Re: Directed evolution: evidence for teleology?

--- Cornelius Hunter <ghunter2099@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:

> > I notice you are not answering my question really.
> ID
> > basically says, we do not understand X, thus X
> > must have been designed.
>
> Well, I wanted to understand your objections. If you
> want a response I'll
> provide one, but then will let you have the last
> word. My response would be
> that I don't doubt there are valid objections to
> most if not all particular
> design inferences. I haven't found, however,
> persuasive arguments for why
> IDs design inference, *in general,* fails the grade.

Because ID design inference arguments in general are
based on the same flawed argument from ignorance via
an eliminative approach.

> Your point above
> obviously relies on the position that evolutionary
> explanations for the
> flagellum are reasonably compelling. I think the
> argument is valid but not
> sound. Furthermore, your argument assumes the design
> inference for the
> flagellum is mostly from ignorance which is false.

So explain to me, how does ID explain the flagellum?
And how is my argument valid but not sound? What does
one have to do for an ID proponent to take a
scientific stance?

Also, how reasonable I believe the explanations to be
is of no relevance. The mere existence of explanations
competes with the ignorance of ID. What can ID do
here?

> Same as above. I wanted to understand your
> objections. If you want a
> response I'll provide one, but then will let you
> have the last word. These
> again are valid objections, but whether or not they
> are sound will depend on
> one's religious beliefs. You obviously have some
> religious beliefs that
> exclude ID. IDs don't share your beliefs.

I have scientific beliefs that let me easily reject ID
based on it being scientifically vacuous. My Christian
faith leads me to observe how hiding one's God in the
ignorance our knowledge is not my kind of worship.
Received on Sun Oct 16 02:08:54 2005