiotic molecules do NOT reproduce themselves.
And we do have direct evidence of robots creating novel robots without being
told how to do it, with the editor of "Wtired" (I believe) stating that we
need to be cautious as we will soon be creating self-replicating robots.
************************************
>DNAunion: 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 : Sun Oct 15 2000 - 19:45:15 EDT