|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 56 (9190 total) |
| |
critterridder | |
Total: 919,058 Year: 6,315/9,624 Month: 163/240 Week: 10/96 Day: 6/4 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Intelligent Design just a question for evolutionists | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member (Idle past 194 days) Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
Just wanted to ask the opinions of evolutionists here. Obviously evolutionists generally believe the ID movement is creationism, however I was just wondering, can you appreciate that there is the classic argument of ID, since Paley, which didn't really refer to creation or Christianity, but is basically the argument of recognising design? Or can you recognise it is possible to form a syllogism which contains no premise pertaining to God or creationism, within it?
While I acknowledge that you might not accept the present form of ID as anything other than a watered down form of creationism, can you accept that if a syllogism contains no premises that mention creation or God, then strictly speaking, technically, the syllogism itself is not creationist? The reason I ask this is my own intelligent design argument was never intended to be similar to an ID movement, it is just a syllogism that takes us to the conclusion that life is intelligently designed. I am not asking anyone to agree with my argument, all I am requesting is that you can acknowledge that strictly speaking, if I only argue one ID argument, and it really isn't part of any creationist movement to get ID in a classroom, but really is just my own ID argument, then can't that ID argument be regarded as having little to do with creationism, if there is no words or premises in the argument that refer to or depend on creationism, and the argument still stands even if creationism is false? The syllogism I have used for ID, was never meant to be used as a creationist argument, but only as a way to ASCERTAIN if an object or thing, is designed; If something has the elements of design it is designed. (X is X, Law of identity)Life has the elements of design Therefore life is designed. Now I am not arguing this argument here and now, I know you don't accept it, but can you accept the conclusion only says whether something is designed? It is not meant to say who or what the designer is, and has nothing to do with who or what the designer is. If I were to argue MORE, like for example, "and God is the designer, clearly", then obviously that would have to be ADDED into the argument, or I would have to create a second argument. For example we could use the argument like this; If something has the elements of design it is designed. (X is X, Law of identity)Pottery has the elements of design Therefore pottery is designed. Thus you could use the argument to pertain to any designed thing, without it pertaining to any designer, because the only purpose of the argument, is literally to conclude if something is designed. If the object is a living thing or a piece of stone or whatever the object is, the object-in-question itself is not religious. For example if we use the syllogism for a rabbit, obviously a rabbit is not supernatural or religious, the same as a piece of clay. I just fail to see how it isn't a generalisation, to say that my argument would be creationism because of the modern ID movement, the conclusion, "it is intelligently designed" also makes no mention of by who or what, just that there is a recognition that the object FEATURES hallmarks of intelligence. (again, I am not trying to cause a fight, I literally just wondered if you can see my point, because you could even argue that evolution is the designer if you wanted to. Yes, personally I would see that as a contradiction, but my point is, I think the more classical ID argument is much more BASIC than creationism, and is about recognising design, ONLY. It seems to me, if I mention ID, I am tarred with the brush of the modern ID movement, and people will say, "ID is religion. ID is creationism", but does that mean I am not able, according to logical rules, to formulate a syllogism that is NOT religious but is ID?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member (Idle past 194 days) Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
Genomicus writes: Sure, but science is more than just deductive reasoning through syllogisms. Where did I mention, "science" remind me? I am asking if you believe a syllogism can be formed for ID, that does not contain any premise of creation of theism. I have no issue or interest in, "science", in asking that.
Genomicus writes: Well, that's a pretty terrible way to detect intelligent design -- and that syllogism is rendered pretty much nonsense by the fact that Neo-Darwinian mechanisms are able to create systems that have the appearance of design. It's a terrible way to detect design by seeing if an object has the features of design? In that case is it a terrible way to check if someone is human if they have the usual identifying characteristics such as human dna/consciousness/anatomy? LOL! And that's a statement called a, "bare assertion". Myself, I formulate complete arguments, and give thorough reasonings that have to be faulted, I don't just state something is, "nonsense" by use of a question-begging-epithet. If you would like to read my reasonings about the issue of appearance, since it has nothing to do with this topic, then you can read them here, but they are much cleverer than a bare assertion that my writings are nonsense, so if you want me to take you seriously, you're going to have to know what you are talking about, and a sure sign you don't know much about logical reasoning, is use of epithets and bare assertions about my arguments, of which your ignorance is rather large; (your comment about evolution is also to MUDDY-THE-WATER, why would examining any object to test if it is designed, be hindered by what a theory hypothesizes? For example, is a particular pottery NOT designed because there is a theory that hypothesizes a piece of pottery can LOOK designed?) Creation and evolution views
Your exact "syllogism" isn't inherently creationist. But it's often appropriate to consider the broader context of an argument: who is making it and why? But this is my point - even if my motives are the most creationist, religious motives in history, why would that change the fact we could use my syllogism to infer pottery was created. How can the syllogism be wrong, for reasons and motives SEPARATE from it? That's like saying that someone that argues that a cyanide cake is tasty, wants to kill people, therefore that cake is not tasty. But obviously it can be tasty. So then, basically this reveals that you would reject a sound argument, based on my motives, and you would not heed the logic within the argument. Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given. Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member (Idle past 194 days) Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
The ID movement uses that very argument - that they are only arguing for design - so it is hardly new, nor a good way to distinguish your views from theirs. Of course they do so because they want to get their ideas into schools, so hiding the religious propaganda aspect is important to them. But the point is there are even agnostics that argue intelligent design. I have known a couple of them online and read a few of them. We are only addressing the question in this thread of; "can I formulate a syllogism without it being creationist". My syllogism, doesn't contain any creationist or theist premises, sure you can SAY/CLAIM that it is really creationism, but obviously you can't say that logically you can prove my motives according to cynicism. It is 100% SPECULATION to say that the syllogism is creationist. Think about it - even if I did form it to defend creation, as obviously I do that all the time, why does my motive change a true argument? Could I not argue the same for evolution? I could say evolution is atheism, but it's begging-the-question because evolution theory contains no premises about God.
If a creationist wishes to alter the curriculum in a way that supports Creationism - and lacks any other merit - it is quite reasonable to conclude that it is all about Creationism. Even so, this doesn't mean that his syllogism is wrong. For in reality, if the world is atheist or theist, then there will be both atheists and theists that invent arguments for the purposes of preaching their type of beliefs, but would it then follow that we can dismiss all theist/atheist arguments, because someone has an ulterior motive? Obviously, all or most arguments will naturally FAVOUR one or the other, if we are going to discuss the origins of things, but obviously an argument, even if it is created with motive X, is not going to be an unsound argument because of that motive. Imagine if we all found out when we died, that Darwin had a 100% motive of atheism BUT we did evolve. Can you see my point yet? The argument of evolution would not be unsound because of his motives, and it wouldn't matter if it was implicitly atheist. Finally, I have no "wish" or motive to get creation into science class, for why would I want apologetics in a science class given rules of science don't allow for God-of-the-gaps reasoning? I have reasoned for fifteen years, that creationism is not science. I really don't see what science has to do with this issue, this issue is to do with whether a syllogism can be created that is sound, and is an intelligent design syllogism, that contains not premises about God or creation. Are you saying it is not possible according to logical notation, to formulate a sound ID-argument because it will automatically be theist and creationist, even if it only infers something is designed? You could use my syllogism if you found an alien object, and you could conclude it was designed technology, like with the antikythera mechanism, because it has the features of design. The designer CAN be natural because my syllogism doesn't forbid it, just like you CAN be theistic evolutionist because evolution doesn't forbid it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member (Idle past 194 days) Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
