In a message dated 10/5/2000 8:46:57 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
DNAunion@aol.com writes:
> >DNAunion: I will not address Welsberry's claim that Demski's filter allows
> RM & NS to act as an intelligent designer: I think Demski himself should
> address the merit of that. But I will comment on another point you brought
> up.
>
> >FMAJ: Why will you not comment on this? Why should it be left to Dembski
> to
> determine the merit of the argument?
>
> DNAunion: One reason is because "YOU GUYS" won't accept anyone else's
> answers in regards to Dembski's EF but Dembski's!
>
I think you misunderstand "us guys". Dembski made some claims and people on
this reflector have asked him to provide any supporting evidence. In this
case there is an analysis by Wesley that shows that ID cannot exclude natural
selection as an intelligent designer. So why can this not be discussed?
> Was it Paul Nelson (I don't remember) who posted here a couple days ago
> about
> Dembski's filter? Whoever it was, "you guys" would not accept the
> calculations Paul gave references to, nor would you accept Paul's own words
> either: "you guys" as much as demanded that Dembski himself answer the
> questions: Dembski's word and no one else's. And at least one of "you
> guys"
> stated this requirement explicitly. So why would "you guys" take my word
> on
> something that Dembski himself has not addressed?
Non sequitor. You are comparing apples and oranges. So will you address the
comments by Wesley?
>
> >DNAunion: First, I think the ID movement is not a single unified
> movement,
> just as evolution is not a single unified movement (what I mean by that is
> that even though all evolutionists agree that evolution occurs, they
> disagree
> about the rate, the importance of different mechanisms, the proper
> ancestors
> of different extant animals, etc.).
>
> >FMAJ: Do all ID'ers admit that natural selection can be an intelligent
> designer?
>
> DNAunion: Can't you read! I said I would not address that. Don't tell
> me,
> let me guess. From now on, in every post you direct to me, you are going
> to
> ask that same question - right?
>
All evolutionists agree that evolution occurs. Perhaps the similarities were
not that useful?
> Okay, if you do, here is the one I will ask you every time in return. FMAJ,
> can you explain in detail the steps involved in the origin of life?
>
Nope. Does this mean that it was therefore designed? After all is that not
the ID approach? Also this is irrelevant to evolution.
Can you provide us with the steps involved in the evolution of an
intelligently designed system?
> >FMAJ: So we now have gradations of "intelligence" from non-intelligent to
> computer programs "some intelligence". The issue with the use of the term
> intelligence is exactly that it is so poorly defined.
>
> DNAunion: The terms life, evolution, and species are also poorly defined.
> So I guess we should stop using them too, huh? That's it all you
> biologists
> - go home. Biology instructors, get a new job. We can no longer discuss
> biology because its terms are too poorly defined!
>
Evolution is harldy that poorly defined. Species are somewhat arbitrarily
defined but that does not make these terms useless. They have very distinct
definitions in various areas.
> >FMAJ: Does ID include natural selection as an intelligent designer as
> follows from the thesis?
>
> DNAunion: Okay, here we go: FMAH, can you explain to me in detail the
> steps
> involved in the origin of life?
>
Non sequitor. Your avoidance of addressing the issue is duely noted.
> >DNAunion: However, other IDists reject such a notion stating that such
> systems are NOT intelligent. >>
>
> >FMAJ: Based on what premises and logic I wonder?
>
> DNAunion: So, IDists are a bit wishy washy on a couple of terms. They
> might
> as well just throw in the towel, right? But wait, are viruses living or
> not?
> I guess biologist are a bit wishy washy on their terms too, so they too
> might as well just throw in the towel!
>
Non sequitor. They should not throw in the towel, they should define their
terms to follow logically from their premises.
> By the way, Darwin stated the term SPECIES was "wishy washy" (i.e.,
> disputable). So shouldn't his theory of the origin of SPECIES - note the
> word - have been discarded immediately?
>
Non sequitor. But just out of curiosity, what did Darwin say and where? For
ID it is quite important to be able to exclude natural selection as the
intelligent designer. If they want to exclude it per definition then they
have a problem, if they cannot exclude it they have a problem. Either way ID
requires some additional work it seems.
> >DNAunion: In addition, I disagree with Dawkins that things like spider webs
> are not designed or intelligently produced in any manner whatsoever. In
> "Climbing Mount Improbable", Dawkins takes up about 4 or 5 pages explaining
> all the details and intricacies that go into a spider's efforts to
> construct
> a web - and the logic that is needed (before step X can be done, the spider
> must - and does - first do step W or else....). To me, if some intricate,
> detailed, and exacting process must be carried out to produce something,
> then
> it is not generated purely-natural: it is either designed or intelligently
> created or both. The laws of physics and chemistry alone do not produce a
> spider web: the input of the spider is also needed.
>
> >FMAJ: Exactly why algorithms cannot be excluded as sources of
> "intelligence
> then".
>
> DNAunion: What "exactly" are you talking about? Could you explain what I
> said that led you to this conclusion, and more precisely state you
> conclusion
> in addition?
>
The steps needed to build a web are determined by strict rules and details
that are followed. Such rules are also well captured in algorithms. Simple
algorithms can generate some quite intricate "designs".
For instance
http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho44.htm
" The Fibonacci series is a sequence of numbers where each number is the sum
of the two previous numbers: 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,... It is called after the
thirteenth-century Florentine mathematician Leonardo Fibonacci who first
defined it. A surprising fact is that the Fibonacci series can be found in
the arrangement of leaves on the stem of higher plants. In the great majority
of plants with spiral arrangement, the arrangement conforms to Fibonacci
numbers [6]. Now this looks a perfect case of design [10]. Is it indeed a
case of design according to Dembski's Explanatory Filter? Is it a contingent
system? "
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Oct 06 2000 - 00:06:47 EDT