>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.
And I stated (2) without reading all of your material FMAJ posted. 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.
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).
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, 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.
Please keep this in mind when reading my posts.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 09 2000 - 01:47:08 EDT