N.Wells
Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005
|
Quote | The theory I work on does not have this problem. Its terminology is more precise and has no gray areas to argue over, by making it possible to eliminate all the patch-up phrases and generalizations including "evolution" and "evolved" by being specific as to whether the development was species related, or development of a single individual of a molecular, cellular, or multicellular species. This streamlining of terminology is necessary for a theory to remain consistent with other emerging theories such as "chromosome speciation" where a reproductive barrier can be traced back to a single individual who had a chromosome rearrangement that caused almost immediate speciation to occur, or in other words only one individual caused the speciation to happen. |
ROFLMAO. Your not-a-theory consists almost entirely of gray areas and imprecisions, and smuggling conclusions in by abusing words and being non-specific.
Let's take one more example of how incompetent you are at all this. You keep emphasizing that your premise is that [paraphrased slightly] "Certain features of the universe and of living things are designed ........". A premise can be defined as a proposition used as evidence in an argument, a foundational assumption upon which a conclusion is based, an argument from which a conclusion is drawn, or a statement that is assumed to be true for the basis of further investigation. First up, as several of us have noted before, your statement is non-specific, and therefore pointless. No one disputes that certain features of the universe and living things are designed [e.g., the Mona Lisa and beaver dams], so until you get off the pot and designate some specific features as designed that were previously not generally accepted as designed or until you come up with a process for discriminating designed features from non-designed ones that can be applied successfully in problematic areas, you haven't got anything worth talking about. The DI wants that absolutely useless locution solely so that they can smuggle in the conclusion that humans may have been / were designed by a deity.
Second and worse, that statement should never be your premise, because you want that to be your conclusion. That's not what a premise is. Actually using it as a premise would be assuming your conclusions.
Third, and even worse yet, you are indeed using that statement as your premise, because you aren't introducing any support for that conclusion and are merely making a hollow assertion that ultimately rests solely on your unsupported belief in your "premise". NoName has already pointed out other places that you do this.
In addition, you haven't documented the existence of intelligence at the critical levels that you assert. You haven't provided a workable operational definition, so you couldn't measure it if it bit you. You haven't documented design, and in fact "design" stands in contradiction to your continued assertion of intelligence "emerging" and being "self-similar" at all levels. Moreover, your theory has none of the determining characteristics of a theory.
In short, any reference by you to the "premise of your 'theory of intelligent design' " would involve lies and/or fatal problems with each and every one of the four nouns in that expression.
|