Genomicus writes: No, I said it's a terrible way to detect intelligent design. Sure, you can detect design -- but we need an approach where we can determine if that design is the result of agency or Neo-Darwinian mechanisms. Why? Do we need an approach so as to determine whether a cake was baked or whether the theory it baked itself, done it? You are muddying-the-water. When we examine whether something is intelligently designed, we can 100% know the features of design because we can examine things we already know to be designed. That's the first step. Secondly, we can also tangibly examine the object-in-question to see if it has those features. HOW CAN WHAT A THEORY SAYS ABOUT THE OBJECT, AFFECT WHETHER IT HAS THOSE FEATURES OR NOT? According to the law-of-the-excluded-middle, either the object in question qualifies as having the features of intelligent design, or it does not. Because we can DIRECTLY examine it, why would indirect conjecture of a theory, have any weight? Think about it properly instead of desiring to refute me, as thus far you have shown good honesty. If someone came up to you and placed a football at your foot, and said, "please tell me is this a football" and you went to examine it and they clicked their fingers and said, "oh hang on a minute, we have a theory this isn't a football, it's brilliant and most people accept the theory by neurotic agreement so forget the examination" Would that be an intelligent way to proceed, when you have the football in front of you and can simply test whether it is one? In the same way, I don't need the speculation of evolution-theory to tell me if a rabbit has the features of design, I simply examine it's make-up and see that it does; - specified complexity- information - contingency planning - correct materials (not metal or enamel for a stomach) - aesthetics and symmetry - goals and subgoals - congruency/integration of systems in union of the overall goal. (eyes, ears used for balance, don't get in each others way, etc..car wheels don't get in the way of the carburetor, etc..it is all a union of corresponding integration). - information storage density - directed energy (Obviously I didn't want to argue intelligent design in this thread but if unfair assertions about my arguments are made, obviously this gives me some leeway, but I would rather not explain it all again, and again and again, coming across the same mistakes by evolutionists, the same mistaken objections that OCCUR to them, and which I already know of, having dealt with those objections for a long, long time).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member (Idle past 194 days) Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
Tangle writes: Despite the fact that it IS a creationist argument and you ARE a creationist - the journalistic principle of 'consider the source' always applies - syllogisms don't prove anything - they're as likely to be invalid as valid. So..... All animals have 4 legsA dog has 4 legs Therefore a dog is an animal ..... turns out by observation to be correct Non-sequiturs can be true in their conclusions, but this argument is either the undistributed middle term, fallacy or affirmation of the consequent, depending on what you meant by "a dog has 4 legs"(in a logical sense),.. so your example is of a fallacious syllogism in support of your argument that syllogisms don't prove anything..
Tangle writes: But... All elephants have 4 legsAll tables have 4 legs Therefore all tables are elephants .....turns out by observation not to be correct Again, it is not correct because this time it is the fallacy of the undistributed middle term in which it happens to be a false conclusion. You still commit the fallacy of the undistributed middle term if your conclusion is false, both your examples are not examples of a sound syllogism, and you claim syllogisms aren't proof but you only give examples of unsound ones. You gave an example of two syllogisms whereby the form was not valid. If you want to give an example of a SOUND syllogism, the form has to be valid, and obey the ponen/tollens rules, and the premises have to be true. So then I disagree with your argument that syllogisms don't prove anything because sound ones can indeed deductively prove things; All biological pigs are animals.My pet is a biological pig Therefore my pet is an animal. So you have to understand that the form of a syllogism can be wrong even if it's conclusion is accidentally true. A non-sequitur can have a true conclusion but the conclusion still does not follow from the premises. Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member (Idle past 194 days) Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
Genomicus, your comment, "appear" is a question-begging-epithet. I could also say, "why then do Ferraris appear to be designed".
You have yet to understand the technical logic behind my argument. The point is, if we take life out of the equation, nothing exists that looks designed and isn't, that also has the features of design. A natural land bridge looks designed but when we investigate we will see the material is loose and crumbly and the path is not straight or meant for walking on, etc...there is no contingency planning or any of the true elements of design. So the induction so far is that 100% of things that looks designed but aren't, can be shown to not be designed because they won't have the true features of design. So then a human body or a ferrari car, don't appear to be designed. If you say a human appears to be designed you also have to say a ferrari appears to be designed, because they both equally have all of the features of design. To use the question-begging-epithet, "appearance" while discussing anatomy and genetics, is therefore the special-pleading fallacy, because you would not use the term, "appearance" while describing a car's design, you would just use the term, "design". The features of specified complexity, contingency planning, are really in the anatomy, like they are really in a car, so your argument is SPECIAL PLEADING - you are asking me to treat actual intelligent design as appearance, in lifeforms, but as design in a car, even though in both the car and the eyeball, the specified complexity is present, meaning an eyeball is constructed to give vision, OVERTLY upon investigation, and a car is constructed to drive, OVERTLY, by investigation. If an eyeball and a car is not constructed to drive then we could DESTROY the arrangement of parts in both and they would still function. I appreciate your honesty, but be careful to be more objective, because the features of design in life don't only "appear". Remember, there is no argument for the "appearance" argument other than the words, "it's appearance" meaning the appearance-argument is not an argument, it is a WORD. Think about it - can you formulate a strong argument for, "appearance"? No - for it is just a WORD you use.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member (Idle past 194 days) Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
