Part 8: Jillery Continues to Misrepresent ID Theory

[T Pagano]

On Mon, 14 May 2018 15:49:58 -0400, jillery wrote:

> On Sun, 13 May 2018 16:24:41 GMT, T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 11 May 2018 13:08:44 -0400, jillery wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 11 May 2018 12:31:17 GMT, T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 10 May 2018 19:14:02 -0500, Freon96 wrote:



> Of course, the existence of a supernatural agent is a fundamental
> assumption of ID, else there is no Designer and no Design to argue
> about.


Behe's Irreducibly Complexity and Dembski's Complex Specified Information
specifically EXCLUDE both naturalism and supernaturalism from its
theory. Neither is required.

You have consistently failed to provide quotes----from anyone---
especially from Behe's own book justifying your false position that

Behe's theory does little more than presuppose a supernatural
creator and then leap directly to it as the cause of all
biological systems.


>
> Of course, Jillery makes no claim wrt metaphysical consequences. You
> keep using that phrase. Jillery thinks it does not mean what you think
> it means.

This can only come from a failure to understand the use of "metaphysical"
and "consequence."

Metaphysical: refers to those statements which go beyond nature.
Statements about supernatural designers are beyond nature. So obviously a
statement about the necessity/lack of necessity of a Supernatural
Designer goes beyond nature and is therefore "metaphysical" in character.

Consequence: a result of an action or condition.
So a "metaphysical consequence" of Darwin's theory (that a material
process is sufficient to explain design in biology) is that a
supernatural designer is (at best) unnecessary. A "metaphysical
consequence" of Behe's theory (material processes are insufficient) is
that a supernatural designer is necessary.


You have falsely attributed the "outside" consequences of Behe's theory
to be, instead, an integral part of his theory. While at the same time
you place a wall between Darwin's theory and its outside consequence---
atheism.

Behe's theory actually concludes that: Darwinian processes lack the
causal power to explain the origin of irreducibly complex bio-molecular
machines.

Jillery's false misrepresentation of Behe's theory: Behe's theory does
little more than presuppose a supernatural creator and then leap directly
to it as the cause of all biological systems.

[JWS]

You failed to number your paragraphs.

[jillery]

On Sat, 19 May 2018 18:29:21 GMT, T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>
wrote:

>On Mon, 14 May 2018 15:49:58 -0400, jillery wrote:
>
>> Of course, the existence of a supernatural agent is a fundamental
>> assumption of ID, else there is no Designer and no Design to argue
>> about.
>
>
>Behe's Irreducibly Complexity and Dembski's Complex Specified Information
>specifically EXCLUDE both naturalism and supernaturalism from its
>theory. Neither is required.

You have consistently failed to provide quotes from Behe or Dembski
justifying your claim above, that they specifically exclude
supernaturalism.

>You have consistently failed to provide quotes----from anyone---
>especially from Behe's own book justifying your false position that
>
> Behe's theory does little more than presuppose a supernatural
> creator and then leap directly to it as the cause of all
> biological systems.

Again you repeat your lie. I never posted the above. Retract your
claim, or prove yourself to be just another stupid and cowardly liar.

>> Of course, Jillery makes no claim wrt metaphysical consequences. You
>> keep using that phrase. Jillery thinks it does not mean what you think
>> it means.
>
>This can only come from a failure to understand the use of "metaphysical"
>and "consequence."
>
>Metaphysical: refers to those statements which go beyond nature.
>Statements about supernatural designers are beyond nature. So obviously a
>statement about the necessity/lack of necessity of a Supernatural
>Designer goes beyond nature and is therefore "metaphysical" in character.
>
>Consequence: a result of an action or condition.
>So a "metaphysical consequence" of Darwin's theory (that a material
>process is sufficient to explain design in biology) is that a
>supernatural designer is (at best) unnecessary. A "metaphysical
>consequence" of Behe's theory (material processes are insufficient) is
>that a supernatural designer is necessary.
>
>
>You have falsely attributed the "outside" consequences of Behe's theory
>to be, instead, an integral part of his theory. While at the same time
>you place a wall between Darwin's theory and its outside consequence---
>atheism.

Your line of "reasoning" above is based on your out-of-context quote.
What I wrote refers to your claim that I claimed metaphysical
consequences of science. Considering your inability to understand
written English, I should have made that explicit. Considering your
compulsion to lie about what I posted, it probably wouldn't have made
a difference.

>Behe's theory actually concludes that: Darwinian processes lack the
>causal power to explain the origin of irreducibly complex bio-molecular
>machines.

What you claim to be Behe's theory is not a theory. What you call
Behe's theory doesn't explain anything. Instead, it is a collection
of Behe's bald assertions, none of which he has even tried to show to
be factual.

>Jillery's false misrepresentation of Behe's theory: Behe's theory does
>little more than presuppose a supernatural creator and then leap directly
>to it as the cause of all biological systems.

Cite where I posted what you claim I posted, or retract, or prove
yourself yet another stupid and cowardly liar.

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 19 May 2018 18:29:21 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>:

>Behe's Irreducibly Complexity and Dembski's Complex Specified Information
>specifically EXCLUDE both naturalism and supernaturalism from its
>theory. Neither is required.

IC is sleight-of-hand, conflating (possibly inadvertently
through ignorance) the failure of function when a part is
removed with the presumed (and refuted) inability of a
system to come into existence via small steps, each of which
is functional.

CSI is also sleight-of-hand (and is meaningless), since it
has *never* been defined objectively.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 20 May 2018 10:44:44 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>: