Confusing mice with mousetraps

quote:

---

It is a false analogy. Behe is comparing the living to non-living.

---

Precisely. Mt. Rushmore was manufactured. Organisms are formed through biological reproduction. These are two completely different mechanisms. Manufactured items are not created through descent with modification, and they do not fit into a single nested hiearchy. Biological organisms are created through descent with modification and organisms fit into a single nested hiearchy.The problem that Behe faces is that he extrapolates IC systems created through manufacture to biological IC systems that are created through biological reproduction. The two are not comparable.The second or third problem (I am losing track) is that we have a known mechanism and a known intelligence for explaining Mt. Rushmore. ID has neither, and must therefore attribute design only if an when all natural mechanisms have been ruled out, natural mechanisms that are known now and those that may be discovered in the future.Why do we infer intelligent design when we find pottery shards? Because we have independent/separate evidence for an intelligence and a mechanism used by that intelligence that could have resulted in that pottery shard. There is not one non-living artifact (ie ID design) on earth that can not be explained by the intervention of a known intelligence, human intelligence, using known mechanisms. Behe tries to argue that we can detect design without both an evidenced intelligence and an evidenced mechanism, yet he has failed to do so with one present day example.The ID philosophy is interesting, but it fails as a science.

quote:

---

I would say the tool marks left on the sculpture. The marks themselves are too regular and from processes we are intimately familar with.

---

That, and the debris pile below would have trace evidence of blasting powder. Using GC and a few other techniques, forensics may even be able to narrow down the dynamite to country of origin or even a certain batch from a certain manufacturer. Again, knowing that Mt. Rushmore was designed is done so with independent evidence of the intelligence and independent evidence of a mechanism (eg drilled holes and blasting powder). Behe has neither.

quote:

---

Say a person builds a robot that can build other robots. The parts to the robot did not come together on their own, they needed a designer, yet the robots can "reproduce". The two ARE comparable.

---

But that isn't the comparison that Behe draws. Behe compares mousetraps that do not arise through reproduction with biological systems that do arise through reproduction. Therefore he draws a false analogy. If you were to build robots that imperfectly replicate, then we might very well see IC systems arise through evolution.

quote:

---

If you're going to use that reasoning, then show me an example in nature of one species evolving into a new one. You don't have an example.

---

Yes I do. There are several examples of speciation. Do a search at TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy

quote:

---

It's the same with Intellegent design. We don't see the hand of God reaching out of the clouds and placing a new animal on the planet, but through theories of probability, we can infer they were designed.

---

It is not the same. Evolution uses OBSERVED MECHANISMS, the observed mechanisms of mutation and selection. ID does not use any observed mechanism. No one has observed God reaching down and designing life. Scientists have observed new traits arising through mutation and they have observed the frequency of that trait chaning through subsequent generations. You can infer design, but that inference must include observed natural processes. Since no one has observed any other mechanism besides natural ones, you are only able to infer evolution.

quote:

---

Read "The Design Inference: eliminating chance through small probabilities", by William Dembski, mathematician of Baylor University. In it he identifies that the two key components of design are a Recognizable Pattern and an Improbable Object.

---

The only problem is that humans naturally find patterns. The observance of a pattern does not rule out natural mechanisms. Without absolute full knowledge of the causal history of an organism or a biological feature, one can not even assign a probability to that feature, hence the impossibility of assigning "Improbable".

quote:

---

Example, any randomn mountain side is an improbable object since that particular mountain side is unique. However, a randomn mountian side does not usually follow a recognizable pattern. Mt. Rushmore is an inprobable object because rocks don't usually form like that, but it also bears a recognizable Pattern, and thus, the characteristics of design.

---

Mountains and Mt Rushmore are not created through biological reproduction. Try again.

quote:

---

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.

---

Man can also make objects that look like they were formed naturally. How do we tell the difference in this type of situation?

quote:

---

I said that we could prove Mt. Rushmore was built by humans, but the OMof the M was not.

---

We can't prove that humans did NOT make OMotM. However, we have no proof that humans did and the OMotM could have easily been produced by natural weathering. I think this is what you have been trying to say all along. Earlier I was just saying that humans are capable of making objects that look like they were naturally made so it is impossible to rule out human design.

quote:

---

We see the process of weathering in action. We know that this process produces many types of shapes. . .

---

. . ., some of which can resemble human faces.

quote:

---

We see a face in the mountain because we have an in-born ability for face recognition.

---

Yep, totally agree (after my little edit). Humans instinctually see faces where there are no faces. It is hardwired into our brain. More general pattern recognition occurs through hardwiring as well, but through a different part of the brain than face recognition. This is the problem that ID faces, the instinctual basis for pattern recognition.