Re: WHY DOES THE UNIVERSE WORK?

From: Chris Cogan (ccogan@telepath.com)
Date: Mon Oct 16 2000 - 13:39:23 EDT

  • Next message: Susan Cogan: "Re: Schutzenberger"

    At 11:16 AM 10/16/2000, you wrote:
    >In a message dated 10/16/2000 1:02:10 AM Pacific Daylight Time, DNAunion
    >writes:
    >
    > > >FMAJ: Cool but a non sequitor. We do not have evidence of inteligent
    > design
    > > as it applies to biology.
    > >
    > > >Nucacids: Ever hear of Dolly? Ever hear of a transgenic mouse? Or a
    > > rabbit that glows green when placed under a black light?
    > >
    > > >FMAJ: Interesting examples, but none apply to pre-existing biological
    > > systems. That humans can manipulate genes is still no evidence that this
    > > happened in the past.
    > >
    > > > DNAunion: Your attempt at changing the subject to save face is noted.
    > >
    > > >FMAJ: Please explain the relevance of this to evidence of design?
    > >
    > > DNAunion: Okay stupid. You said, "We do not have evidence of inteligent
    > > design as it applies to biology." Nucacids provided you with valid
    > > examples of intelligent design in biology. You rejected his valid counter
    > > examples to your ludicrous claim, and changed the subject to asking about
    > > evidence - apparently empirical - of intelligent design in the past. That
    > > much is obvious - you were outright, plainly, no one can deny, purely,
    > > unequivocally wrong: and you attempted to divert us all from this fact by
    > > playing a typical sleight of hand trick, hoping no one would notice or at
    > > least not comment.
    > >
    >FMA
    >So there is evidence that we can intervene in biology in an intelligent
    >manner. But my question was "do we have any evidence of ID in biological
    >systems"? Of course not. There is no evidence of design in biological systems.

    Chris
    He's apparently arguing from the obvious fact that we *can* intervene
    biologically to "design" life to the conclusion that life *is* designed.
    This is an obvious non-sequitur.

    However, he could argue from this fact to the conclusion that it is
    theoretically *possible* that life on Earth is designed. But, I think most
    of us *already* agree that it is *possible* to design life.

    The question is not, *Could* life on Earth have been designed? but rather,
    *Is* (or *was*) life on Earth designed?



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 16 2000 - 13:44:28 EDT