tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8154859.post111142540865399279..comments2023-10-05T04:08:24.731-05:00Comments on A Simple Desultory Dangling Conversation: Gatekeepers, ghettoes, design, and self-organizing systemsSkyDaddyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05852753740426425712noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8154859.post-1117736248343392022005-06-02T13:17:00.000-05:002005-06-02T13:17:00.000-05:00Thanks for dropping by!An old and wise friend once...Thanks for dropping by!<BR/><BR/>An old and wise friend once taught me that if you want to be able to argue for a position, you need to be able to effectively argue against it. The same is true in sales - you need to know all the potential objections, so that you can answer them. That's what I'm trying to do here, look for potential holes in the fabric of the ID argument. <BR/><BR/>David, <BR/><BR/>I'm not sure if "forced" is a word I'd agree with. Perhaps "consequent outcome?"<BR/><BR/>For example, flocking behavior is a consequent outcome of having a group of individuals each of which follows a few simple rules. <BR/><BR/>Yes, in digital flocking simulations it's clear that the rules and initial conditions were designed. But that doesn't mean that they HAD to be designed - as you said, there may be purely physical processes at work that create the appearance of design. Certainly that's the assumption of materialists.<BR/><BR/>giff - I need to look at Dembski in more depth, but "contingency" seems to be the old argument from incredulity. <BR/><BR/>The materialist might argue that, yes, of course, DNA Pattern 1 (which is useless) is just as likely as DNA Pattern 2 (which is useful). But, they will say, #2 is more likely to be replicated because it is useful. Therefore, over time (lots and lots of time), the non-useful patterns get supplanted by useful patterns, and passed down. (That, btw, is the logical conflation of Natural Selection and Common Descent that Behe <A HREF="http://www.idthefuture.com/index.php?p=405&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1" REL="nofollow">recently argued against</A>.)SkyDaddyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05852753740426425712noreply@blogger.com