>Chris: Not so. For the same general burden of proof reasons, we may
presume until evidence indicates otherwise, that the intelligent causes, if
any, are naturalistic.
> DNAunion: So "you guys" win by default? You don't need a shred of
evidence, you just simply win. "You guys" have no burden of proof to bear?
Nice double standards.
>FMAJ: No it isn't.
DNAunion: Yes it is, as you yourself confirm.
>FMAJ: ID is based on the elimination of naturalistic mechanisms (or
chance) and as such indeed we may presume either naturalistic causes (if such
can be formulated) or "we don't know".
DNAunion: Yep, just as I said. IDists have to "prove" their position:
"naturalists" don't. Why is something not presumed to be intelligently
designed until a purely-natural explanation is presented? Answer: The
current ground rules of science, which were setup by "naturalists". (A
philosopher of science would be better able to support my statement than I).
>FMAJ: Either way, the conclusion is not ID. Of course there is a burden of
proof if the claim that a particular naturalistic pathway did it but in order
to show that ID applies it has to be shown that no naturalistic pathway
applied.
DNAunion: Yep, just as I said. IDists have to "disprove" ALL other possible
explanations: "naturalists" don't have to disprove ANY non-purely-natural
explanations.
Note also that you yourself only mention any burden of proof on naturalists
in respect to their "proving" one naturalistic explanation over another
naturalistic explanation. Interesting, isn't it?
>FMAJ: That's quite a burden but inherent to the ID argument.
DNAunion: Yep, built right into science: imposed by the ground rules of
science as defined by naturalists. Thanks for supporting my statements.
Now, what would be fair? It would be fair if neither side and no
explanations could be claimed as scientific fact until such a position was
actually fully supported.
>Chris: Further, since we only have a theoretical means of recognizing
intelligent design by naturalistically-occurring beings (i.e., humans, aliens
(because they would necessarily live under the same *basic* conditional
factors, limitations, and constraints as we do)), we have yet another reason
for presuming that any "design" we claim to see should be regarded by
presumption as design by metaphysically naturalistic beings.
>DNAunion: I agree that the items I listed are not supernatural, and thus
could be somehow (mis)classified as "natural", but you cannot get away from
the fact that they do not arise by purely-natural means: merely by the laws
of physics and chemistry: that intelligence must direct their creation. You
don't go out to a beach and see a computer or an airplane or a television set
form before your eyes by the simple shuffling of atoms and molecules.
>FMAJ: That by itself is not sufficient evidence of supernatural design.
DNAunion: So? Stop and listen to the people to whom you are responding:
stop imposing your single homogenous, prejudiced, and stereotypical
"religious" and "supernaturalist" labels on all IDists. Show me in any of my
statements at this site where I am arguing for supernatural design. Can't?
Didn't think so. Why? Because I am not. If you are going to reply to me,
then please do so. If you just want to rant on about something unrelated to
my arguments, then take it elsewhere.
>FMAJ: Your claim that intelligence needs to direct their creation implies
inclusion of natural selection as the intelligent designer.
DNAunion: No, your statement again shows your overriding desire to twist
everything around to your favorite point, no matter how unrelated the
original material is. How does my stating that a four-stroke reciprocating
internal combustion engine (or a television) needs intelligence and design in
its creation imply that natural selection is an intelligent designer? Please
explain your goofy logic.
>FMAJ: You see intelligence is not necessary, merely an algorithm, a
process. The last example confuses natural selection i.e. regularity with
chance.
DNAunion: Could it be that you really have no idea what you are talking
about in your arguments against ID? Do you just throw together a few of the
catch phrases (regularity, algorithm, natural selection, etc.), misusing them
sometimes ("natural selection i.e. regularity") and give the appearance of
making a factual or coherent claim? (that is, when you are not trying to
directly drag every single conversation back to your single anti-ID point -
which is most of the time). Could you try to figure out what it was you were
trying to say (about my mentioning that a four-stroke reciprocating internal
combustion engine - or a TV - needs intelligence and design in its creation)
and restate it coherently?
>DNAunion: If you want to classify intelligent input by ETI's, computer and
other engineers, systems analysts and computer programmers, electricians and
electrical engineers, geneticists, protein engineers, etc. as natural, that
is your business. The general consensus is that such input is better defined
as intelligent, and that the items produced by such intelligences (as listed
above) are NOT natural.
>FMAJ: By definition you are excluding natural processes as intelligent.
DNAunion: Polly want a cracker? (After all, all you ever do is parrot this
single Elseberry claim).
>FMAJ: If that is the case then ID has lost its foundation in a scientific
foundation and has now become a definition of non-natural.
DNAunion: Your statements are flawed and your argument invalid. Were life
on Earth to have been seeded by an ETI (after that race of ETIs designed and
created it), Earth-life would have been intelligently designed and could have
arisen without a "drop" of natural selection being involved in the process
itself. The process could completely exclude natural selection and
completely exclude supernatural intervention, and still be intelligent
design. Can't you grasp this flaw of yours that I keep pointing out?
>FMAJ: While perhaps theologically satisfying this is not scientifically
satisfying.
