Re: Stereotypes and reputations

From: Pim van Meurs <pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed Aug 03 2005 - 23:25:36 EDT

Glenn Morton wrote:

>
>
> */Cornelius Hunter <ghunter2099@sbcglobal.net>/* wrote:
>
>
> CH wrote: ID makes no such assumption. Instead, it tries to
> determine methods and criteria that can be used to objectively
> discern design.
>
> GRM: Ok, work an example for me. Show me why the mole's nose is
> designed. Show the work. What parameters do you use. This is a
> serious question. I have yet to see someone actually discuss and
> illustrate why design MUST be there inbiological systems via a
> worked example of this new science of design.
>
A good question because typically ID relies on ignorance to infer
design. In other words, design is inferred when chance and necessity
cannot explain it and it is specified. Of course, the latter is trivial
when it comes to nature.

>
>
> CH:There is a need for this since naturalism simply presupposes
> law-like processes must always work, without checking to see if
> that makes sense. No matter how difficult the problem, and how
> badly law-like processes explain the data, naturalism can never
> give up its quest for, as Pim has reminded us so many times, that
> would be an argument from ignorance.
>
> GRM: Are you aware that we use laws because they work? THe laws
> of physics work.
>
>
> CH wrote: ID tries to address this difficult question without
> simply making an argument from ignorance. Note that ID leaves
> unanswered a whole raft of why / how questions that you are
> asking. These are philosophical / theological questions that are
> outside the scope of ID.
>
>
The problem is that ID does make an argument from ignorance and does not
fill in any detail other than claiming that since we cannot explain it
using chance and necessity, we should conclude design. Not a very
defensible argument. Imagine that science were to work that way...

Michael Roberts wrote:

> I think Glenn and Pim are as thick as me. I simply cant work out what
> Cornelius is saying and he seems to have read a different Charles
> Darwin to me.

I have similar problems with Cornelius and his arguments about CD being
falsified. He refuses to address the vaste amounts of congruent data,
instead focuses on minor puzzles, throws in some random quotes from
evolutionists and voila a nice mix of what...

> Funnily enough I can usually work out what Glenn and Pim are saying.
>
> Could it be that I am not intelligently designed and merely evolved
> from a monkey?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Cornelius Hunter <mailto:ghunter2099@sbcglobal.net>
> *To:* Glenn Morton <mailto:glenn_morton@yahoo.com> ; Pim van Meurs
> <mailto:pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com>
> *Cc:* asa <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 03, 2005 7:42 PM
> *Subject:* Re: Stereotypes and reputations
>
> Glenn and Pim:
>
> I am now seeing the same questions repeated which I have already
> answered. So I'll give one last response, and let you two have the
> last word. I will respond if you have something new to say, or if
> someone else on the list wants to chime in.
>
>
The reason why the same questions are repeated is because you may have
'responded' to them but you have not answered them.

>
> Pim:
>
> You wrote: "So let's focus on common descent and marsupials and
> wolves. You suggested that these 'disproved' common descent. As I
> have shown, they don't. And you have provided no reason why they
> should disprove common descent other than by the somewhat naive
> argument that they look very similar to you."
> But of course I did not say that. Perhaps you could read what I wrote.
>
>
I have and that is how I interpret your comments. Your argument may be
evolving so fill us in.

> You wrote: "[Evolution does] predict nested hierarchies" If that
> is the case, then evolution is false. But, in fact, the non
> hierarchical data are explained just fine, so evolution does not
> predict nested hierarchies
>
>
Your idea of falsification is somewhat naive to suggest that the vaste
amount of evidence showing nested hierarchies disproves evolution to be
false. What you fail to appreciate is that the evidence fits the
prediction but that the evidence also shows a mechanism not familiar to
Darwin, namely horizontal gene transfer. Science is nicely recovering
the trees AND vines, the latter making up a small part of the actual
picture. In other words, evolution based on vertical inheritance
predicts a nested hierarchy, just as supported by vaste amounts of data.
In addition, the data showed a mechanism so far unknown, namely HGT. A
naive falsification would have led to rejection of CD when in fact all
that was needed is to realize that there are more forms of genetic
transfer. A simple extension to the gene transfer model and evolution
manages to explain the observed data. Remind me again how ID or your
version explains the data? I thought so, it doesn't

> You wrote: "But I had hoped you had actually read Theobalt's FAQ
> which addresses this in quite some detail.
> What part do you not agree with?." I'm sorry, but copying /
> pasting from websites doesn't work.
>

Says he who cuts and pastes quotes to suggest that Woese and Doolittle
do not support evolution or common descent when in fact their position
is exactly the opposite. I quoted a relevant part and so far you have
not responded. I understand the extent of your task and I do not find it
surprising that so far you have declined. Since however I have done
significant work supporting my arguments and investigating and negating
many of your claims, I was hoping you would return this courtesy.

> I asked you to read the Penny paper to see how vacuous these
> claims are, and I explained the history behind this nested
> hierarchy claim, and what it is all about. I see no evidence that
> you are seeking to learn more about this.
>

Irony alert my dear friend. I am not ending this discussion remember?...

Look, so far I have shown how vacuous your claims against CD really are,
mostly are based on our ignorance and no alternative explanation is
provided. Evidence that strongly support CD are ingnored in favor of
some minor puzzles, or based on strawmen arguments (convergence for
instance).
So what exactly IS your argument? Scientifically speaking that is? I am
honestly trying to understand but so far most of your assertions seem to
be best explained by lack of familiarity with the arguments or data.
What am I missing?
Received on Wed Aug 3 23:28:40 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Aug 03 2005 - 23:28:41 EDT