|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,788 Year: 4,045/9,624 Month: 916/974 Week: 243/286 Day: 4/46 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is there a legitimate argument for design? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Capt Stormfield Member Posts: 429 From: Vancouver Island Joined: |
Cod ice cream?
That would be....SATAN! Say, it's fun pulling a word or 2 from the previous post and creating a non sequitur response, just like Fred68.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9509 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
To get back to the discussion, it seems pretty easy to me to accept Demski's meaning of the terms Complex Specified Information. His own example is pretty clear:
"A single letter of the alphabet is specified without being complex. A long sentence of random letters is complex without being specified. A Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specified." He's just saying that life looks designed therefore it is. That argument is no more than the Watchmaker argument and can be debated as though it is. His attempt to move the argument further was to introduce mathematics into the game and claim that if he calculates the probability of something happening by chance to be less than 10^150, then it requires a designer. The problem is therefore mathematical not semantic and if you can't discuss it mathematically, there's no point proceding beyond the Watchmaker stage. Sadly for ID, those that have considered mathematically and are qualified to do so, tell us that it's bunk.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
Hi Stan. I am one that accepts design, as a Christian. I appreciate that not everybody accept design, I would like to give my set of reasonings, and I have no desire to evo-bash, or attack evolution. I have respect for evolutionists in the sense that I find them to be thorough people, investigative people, intelligent people, as I do find atheists also.
Your problem is, you're basically asking ignorant people to have a go at giving you an argument from design. You have misunderstood design. You mention the "gaps", in the fossil record, I presume this is what you meant. But that has nothing to do with design, that is an argument about a lack of evidence, which is an altogether different subject.
I guess what I am asking here is how good of evidence is first-hand accounts, and how are we to treat gaps in theories, as evidence of another theory or as evidence against the theory at hand? Let's forget this for a moment, and concentrate on design. Let's ask the first basic question.
What is design anyway I propose that the answer can be given, BY LOOKING AT THINGS WE KNOW TO BE DESIGNED. Logically, if those elements are then present in lifeforms, then we will know if lifeforms are designed. I would say to you, when we refer to "design" there is no argument for a Ferrari being designed. We hear of the "argument from design", and we hear of an "appearance of design", but I would propose to you, reasonably, that those terms are not relevant to "design". When something is designed, to know it is designed for sure, you just have to ruin it's construction. A Ferrari is designed specifically because if you ruin it's construction, then what it was intended for, is gone. So if you want to know if design exists, first realize, there is no "argument" from design. In reality, design is either there, logically, or not there, logically. So take an eye or an ear. If you ruin it's construction, you have ruined what it was intended for. Which means that logically, an eye is made to see. You can CONCLUDE soundly, that an eye is made/designed, to see. I have wrote several blog entries about design, some of them are very short, I hope you read them, and think carefully about my assertions;
Design Is Factually Inferred (this is a bit long this entry).
Matching Logic is Always True (this is quite long, but very easy to understand)
More About Design (this is a nice short entry)
Appearance of Design (This proves the irrelevance of the "appearance" argument. Note that people at this forum will likely try and shoot down everything I have said. But I advise you think for yourself, you have been given a brain, therefore you have no excuse, you must use that brain as best as you can, and you have a responsibility to try and figure things out correctly, without letting others think for you. Thanks for your time.mike. (p.s. remember, you probably asked unqualified people to give you answers about design, so you shouldn't dismiss design, you should actually dismiss what they have said.) (evos, take no offense if I mention, "evolutionists" in my blogs, it does not mean you, remember there is a large span of ignoramus evolutionists I have come across, as well as Christians, so you yourself might have a far better argument I have simply not read as of yet. I appreciate there is a possibility of the odd errors in my blogs, or the odd rash remark, I am not perfect but the gist of my arguments hold water.) Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
I wasn't talking to you, turnip head. One of the ways for dealing with cognitive dissonance is to insult\attack the messenger, also known as the ad hominem logical fallacy. I noticed that you failed to answer the question (which I'll repeat for your convenience):
Did you notice the one from the University of Washington? Did they say that it was not, as Ringo said:
Ringo: that the "code" that's "embedded" in DNA is its structure - and that every other molecule has its own structure too, so every molecule has a "code" that's "embedded" in it exactly the same way. Did they say some process other than chemistry was involved? That is a very simple question, with a simple yes or no answer. Presumably the answer is no ... which you just don't want to admit ... And I don't understand why you would be upset by this:
And, since you know so much about chemistry, and are dying to share it, would you please explain your statement: It's just ...terms "in the English language understandable by English speakers. It means exactly what it says. It is not a mathematical term, ..." ... especially those that studied chemistry ... As that was just quoting your response on another thread ... so if your own behavior disturbs you then you should, perhaps, do some self evaluation on your behavior. by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
He's just saying that life looks designed therefore it is Dawkins constantly says that life looks designed, only to then shoot down his strawman, but the "appearance" of design is only ever mentioned by evolutionists for the shooting down of that strawman. For example, would I argue that a Ferrari looks designed, therefore that is why I conclude it is designed? No, but rather the point is we would examine it and find out it is designed, because the functioning particular parts and systems give it a goal/purpose. We might look for code, information, intelligent arrangements of parts. THEN if it is designed, then it is designed. Rather I would argue, a Ferrari has everything that makes it a design, therefore that is why it "looks" designed. BUT, I would also say that it is not consequential that it looks designed. Ferrari is designed therefore looks it.Looks it, therefore is designed. (Affirmation of Consequent) But as you can see, that it is fallacious, in this example is irrelevant, because we already know why it looks designed, because it simply is designed. In the same way we know that life looks designed because it is, so even if we argued the fallacy, logic itself would be irrelevant to the truth. If life looks designed, this in itself is not all that important. But an examination of mind-blowing anatomical structures, is very relevant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
...
Edited by RAZD, : duplicateby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Mike how ya doin?
What is design anyway I propose that the answer can be given, BY LOOKING AT THINGS WE KNOW TO BE DESIGNED. Logically, if those elements are then present in lifeforms, then we will know if lifeforms are designed. Logical fallacy, Mike, you know better. Logically, if those elements are then present in lifeforms, then we will know if lifeforms could be designed. Or not. What about if those elements are missing ... do we then know that it wasn't design? One of the elements of man-made design is development of concepts with ideas borrowed from several sources, a web pattern rather than a nested hierarchy, such as taking elements from two separate branches of organisms and combining them into a new one, giving two (or more) ancestral lineages rather than one.
... Which means that logically, an eye is made to see. You can CONCLUDE soundly, that an eye is made/designed, to see. and why then are there so many variations on the eye design, some with basic flaws?
quote: Now if I were looking for a designed eye, I would look for one that combines the focusing lens of the human eye with the movable retina of the octopus, then not only would glasses not be necessary for most humans, but you would have vision that goes from microscopic to telescopic. Both these systems exist in the living world but they are not combined in any organism: that element of combined ideas is not found, so doesn't this mean that the eye is not designed? by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined:
|
(Well spotted. ( The Ad hominem).
I would also say that I've never heard RAZD use a personal attack in my whole time at EvC, so it's even more fair to just point that out. There is a full kudos to everyone that points out the ad hominem but nnever uses it themselves!! (please note I have not read the argument between you RAZD, and the other person you debate with. But mikey appreciates ya! Even though we wouldn't agree on things, that does not mean that I am obtuse as to the quality of your constantly high standard of posting prowess. If I was the wizard of Oz, you would certainly achieve a golden-status mikey- standard, medal. (Don't be rude theists, mikey's turnip head has to do all the more homework just to make up for your indolence.) (God bless.) Good to see you still keep up your mind, sheened and sharpened at such places as EvC that it might seek out and destroy all mikey-prey, and refute all deluded, ignormaus mikeysaurs! Mikey lovs ya. (but mostly he loves everyone)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined:
|
(Will read this in full, later mate. I can't deal with something as sophisticated as this in five minutes, I will have to study each point you make, in full. I haven't ignored you if I don't get back to you, I'm just not much of a debater, I mostly give information so that it is considered, but you are a clever person that has an alternative opinion of the same level to match mine or higher, so it is pointless for me to argue with you.
But I value your post, so I will do it justice later, at the moment, my roast spuds are nearly there so I need to eat them before they get cold.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9509 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
mike writes: Dawkins constantly says that life looks designed, only to then shoot down his strawman, but the "appearance" of design is only ever mentioned by evolutionists for the shooting down of that strawman. Actually, Dawkins wrote a whole book about it - The Blind Watchmaker - not to introduce a straw man but to explain why the design argument is false. It's never brought up by 'evolutionists' because they know that life evolved, obviously. It's only mentioned by them when some creationist brings it up to explain why it's an error - as you see that RAZD has just done.
If life looks designed, this in itself is not all that important. But an examination of mind-blowing anatomical structures, is very relevant. It's exactly the same argument. You say it's mind blowing, so what? Science agrees with you, but then shows you that the anotomical structures evolved naturally using processes that we largely understand.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
But I value your post, so I will do it justice later, at the moment, my roast spuds are nearly there so I need to eat them before they get cold enjoy the spudtaneous moment. Another page you may want to visit is my thread: Is ID properly pursued? Later dude.by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
I want to respect evolution and evolutionists, by not including any talk of it, in the assessment of what makes something designed. Usually we are charged with saying, "we're designed, because look at all these problems with evolution." And sometimes we are guilty of that. So I have left out the subject of evolution. We shall leave it out, because it is extraneous to the logical assessment of knowing what makes something, "designed". Why the terms, "science" or, "evolution" should then come up as though they are relevant to a hypothetical assessment, I simply don't know. No, I am asking - what makes something a design? How can we know what a design actually is? I think it makes sense to then say that to know the answer, we should look at things we know to be designed. But I appreciate that I should perhaps not have used the word "evolutionist", that was a bit off topic for me to mention Dawkins but I remembered him so mentioned it.
Actually, Dawkins wrote a whole book about it - The Blind Watchmaker - not to introduce a straw man but to explain why the design argument is false You've conflated two things. I said Dawkins constantly says it, you say he "actually" wrote a book about it. Nor do I recall saying that he wrote a book in order to promote a strawman. As for his claims that the design argument is false, it is not an argument that an eye is designed to see, it is a statement of scientific fact. You can take a course in anatomy, and they will show you the functions, and how destroying the function will lead to a pointless eye. In the same way, I am not arguing that a Ferrari is designed, it simply is designed. You and Dawkins might THINK you have refuted something, but simply stating you have, will not convince me in the least. What will convince me is the clever and wisely correct assessment of the matter, his books seldom have anything "correct" in them, they consist of anti-theist propaganda statements, and even his peers run a mile from him, and rightly so, he's an embarrassment to them. He might as well call his books, "The Chronicles of Fallacy".
It's never brought up by 'evolutionists' because they know that life evolved, obviously Who mentioned evolution? We are talking about what design specifically is, whether life is designed. And it is brought up by evolutionists, when we mention design. I specifically recall the popular way in which they address design by stating that it is in appearance. They state this ad nauseum. A lot of them have never actually studied what makes something designed, as that is not what they were educated in. Critical thinking is not usually on the curriculum for them, when they can simply appeal to those big epithet buz-words, such as, "science", or "evolution" or "know" or, "fact". Example:
Science agrees with you, but then shows you that the anotomical structures evolved naturally using processes I've never been shown, scientifically, how anatomical structures evolved naturally. Indeed, I have never seen it proved that any novel morphological design has come about naturally. Nor have I seen an example whereby the evidence is incontrovertible so then if it is not beyond a shadow of a doubt, then why the attitude problem? Isn't "science" tentative by nature, confirmation evidence being thought of as VIABLE, in order to AVOID fallacious inference? Yet your attitude seems none-scientific, almost religious, "we know evolution, it is truth, end of, science says it, I needn't provide any argument, I just have to state it with gusto!" Nevertheless, none of that matters, because my post addressed the topic of design, not evolution. I would be impressed if, without appealing to "science" or "evolution" you could show me how an eye is not designed to see, or how it is reasonable to come to that conclusion, given an inspection of the parts of an eye. But I only offer the challenge if you don't include "evolution" or "science" because we are only discussing what makes something designed. My blogs go into detail as to what qualifies something as being designed. Forget those subjects for a moment, and tell me, how would we know whether a lifeform is designed? That is the hypothetical discussion that is relevant to this thread. That is ALL I am assessing. I have proposed quite obviously, that looking at things that we KNOW to be designed, is the place to start, and systematically asking if all of the elements in those known designs, are present in lifeforms. I then shown in my blogs that all the elements are there, so we can know that life is designed, through these logical steps. But it's obvious anyway, because intelligent design is nearly always overt, because of the PURPOSE or GOAL we see with our eyes. For example, we see a helicopter is designed to fly. (I won't go into all this detail again, as obviously it's unfair considering all of the effort I went to, to create those blig entries, whereas your assertions are just bald statements, such as, Dawkins has proven", and "evolutionists know". That would count for something if you could SHOW something....indeed, if you could provide ANYTHING, other than simply asserting things in the manner of, "science is king of the universe, end of story, if it's in science it's true and we know it, and if you disagree, you're wrong, end of story" Because that seems to be all I saw in your post. I know that TO YOU, this means a tremendous amount, that it is black and white, that once science accept something, it is true, but life, I find, personally, to be far more complex than that. What science "accepts" could be seen as semantics. I agree with Stephen Meyer, he said that truth should come first. If science accepts evolution because it fits with the methodological requirement but a designer doesn't then this in itself says more about PEOPLE, than it does anything else, I mean that might as well be akin to saying, " we, humanity, kings of the universe, have DECIDED, that only a natural explanation can be accepted. " Logically, think about it! Where is wisdom? What if the truth is not a methodologically natural answer? What would that mean for your "science"? It would mean every premise, every assumption, every conclusion, was thwarted based on that philosophical principle. And that is what I see. Naturally, there never were answers to every single thing in existence, so frankly, your appeal to "science" holds no value to me. A lot of you guys want to get science into the equation, because it saves all of your energy, you basically can then abort any attempt to think knowing you have the full power of science behind you. "Science" is the most powerful epithet of our recent times, because of operationally proven findings. If you can get it into "science", then people will deem it to be true. It's a little bit like being part of a gang, the most powerful gang. If you can become a member, you have gang-status, even if you are a wimp. There are a lot of anti-theist wimps, with small brains, with "science" on their side. Science thinks for them, tucks them in to bed at night, so they can sleep peacefully, and so forth. After all, is that not the aim of the whole game? To rid God, not by any great wisdom or truth, but simply by giving Him no intellectual foot in the door. Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given. Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined:
|
Ok RAZD, again I haven't overlooked your statements, I simply value your post more than the average posts at EvC, so I will read in full. Don't worry, I don't mind looking at it from another point of view, I can promise you I will think carefully and treat your writings justly.
I will look into that, and I'm not fobbing you off, because actually, these last few years I mostly lurk at places and read, sometimes if I read information and I not all that much "against it" so to speak, then I will tend to lay off an attempt to refute, I don't like to try and refute things just for the sake of being argumentative you see, as the NT says not to be a "debater". We present our case, have our say, then leave people to think. Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3355 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
ringo writes:
All I'm saying is that... every molecule has a "code" that's "embedded" in it exactly the same way.[as DNA] Do you have any citations, evidence, or explanation to back up this statement? I'm still waiting... Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Do you have any citations, evidence, or explanation to back up this statement? I'm still waiting... Valence Bond Theory quote: Information that is complex and specific (your "definition" of csi) to how all molecules are formed from elements. Note that this is general basic knowledge in chemistry. What you have failed to show (yet) is that there is an entirely different sort/quality of "csi" in DNA, rather than just a difference in degree/quantity due to the quantity of molecular bonds. There is a larger number of bonds, and hence "information that is complex and specified" regarding the molecular formation in Sodium Sulfate ( Na2SO4) crystals than in Salt (NaCl) crystals ... a difference in the degree of "csi" (based on the coded information specified by the valence bonds) but not any difference in the sort of "csi". If I have one apple in one basket and 10 apples in another then I have a difference in the degree of fruit in the baskets. If I have one apple in one basket and one pear in the other then I have a difference in the sort of fruit in the baskets. Please identify something that makes it a different sort of "csi" in DNA from the chemical bonding sort of "csi" in salt and sodium sulfate and other molecules -- this is your assertion to support. Edited by RAZD, : qvq Edited by RAZD, : added elementary example, clrty Edited by RAZD, : clrty Edited by RAZD, : fruit example Edited by RAZD, : ..by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024