In a message dated 10/8/2000 10:47:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
DNAunion@aol.com writes:
> >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.
>
One is irrelevant and (2) remains unsupported. Care to take on the task to
show that it is inaccurate?
> And I stated (2) without reading all of your material FMAJ posted. I based
>
So you were not aware of the full argument then?
i
> t 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.
>
Nice logic. Others were wrong so Wesley could be wrong? Why not address the
arguments?
> 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).
>
Show that Wesley's argument is wrong or that Dembski misspoke. So far you are
merely speculating.
> 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
>
On the contrary. THe arguments stand with or without Dembski's approval
o
> thers 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.
>
I did not attribute the conclusions to Dembski dear.
> Please keep this in mind when reading my posts.
>
>
And ignore the increasing use of ad hominems found there as well :-)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 11 2000 - 01:06:48 EDT