Confusing mice with mousetraps

Of course, we know who is responsible for Mount Rushmore, but even someone who had never heard of the monument could recognize it as designed. Which leads to the second claim of the intelligent design argument: the physical marks of design are visible in aspects of biology. This is uncontroversial, too.Michael Behe NYT article.I’ve read this comment time and again, for it is at the core of ID claims.It is a false analogy. Behe is comparing the living to non-living. I learned in 8th grade health class that life had characteristics that separated it from non-life. Two I remember were that living things took in energy and expelled waste. I think the Mount Rushmore figures have a pretty light diet and while there are wastes at the bottom of the mountain, everyone agrees they're left over from construction.To leap from the fact that we can recognize design at Mount Rushmore, a noticeably inanimate object, to recognizing design in living creatures is a completely false analogy because an analogy implies something to be similar between the things being compared; there is no similarity between a mouse and a mousetrap.So I contend there is a black hole of logic right in the heart of ID.

Actually Mt Rushmore was built. Sure there was a design, we can see the plans, but the way it really got there took workers going on the rock,we can see the photos of the workers, if we push Behe's analogy, where are the photos of the ID workers. LOL{added photos of workers}This message has been edited by DHA, 02-23-2005 03:11 AM

There's the photos of the workers building it, plus the design drawings and we know the name of the designer. Take a trip to Mt. Rushmore and see for yourself.Nowhere else in the world do we see natural processes producing faces of actual historical figures.

There's even a name for it. I posted it in the Coffehouse

You could ague that, but you'd be wrong.What face did you have before you were born.

Behle obviously knows god's mind since he alone can detect the operation of god in the world.Poor god, once had the universe and now reduced to hiding in the bacflag.

not uderstood?

Yes,we could it would be obvious.

Well, there should be some tool marks. So you want positive evidence that something never happened?

Once again we see the same fallacy. Robots are not people. Unless the robots can produce their own parts they are not biological units. What is the difference between living and non-living you fail to see?

Where's the culture that produced the Old Man?Any evidence that American Indians were into sculpture on a grand scale?Why did all the lines on th face follow natural fault lines with no sign of working?

So you are saying that absense of evidence is not evidence of absense?The features were the result of natural weathering.What would be obvious to you?

Probably should have read this before the the other post.

If the difference between a carving, known to be the work of man, and a natural product of weathering isn't obvious to you, I can't help that.Was it the word "obvious" that set you off?

It's pretty obvious that the word "obvious" sets alarm bells going off.Would you say it is obvious that water is wet, or fire is hot, or do yoou challenge these statements because I said they are obvious?Original topic:
How IDers confuse living with non-living things.Whether or it is obvious that the Old Man of the Montain was designed or not is not really related.