Dawn Bertot writes:
Evolution only addresses the 'diversification' and is compatible with an origin of life by a deity or a designer or a natural process.
So basically I disagree with your counter above.
Pointing out that evo only address diversification, is not the same as demonstrating that it can logically be seperated as a rational approach, in argument form
Peter writes:
So can I ask you this:
Does anything in the stated Theory of Evolution make reference to the origin of the first self-replicating cell?
My argument is that logically it does not need to make any reference to the origins. It starts at a situation in which there are a number of diverse species in evidence, and seeks to explain how that can have happened.
It DOES lead to the question of that origin, but DOES NOT seek to answer that question.
The two questions are niether logically nor functionally coupled in such a way that one relies on a particular answer to the other.
representing ID as an philosophical underpinning and suggesting that one need not concern themselves the how of or why of a thing, is not logical or resonable.
Peter writes:
ID is mainly concerned with the origin question ... isn't it?
ID accepts diversification by natural processes (at least within species), and does not seek to explain THAT in any other way than evolution -- does it?
Speciation is (as I understand it) the area that ID targets, along with the first origin.
You need to demonstrate this not simply state a fact concerning what evo is or does
Peter writes:
I don't think I need to state what evolution seeks to explain -- we both appear to agree on that.
Beyond referring to the theory of evolution, and it's scope, I don't see how one can demonstrate any more clearly that the 'origin' question is not involved -- but arises as a separate question.
Content and color of the case is just the start, its in your face, so to speak. While it may have nothing to do w/ how immediately, it will eventually and cannot be seperate in any logical approach. Wouldnt you agree?
Peter writes:
No, I wouldn't agree.
If I am asking about the content of the briefcase, I have no interest in the manufacturing facility within which it was made.
One might wonder how it got there, but the answer to that question has no bearing on the colour or content of the briefcase -- and is therefore irrelevant if your 'question' is 'What's inside?' or 'What colour is this?'
Wonderment is not the issue involved. "Scientist" make a boast of being completley accurate and thorough in their approach to the natural world. To do so, an examination into the why is only rational and reasonable in logical formated approach correct
Peter writes:
I thought Scientists merely stated that a theory is either consistent with evidence or not.
How concsistent is it for these "scientists" to claim accuracy in their SM, then trun right around and claim how the suitcase got there as not important or suggest they are not concerned how it got there, as a part of the scientific processes
Your attempt in point out the differnce in the two is noble, but it does not solve the problem from any logical and scientific approach
No-one has to reject the claims of ID .... ID proponents have to convince the scientific community that they are on to something.
because they confuse the conclusion of ID w/ its approach, they assume ID exponents have "nothing". When in fact the approach and method is exacally the same. The SM in this connection starts and finishes the same way
Peter writes:
If ID does NOT follow the scientific method then it is, by definition, not scientific.
Whether it's approaches are valid or not is another question, but from what I have seen the starting point is an assumption rather than an observation -- therefore the whole concept is (as currently stated) flawed.
They get lost in the details and specifics of an examination of the minutness of the natural world and mistakenly assume that this minutia, is somehow a better process than the general approach of investigation itself.
Further hypothesis, tests and retest, will not result in a opposite conclusion of order and law,nor will it give a better or more accurate answer, than the only two possibilites for the explanation of things
Peter writes:
I think there are more than two possible explanations for anything -- some are more correct than others though -- in thelight of evidence that is.
The reason the ID approach has stood the test of time is because it is naturally and ratioanlly based.
Peter writes:
The reason is has lasted is that it's proponents are zealots.
Investigations start with observations, not conclusions. They then form a testable hypothesis ... then test it.
The conclusions come from the results of the 'testing'.
If you start with a conclusion and work backwards it's amazing what you can apparently 'proove'!!
This is ofcourse what I have been pleading for someone to do. Demonstrate how an examination into the natural world and its law and order is starting with a conclusion
Peter writes:
Evolution (to simplify a lot) starts with a simple observation : There are many different species of animals.
It then proposes that this can come about by accumulation of random changes coupled with environmental pressure (again simplified because the full details are not the point here).
ID (possibly simplified) starts with the assumption that : All complex entities must have been designed.
There is no underpinning observation ... ID starts with a conclusion.
Perhaps the ID observation is that living things are complex, and seeks to answer the question of how did that complexity arise?
demonstrate that further investigation and further investigation and testing of the details of the eye for example and how they work together to a purpose, is starting with a conclusion
Peter writes:
The conclusion is that they have 'purpose' ... but the ID investigation has already assumed intelligent design.
The truth of the matter is that all people start with some preconcieved ideas. You dont think MR Darwin sat on Gallapogus (sorry if that is not how you spell it) and had all the data he needed to confirm all his theories do you?
Peter writes:
We all have context ... that's why science needs peer review. Unfortunately ID appears to ignore the 'peers' who disagree.
Further experiments hundreds of years later have proved no better in a dismisal of the order and law to the conclusion of a designer
Peter writes:
But there is a good body of evidence to suggest that 'design' can be achieved from a simple, natural process.
... it's a bit like fractals. Some very simple 'rules' can lead to some highly complicated patterns.
What you are actually seeing is a hatred for religion and its tenets, disguised under the academic outcries of foul and unscientific
Is that a tactic to try to avoid discussing the issues raised?
if you feel it is you are free to demonstrate what I have avoided, or any conclusions to that affect
Peter they dont want Design taught, not because it cant be accurately demonstrated, but because they are afraid the flood gates would be open for any religion to tout their claims and they percieve it as a step backwards
Peter writes:
In the UK I would guess that ID would be taught in a religous studies class ...
When in fact it is only a logical and rational approach to the nature of things. It cannot be accurately demonstrated as invalid, unscientifc (if we use science in its original form) or irrational
Peter writes:
But it is contradictory:
A) All complex entities must be designed => There must be a designer
A) above leads to the conclusion that the designer MUST be simple (since it itself was not designed). What could be simpler than a set of 'natural laws' ?
I was there in my time in the service, (3 YEARS), in a small town called Brandon, I LOVE ENGLAND
Dawn Bertot
Dawn Bertot
™ Version 4.2
