The underlying assumption of ID is the insufficiency of natural causes to account for biological structures and processes.
That is false. The underlying assertion is that it takes an intelligent agency to account for IC and CSI.
That's why I love these design guys. You tell them what they believe, and they tell you "that's false" and tell you what they think they believe, which, as it turns out, was exactly what you said in the first place.
When has nature acting alone been observed to bring life from non-life?
So, what you're saying is, the Fallacy of the False Dilemma is the best support you have for your argument?
Since when did the actual observance of an event make it necessary to infer something about that event?
Not the event; the mechanism.
Darwin couldn't propose natural selection as a mechanism of evolution until he had seen selection in action. Similarly, intelligence can't be proposed as the source of biological systems until we see an intelligence create a biological system.
but there are other words I won't use that describe you very well.
Really? Because so far, the only words you seem unwilling to use are the words that would support your arguments with evidence.
I was merely asking for the positive evidence for materialistic naturalism.
No, you were asked for the evidence for a designer. You offered a supposed lack of evidence for naturalism via a rhetorical question.
But that's the fallacy of the false dilemma. Even if you were to somehow disprove naturalism, that wouldn't substantiate an intelligent designer.
Design is a mechanism.
Design is never a mechanism. Only someone completely ignorant of the way things are made would make such a statement.
Turning something on a lathe? That's a mechanism. Casting in bronze? That's a mechanism.
"Design"? Not a mechanism.
Actually Darwin stole the idea of NS.
Irrelevant. Darwin was the first to propose a scientific model of evolution because he was the first to indentify the mechanisms.
However we still haven't observed NS create anything from scratch.
NS doesn't create, NS selects. RM creates.
Together, we've seen these processes generate endless variety and novelty, as you have been shown in other threads.
Ever hear of genetic engineering?
Certainly, but I've never heard of it doing anything but shuffle genes already created by natural selection and random mutation. I've never heard of any genetic engineers engineering a totally novel organism from scratch, as you would have us believe intelligence can do.
By your logic we can't propose that life or biological structures came about by nature acting alone because we NEVER observed nature acting alone doing so.
No, what you gave was what you viewed as a lack of evidence for naturalism.
Thus, you committed the fallacy of the false dilemma. It really is that simple.
Please point me to where I have been shown this.
Lac operons in E. coli.
Even Theobald's 29 evidences doesn't discuss a mechanism.
The mechanisms are natural selection and random mutation, working together.
Can you support your assertion that the genes were already created by natural selection and random mutation?
Of course. We know that selection occurs because it's impossible for it not to, based on the laws of physics. We know that random mutation occurs because it's impossible for it not to, based on the laws of physics. We don't know of any other operating processes, and have certainly observed none.
In the same way that we conclude that it is gravity that holds you in your seat like everybody else and not your own personal invisible angels, we conclude that these genes were the process of NS and RM.
No one has ever heard of nature acting alone bring about a totally novel organism from scratch.
Since it only had to happen once, and could not now happen on Earth, that's not surprising.
Nice unsubstantiated assertion.
You believe that it is merely an assertion that organisms reproduce? Or that organisms take non-living matter as food in order to construct themselves?
This message has been edited by crashfrog, 09-18-2004 12:07 PM
Meyer's article was published the same way other scientists get their articles published, via peer-review.
The journal is a journal of systematics and taxonomy. This is not an article on those subjects.
Clearly, peer-review did not occur. Moreover, from the journal itself:
quote:The paper by Stephen C. Meyer in the Proceedings (“The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories,” vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239) represents a significant departure from the nearly purely taxonomic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 124-year history. It was published without the prior knowledge of the Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, or the associate editors. We have met and determined that all of us would have deemed this paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings.
This message has been edited by crashfrog, 09-27-2004 11:13 AM
The identity of the peer reviewers is not known, and that they supposedly "found merit" in the article has made everyone very suspicious that Sternberg hand-chose the reviewers because he knew they were sympathetic.
So they weren't exactly "peers", were they? Peer review did not occur, then, in the sense that peer review constitutes a practice designed to fairly judge a paper on its scientific merits, not its ideology. Is the process was perverted, as it probably was, then can it really be said to have occured?