>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.
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 : Fri Oct 06 2000 - 01:36:04 EDT