DNAunion: While you arguments may be personally satisfying to you, they are
based on flawed premises.
>Chris: If you, or Behe, or Johnson, or Dembski, or anyone else can come up
with a *rational* way of specifying what divine design would necessarily look
like, then go right ahead.
> DNAunion: If you, [someone who posts here], Dawkins, or Orgel, or anyone
else can come up with a valid and detailed explanation for the purely-natural
origin of life here on Earth, go right ahead. In the meantime, "you guys"
should not state as fact that it occurred here on Earth by purely natural
means: assumptions are not the same as facts, no matter how much
"naturalists" wish them to be.
>FMAJ: We have however evidence of natural processes. Does ID have evidence
of supernatural processes?
DNAunion: No, numbskull, it doesn't have to because ID doesn't have to be
supernatural! Learn that fact: Accept that fact: Incorporate that fact into
your arguments (i.e., drop the strawman).
[snip same old stuff by FMAJ]
>DNAunion: By the way, why must "you guys" always turn "our" arguments into
GOD arguments. I notice that the word GOD (and divine etc.) come up far more
by anti-IDists than by IDists. Why? Because "you guys" want so badly to
label ID as a religious idea.
>FMAJ: Then provide us with an ID pathway that is not supernatural. I'd love
to see you propose one and then we can determine what evidence exists to
support it.
DNAunion: Those are two separate things. I have already proposed a
non-supernatural and non-religious ID position: that life on Earth appeared
according to a form of Directed Panspermia. This by itself invalidates your
whole "label" strategy.
As far as evidence, all I have at this point is analogy (in what we humans
have done and are planning to do) along with the fact that intelligent
intervention could overcome all the hurdles associated with a purely-natural
OOL here on Earth under the conditions presumed present at that time, in the
limited amount of time available. To me, this speaks of a form of
ID-Directed Panspermia as being more parsimonious with the known data.
>DNAunion: What if all of "us guys" continually mislabeled evolution as an
atheistic idea? If in every single reply "we" made - not just here and not
just us, but every IDist and every Creationist on every board, book, and TV
show - began driving in the "fact" that all evolutionists were atheists (or
even Nazis): would you consider that fair? I don't think
>FMAJ: Non sequitor.
DNAunion: Sorry to disappoint you once again, but the reversal of positions
is valid. You (and others of your ilk) setup the strawman argument that ID
is purely religious and deals only with a supernatural designer. But you see
no problem with this. However, when I propose that IDists and Creationists
turn the table and label all "evolutionists" as atheists - to demonstrate the
error of your ways using reverse logic - you just brush it aside as
irrelevant. You don't like to think about your own tactics being used
against you, do you?
>DNAunion: So why do "you people" keep doing to "us people" what you would
not want us to do to you - that is, make the other person's beliefs out to be
something they are not in order to gain some points.
>FMAJ: Non sequitor, distraction from the issue.
DNAunion: Nope. This is exactly the issue. You (and other like you)
repeatedly and consistently present your incorrect interpretation of ID in
order to gain some quick and easy points. How would you react were "We" to
do the same for your evolutionary position? The question is valid: you just
wish to avoid it as to answer it, you would be, to some extent, acknowledging
your side's own wrongdoing. That is why you keep misclassifying my counter
arguments as "non sequitur" and a "distraction". The only thing I am
"distracting" from is your incorrect views: not a valid point you are making.
>Chris: But, until then, and until evidence is found that "works" better
with that concept of divine design than with naturalistic design, divine
design is verbal and conceptual fog.
> DNAunion: Great - so when was I talking about divine design? Who are you
addressing? Surely not me. If you are going to respond to MY posts, then
doesn't it make that you respond to MY statements?
>FMAJ: So what do you suppose designed ID?
DNAunion: Your question makes little sense. Care to elaborate on your
thoughts further so that I might be able to understand what it is you are
asking?
>DNAunion: By the way, using your logic, I come up with, "But until then,
until evidence is found that works better with the concept of a
purely-natural origin of life here on Earth than with an
intelligently-directed model, then abiogenesis is verbal and conceptual fog."
>FMAJ: A few problems with this argument: First of all concepts of a natural
origin of life exist. What is the intelligently directed model?
DNAunion: Simple - ETIs designed and created life as we know it and then
seeded Earth with it. Thus, a concept of non-supernatural, non-religious ID
origin of Earthly life.
By the way, if there are dozens of "concepts of a natural origin of life" on
Earth, and there was only a single origin of life - as is assumed - then the
VERY BEST naturalists could hope for was being wrong dozens of ways - 1!
Scary, isn't it.
>FMAJ: Until ID stops relying on elimination of natural pathways, ID can and
will not contribute much to science.
DNAunion: Irrelevant to the point being discussed. By the way, I noticed
how you said that there were a *few* problems with my statement, yet you
presented only one which was easily handled.
>FMAJ:Let's focus on evolution for instance,
DNAunion: No. The rest of your response is irrelevant to my statements you
were addressing: you have switched the subject from the OOL to life's
subsequent evolution
[snip FMAJ's irrelevant stuff]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 08 2000 - 21:14:40 EDT