>Welsberry: DNAunion is precisely right in saying that NS is not an
intelligent designer. However, NS has exactly the same characteristics that
Dembski claimed uniquely identified intelligent designers in TDI. My comment
that by Dembski's criteria, NS could be held to be an intelligent designer
was meant to convey to the reader the concept that Dembski's argument was
flawed, not that NS actually therefore *was* an intelligent designer. The
actualization-exclusion-specification triad that Dembski extols is not
exclusive of natural selection. > I hope that clears things up.
> DNAunion: Yes, but I have already made several posts in reply to FMAJ that
mention you - as he repeatedly mentions you and your conclusions. My basic
claims have been (1) NATURAL selection cannot include intelligence and
design, as per Darwin, and (2) that your conclusions are not necessarily an
accurate representation of Dembski's statements/beliefs.
>FMAJ: One is irrelevant
DNAunion: Yet you asked me to support it? Why would you make me waste my
time on something that is irrelevant? Sounds like a mere tactic to me. In
addition, why did you challenge my statement, repeatedly, if it was
irrelevant? And do you now give up simply because your "superhero" Elseberry
says that I was correct all along? Does Elseberry outrank Darwin on NATURAL
selection?
>FMAJ: and (2) remains unsupported.
DNAunion: Nothing to support. I did not say Elseberry's representation was
not accurate, I said it is not necessarily accurate. Furthermore, as I have
stated repeatedly, it is up to Elseberry and Dembski to settle the issue as
it is their positions (and others have already misrepresented Dembski's EF).
If you wish to continue parrotting Elseberry, then be my guest. But you
should stop insisting that Elseberry's conclusion flows without a doubt from
Dembski's statements until Dembski himself says they do. If you want to say
that "Elseberry says…", fine. If you want to say, "… follows directly from
Dembski's EF", then you need to validate that statement first.
>FMAJ: Care to take on the task to show that it is inaccurate?
DNAunion: What, are you unable to understand something even when told 5
times! Or do you just not accept what others say.
>DNAunion: And I stated (2) without reading all of your material FMAJ posted.
>FMAJ: So you were not aware of the full argument then?
DNAunion: Well, we at least know you can read.
>DNAunion: I based it on simple logic and experience. Many anti-ID
scientists (such as Dave Ussery, and Robison from Talk.Origins) have drawn
their own conclusions of what Behe has said, then shown him to be wrong
(Ussery showed that bacterial flagella can have fewer proteins that Behe
"claimed", and Robison showed that the TCA cycle is not IC as Behe"claimed").
However, both were not properly representing Behe's statements - apparently
unintentionally - so their conclusions were irrelevant. Those not familiar
with both sides probably took Ussery's or Robison's position as being
conclusive, even though both were in fact flawed.
>FMAJ: Nice logic. Others were wrong so Wesley could be wrong?
DNAunion: Yes, other well-known anti-ID scientists have made incorrect
representations of ID concepts apparently without meaning to, so it is
possible that Wesley did so also. That sounds logical to me.
>FMAJ: Why not address the arguments?
DNAunion: There's that unwillingness of yours to accept others' statements,
shining through again. Hey, numbskull, pay attention and learn. It doesn't
matter how many times you ask me, I have stated that it is not up to me to
resolve the issue - that is between Elseberry and Dembski. I do not claim to
be a "Dembski-ologist".
>DNAunion: Then there is always the possibility that Demsbki misspoke. What
if Dembski omitted something that made a difference, or added something he
didn't intend to, or was ambiguous on something, etc. His writings may not
be an accurate reflection of his own EF!?! Or what if Dembski has revised
his EF since (I have seen a couple versions of it myself).
>FMAJ: Show that Wesley's argument is wrong or that Dembski misspoke.
DNAunion: Make me.
>FMAJ: So far you are merely speculating.
DNAunion: What is wrong with mere speculation? After all, that is the very
foundation of OOL research! What's more, I make it clear that I am
speculating and not stating things as fact. You should try it sometime.
>DNAunion: I feel that until Dembski himself shows you to be wrong, or
admits that you have shown him to be wrong, that the issue is unresolved,
>FMAJ: On the contrary. THe arguments stand with or without Dembski's
approval
DNAunion: If one is offering a rebuttal/counter-argument to another, then
the issue is not settled until the other person has addressed the validity of
the rebuttal/counter-argument. If I simply say that Elseberry is wrong and
that he misread Dembski, would you accept my word or would you wait for
Elseberry to counter my claim? The best defense of Dembski's position can be
waged only by someone just as familiar with Dembski's position as Dembski
himself. I don't claim to be that "intellectually entangled" with Dembski -
unlike Spock, I cannot perform mindmelds.
>DNAunion: … and that FMAJ and others should make a clear distinction between
what you concluded, and what Dembski states/believes. That is, if they
quote YOUR material, then they should attribute the conclusions and beliefs
to YOU, not Dembski.
>FMAJ: I did not attribute the conclusions to Dembski dear.
DNAunion: I am a man - please don't call me *dear* if you too are a man - I
don't appreciate homosexual advances.
Now, about your statements, you repeatdly imply that Elseberry's conclusion
follows directly and unequivocally from Dembski's and Behe's positions. You
should refrain from saying this and instead merely state "Elseberry says…".
>DNAunion: Please keep this in mind when reading my posts.
>FMAJ: And ignore the increasing use of ad hominems found there as well :-)
DNAunion: Non sequitor. :-)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 16 2000 - 02:01:24 EDT