Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 24. August 2003 19:21
Nelson exemplifying the "argument from ignorance" states that "I already discussed why I think IC forms a barrier to natural selection. Not all the steps in producing these systems is selectable."
Of course that is 1) begging the question especially with yet to be formulated evolutionary pathways 2) irrelevant to the question of natural pathways which of course selectable pathways but are not limited to such. So lacking any evidence that under all circumstances steps in natural pathways are and remain unselectable, one may at most argue, we don't know but there is no a priori reason to reject the possibility of such pathways. Any such rejection becomes an issue of faith.
As far as not correcting anything, you claimed Macnab as the source and later on corrected this attribution. As I have shown, resemblance, similarity or analogy are fallacious arguments ever since Paley...
Nelson: Just telling you what the experts are saying. Most people see design in nature.
Sure, so do I, natural pathways are however the designers. Nelson argues "I disagree that it can likely do so." but without any such pathways or calculations this again becomes an issue of faith.
Wrt a pump and the heart Nelson argues that "Those are not superficial resemblances. The heart is a pump." and yet I doubt that Nelson wants to argue that the heart was intelligently designed?
Nelson continues his argument from ignorance when he states that "Irreducible complexity eliminates natural selection in that it focuses on which steps are not functional and therefore not selectable."
But 1) it does not eliminate all natural pathways 2) it cannot eliminate natural selection without plausible pathways. As such these claims are appeal to ignorance, namely the absence of plausible pathways and the calculation of said implausibilities.
Nelson now sidetracks the issue when I point out that Behe admitted that indirect pathways exist by stating "Thats not Behe's argument about indirect pathways. Behe's argument about indirect pathways is that the more complex an irreducible system is, the less likely an indirect pathway can generate it." but Behe gives no plausible or event implausible support for his arguments here.
Nelson moves the goalposts once again when requiring to see the actual common ancestors but I do not require Nelson to show us the designers merely show independent evidence of such. I can show evidence of natural selection and mutation, and can argue that such processes have been prevalent throughout the history of life. No independent evidence of said intelligent designers, other than the existence of natural processes as such designers, has been provided so far.
Nelson finally seems to recognize his appeal to ignorance when he asks "which pathways do we have to eliminate". Exactly, without any pathways at most ID can appeal to ignorance when it does not propose any plausible pathway, process supportive of intelligent design(ers). And yet if Nelson takes Dembski's filter seriously he would realize how important it is for ID to be able to avoid any false positives and thus has to consider any and all known and yet to be stated pathways lest it either becomes an appeal to ignorance or susceptible to the specter of false positives and thus again not a reliable indicator of design
IP: Logged
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic