Reflectorites
On Fri, 13 Oct 2000 16:29:42 +0100, Richard Wein wrote:
[...]
>>>SJ>For the umpteenth time I do not claim that "ID does not *require* a
>>>>designer". I claim that ID does not need to specify who (or what) exactly
>>>>the designer(s) is.
>>RW>I distinctly remember seeing you make such a claim,
>SJ>I deny that I have ever claim that ID does not require a designer. If I
>>did, does not Richard think I would have been hammered to death on
>>this by Chris, Susan, FJ/Pim, Wesley, et al? It would be an absurd claim
>>for an IDer to make and in fact would be exactly the same as what
>>Darwinism claims.
>>
>>If Richard still maintains that he "distinctly remember seeing" me
>>"make such a claim" then he is obligated to search his emails and
>>produce the claim.
RW>I said I would "assume it was simply a misunderstanding." Since I made no
>assertion as to whose fault the misunderstanding was, I thought Stephen
>might be content to let the matter drop. No such luck. So I have now
>searched for and found the relevant post, which shows clearly that the fault
>was Stephen's, though I suspect that Stephen, with his usual absence of
>logical thought, will be unable to see this...
>From: Stephen E. Jones <sejones@iinet.net.au>
>Date: 18 August 2000 00:07
>Subject: Re: ID unfalsifiable? (was Designed Designers?)
>
>[start extract]
>>RW>The hypothesis with which we're concerned here, the "ID hypothesis", is the
>>>assertion that "an intelligent designer was involved in the origin of life"
>>>(or something like that).
>SJ>Maybe Richard should take a bit more time to find out first what exactly it
>>is he is claiming to refute. As I have stated a number of times recently, the
>>"ID hypothesis" is not about "an intelligent designer" but about intelligent
>>*design*.
>[end extract]
>(A complete copy of the post is provided as an attachment.)
RW>So Stephen did not state "ID does not require a designer" in so many words.
It is not surprising that I "did not state `"ID does not require a designer'
in so many words" because that was not the issue. The issue was about
the "ID hypothesis". The fact is that the "ID hypothesis" *is* about
"intelligent *design*" not "about `an intelligent designer'"
Richard's own search bears out that Richard's two posts were the first
time anyone claimed that I was saying that ID did not *require* a
designer, and I answered that point as soon as I got to them in
my backlog.
RW>But that's the only logical way to interpret his reply. Of course, given
>Stephen's past record, I'm now quite willing to accept that he didn't really
>mean what he was saying,
I *did* mean what *I* was saying. I did not mean what *Richard* is
trying to make out that I was saying!
RW>and that this was just another example of the
>difficulty he has with thinking logically.
If Richard keeps saying this long enough he might even start believing
it!
>RW>My position *all along* has been that ID requires a designer (of some
>>sort) but that ID does not need to *identify* who the designer was.
>>
>>This was covered by Behe in Darwin's Black Box way back in 1996,
>>and that was what all the threads about an alien designer that Chris and
>>Pim/FJ made so much of.
>>
>>So I must say I am *astonished* that Richard claims to be unaware of
>>my position on this.
>>
>>The nearest that I can think of me saying that "ID does not require a
>>designer" is my speculation that maybe Fred Hoyle's claim that the
>>universe is somehow intelligent would be accepted within ID. Hoyle
>>rejects Darwinism so he is not talking about unintelligent natural
>>processes. His position seems to be a kind of Idealism where a Mind is
>>behind it all. IMHO such a position *might* be acceptable within ID,
>>because it is postulating an intelligent designing agent, apart from
>>unintelligent natural processes.
>>
>>FJ/Pim might claim that this is the same as his `intelligent natural
>>processes' (whatever they are). If so, then again it *might* be
>>acceptable within ID if his `intelligent natural processes' were not just
>>Darwinism's *un*-intelligent natural processes in drag. However, I
>>presume that FJ/Pim has not got the slightest interest in claiming there
>>really are `intelligent natural processes' but it was just another example
>>of his `playing the devil's advocate', i.e. advocating positions he doesn't
>>really believe just for the sake of argument.
>>
>>RW>but I will assume it was simply a misunderstanding.
>>
>>As I have said before, a major part of Richard's "misunderstanding" of
>>what his creationist/ID opponent is saying is that he too easily assumes
>>it must be "irrational" and "nonsense" and so he tends to read into their
>>posts what he wants them to say.
RW>No, I did not *want* you to say it. I would dearly love to have clear and
>unambiguous statements of the ID arguments. It would make them much easier
>to criticise.
Good. Well as I said at the end of my other post, on egroups I am going
to invest some time in FAQs so Richard (if he is on, or moves to egroups)
will have no excuse for "misunderstanding" my position.
RW>Nevertheless, Stephen has drawn attention to a real problem. Usually, if
>someone says something that seems absurd, one tends to assume that it's a
>misunderstanding and asks for clarification. In the case of
>creationists/IDers, however, so much of what they say is absurd that, when
>they accidentally say something absurd, one is liable to assume that they
>really mean it.
While Richard keeps thinking that his opponent's position is "absurd"
he hasn't got much hope of ever understanding what they are saying.
One wonders why Richard even *bothers* debating with "irrational"
opponents who spout "absurd", and "nonsense" arguments?
>>RW>This is the first time I've seen you deny it.
>SJ>I cannot remember anyone put it as bluntly as Richard did. I tend to
>>respond to most things so it is highly unlikely that someone would have
>>claim that I said that `ID does not require a designer' and I did not deny
>>it.
>>
>>If Richard (or anyone) can show that this claim has been made about
>>me and I did not deny it, I would be very interested.
RW>My search turned up 3 cases...
RW>From: Richard Wein <rwein@lineone.net>
>Date: 02 September 2000 10:45
>Subject: Re: The Idea of Design
>[...]
>>a conscious being. Although Stephen claims that ID does not require a
>>designer the major ID proponents make no such absurd claim, as far as I
>>know.
I seem to have missed this one. Richard was actually responding to one of
Chris' posts, not directly to one of mine.
And of course Richard was right. It would have been an "absurd claim"
that no "major ID proponents make". If Richard was not so cock-sure of
himself that I am "irrational", spouting "nonsense", etc, etc, he might
have paused and thought that maybe *he* had it wrong?
RW>From: Richard Wein <rwein@lineone.net>
>Date: 01 October 2000 22:48
>Subject: Re: Behe and design inference: What does it mean?
>[...]
>>Stephen Jones even claims that ID does not necessarily entail a designer.
>>But, if it doesn't entail a designer, what's the point of it? What *does*
>it
>>entail?
This was one of the two I answered at the start of this thread.
>From: Richard Wein <rwein@lineone.net>
>Date: 04 October 2000 10:02
>Subject: Re: Reply to CCogan: Waste and computer evolution
>[...]
>>Stephen Jones, our resident ID proponent, has even claimed that ID does not
>>require a designer!
And so was this.
So it seems I only missed only *one* of Richard's *three* posts where he
claimed that I said "that ID does not require a designer."
RW>Of course, there's no reason why you should read all my posts (I don't read
>all of yours).
I try to read all the responses to my posts (except FJ/Pim's) and then I try to
read as much of the other mail if I have the time. This one seems to have
slipped through.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of
having been designed for a purpose." (Dawkins R., "The Blind
Watchmaker," [1986], Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, p1)
Stephen E. Jones | Ph. +61 8 9448 7439 | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 17 2000 - 17:52:08 EDT