Replies

Considering that we just had a discussion in which you denied that ID is primarily about the supernatural version of ID

I never even accepted your premise that there's any kind of meaningful distinction between artificial and "supernatural". You're the one who brought it up, not I. It's up to you to explain what you're talking about.

I have no problem understanding what ID is. It's the view that some sort of deliberate, intelligent tinkering was necessary in order to account for the various features of life, that they could not have come about through naturalistic processes. You can disagree with it all you want, but you seem unable to argue against it without either misrepresenting it, or word-gaming it to death.

that they could not have come about through naturalistic processes

Pardon my butting in (and I'm not trying to change subject we've been discussing on the side - I'm still interested in your thoughts on that), but perhaps you can tell me what reasoning is sufficient to conclude that some phenomenon X could not have come about through naturalistic processes.

By "come about through naturalistic processes" I assume you mean "cannot be explain by a theory of natural science." Is that what you mean?

To be clear, as I read it, you're not saying "no *current* theory of natural science can explain it" but rather that "no theory of natural science *will ever* explain it." So I am wondering how you will account for every scientific theory present and future and deduce that none will ever explain X?

This is from just previous on this thread:

aphid evolution is natural, but dog evolution is not?

Same way that an anthill is natural, but the Pentagon is not.

So...apparently, since, as you say, you don't accept the premise that "there is any meaningful distinction between artificial and supernatural" you think the pentagon and dogs came about from supernatural design.

Is there some form of design that is neither natural nor supernatural?

Or is it simply that you're enjoying leading the dopey evolutionists who gullibly continue to take you at face value for a ride?

that they could not have come about through naturalistic processes. You can disagree with it all you want, but you seem unable to argue against it without either misrepresenting it, or word-gaming it to death.

If you are talking about the epistimology of science, the opposite of naturalistic is supernatural. And it hasn't been that long ago that you were explaining that ID is not hypothesizing supernatural design. It is not I that has introduced a murky, personalized, and rather shifty definition of what "natural" means. The orginal question here was, "why won't Darwinian evolution likely be demolished by the discovery that ID holds water?" And the answer is still, just as it was when we started this discussion, that if a natural explanation exists, intelligent or not, being natural, (as opposed to supernatural) it is going to be subject to scientific investigation, and chances are, everything we've currently noticed about micro-biology and old bones that needs explaining won't magically go away at the same time.

I aver that I answered this question some time ago, and you are the one trying to drown out the conversation with irrelevant bickering over either definitional nothings, or the absurd claim that the darwinian argument clings desperately to life over questions like whether dog-breeding is intelligent-vs-natural evolution. Which, of course, it does not.

I answered your question, you basically peed on the conversation. Get over yourself, and leave me alone.