If there isn't an absolute division between natural forces and things which can create CSI, then natural forces such as evolution and abiogenesis can create CSI, and ID fails, ipso facto.

The first part is certainly true. But clearly Darwinian evolution fails as well. What direct evidence do we have of only random mutation and natural selection, as defined by someone like Dawkins? If nature can plan ahead and forsee and select on future function, it seems to me that the Behes of the world have a better insight than the Dawkins of the world,

ID guy: That "idea" is not what ID posits.

I didn't claim it was what ID posits. I said it was demanded by ID. It is a necessary conclusion based on the ID arguments. If there isn't an absolute division between natural forces and things which can create CSI, then natural forces such as evolution and abiogenesis can create CSI, and ID fails, ipso facto.

What is the evidence for the non-telic position?

Do you meand for OoL? Here is an interesting web page:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2bStudyorigins.shtml

I am open to the idea implicitly demanded by ID theory that there is an absolute division between natural forces and things which can create CSI.

That "idea" is not what ID posits.

The debate is about undirected vs directed.

What is the evidence for the non-telic position?

According to Zachriel that position can't even be tested.

JAD

However, the argument from ignorance cuts both ways. For example, just because a theist cannot prove that God created life, it does not follow that there must be a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life.

Absolutely. Let us have the evidence!

Pix: My view is that if we have no evidence, then we do not know.

JAD: Do you apply that standard equally to naturalistic explanations?

Yes.

Sal

Physicist FJ Belinfante basically classified the sum total of all physical phenomenon that was not deterministic rooted as God.

He might as well define his chair as God, and then, given that his chair exists, God must exist.

Back in the real world, there are certain qualities that most people assign to God (eg creator of the universe, intelligent, miracle worker). His chair has none of these properties. I see no reason to suppose that "the sum total of all physical phenomenon that was not deterministic rooted" should have these properties.

With respect to ID, I don't believe knowledge chemistry can supply an adequate explanation for the emergence of life.

The closely related argument from personal incredulity.

I don't think chemstry can explain the origin of initial conditions that led to the first life. I don't think the origin of life was a typical event. What are "typical" chemical events in plausible environments?

1. racemization of amino acid polymers
2. de-amidation of amino acids
etc.

As far as I know, racemisation of amino acid polymers is a pretty slow process (it has been considered for dating ancient samples, suggesting a half-life of at the very least thousands of years). Deamidation proceeds fastest at high pH. I would guess that the prebiotic sea had a low pH, due to the higher conentration of CO2. Do you have any references to suggest otherwise?

Bradford

Current approaches embody arguments from ignorance. They take the form of phenomenon x does not fit within any paradigm solution we currently have and an intelligent inference is against the rules. So have faith that one day all will be known as a result of science.

That is not an argument from ignorance. That is research, i.e., trying to get rid of the ignorance. Of course that starts with something we do not know.

However, archaeologists and forensic scientists will tell you that an intelligent inference is certainly allowed.

There are still problems with this. As Olegt pointed out in the other thread atoms were once thought of as imaginary. Same with ET. Atoms are now considered real. ET may go either way depending on developments. What is amenable to scientific study today may not have been so 50 years ago. 50 years from now things will be open to study that we can only imagine today. Technology plays a big role in what we are able to study.

Don't disagree with this. Once you find a way to observe a phenomenon, it will become a real phenomenon.

Alan Fox: Remember I defined real as amenable to scientific study and imaginary as not.

There are still problems with this. As Olegt pointed out in the other thread atoms were once thought of as imaginary. Same with ET. Atoms are now considered real. ET may go either way depending on developments. What is amenable to scientific study today may not have been so 50 years ago. 50 years from now things will be open to study that we can only imagine today. Technology plays a big role in what we are able to study.

The point is one can imagine real things which makes mitigates the importance of real and imagined real in the context of this thread.

Remember I defined real as amenable to scientific study and imaginary as not. A thought is a real process because thoughts can be observed indirectly to some extent.

Give me an example of something that is real and also imaginary. that would defeat my suggestion very effectively.

Alan Fox: The process of imagining is real, not necessarily what you imagine!

The point is one can imagine real things which makes mitigates the importance of real and imagined real in the context of this thread.