Vimesey writes: Therein lies the weakness in your own syllogism. You assume the premises are true. We do not share your assumption An unintelligent and incorrect bare assertion. Two statements followed by a statement about yourself. Do you expect me to now say this; "oh well, I guess I assumed my premises were true even if I have the memory of why I came up with them because someone has arrogantly stated something about me I know to be false." Your post is an impolite and unworthy joke of a response...a non-response in fact....and here is precisely why, that you may know I am not the dunder-head your treat me as...for talking to me like I am stupid, won't mean I am, Sir; 1. I don't assume the premises are true.2. How can you share an assumption not yet proven to exist? (begging the question fallacy) How can you "share an assumption"when I don't have an assumption? That's like saying, "mike you love pink hats, and we don't share your love of pink hats". But I don't love pink hats. You have yet to prove I do love them, my dear Watson. So you're going to have to get up a hell of a lot earlier in the morning. There are two premises in my syllogism which are both obvious facts of life; 1. The elements of intelligent design make something designed.If that is, "not" true, then that means you are saying the elements of design do not make something designed, meaning the elements of humanity don't make them human, the elements of a plane don't make a plane, etc...it is not an assumption that the law of identity is true, which my premise depends on, meaning we find out what a thing is by finding out what it is/what makes it what it is. 2. Life has the elements of design. Again, NOT an assumption, but upon investigation, I compared all of the elements in known designs with life and found the same features. There is no difference in the specified complexity of an eye or a carburetor, both are one complete design in the body of a larger design, both each have parts which are all congruent to the goal of their being, both have contingency plans, etc...all of the features of design are present in life, an explanation to the full would naturally take me several more hundred words, and I am not compelled to do for you seeing as you have no genuinely honest motive of investigation. So the weakness of your argument is that it is nothing more than a false and bare statement, of ZERO intelligent content. A most unfair and unworthy post, Sir, given you backed your claims with THIN AIR. Your two statements were supported by six words and those six words were a statement about yourself and those agree with you as an appeal to the majority view (argumentum ad populum). As you can see in this post, my counter-claims are a proper explanation and support for my counter-claims. You must also do the same, if I am to count you as worthy of debating. Thus far you have not provided any intelligent content, I can only respect intelligent responses and naturally you may see that seldom do I come across them at EvC forum. If you want to come up higher, provide something more than the wet blat of an empty fart, because right now,..."Im LAUGHING at the superior intellect." - Captain Kirk - The Wrath Of Khan.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member (Idle past 194 days) Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
The difference is in function. The reason an atp synthase doesn't look like a rounded, polished motor is because things do not appear on that scale, to that accuracy. USE YOUR BRAIN, and think about it. If you tried to paint a portrait of the queen on a piece of A4 sized canvas, could you get the portrait as accurate if you had to paint it on a 1mm squared piece of canvas? The appearance of things change on a very small scale, as matter looks and appears differently on that scale of extreme size.
The sizes of these things and the LOOK of these things don't matter as much, meaning your argument is a superficial argument BESIDES the point. The success of an atp motor is not dependent upon what it looks like, especially on a molecular level, and on that level things are not the same as on the macro level. So then, your duck-shaped cloud has no function meaning your example is a false equivalent for it is not equivalent. That cloud has no function, and atp synthase turns adp to atp according to a level of efficiency of design, beyond human standards, THAT is it's design, not it's appearance. The parts still function correspondingly, so it's appearance is superficial. So then, the appearance of macro-level things such as bones, eyes, wings, feathers, etc...is a smooth appearance, because of their size difference. It is nothing to do with design, IMHO, making your argument tenuous. Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given. Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member (Idle past 194 days) Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
Taq writes: The argument is that biology "looks" designed because it "looks" like machines and codes. That simply isn't true I have addressed this silly strawman fallacy before. I don't know of one person that ever argues this apart from you. I don't say biology "looks" designed, my argument specifically is that biology has all of the elements/feature of design which naturally will also make it look designed which is a trivial issue, because cars also look designed. I've also explained to you that on a micro-level it is not what something looks like that matters, but correct function. Only evolutionists are stuck on the "appearance" of things. If you had actually read my new topic you would see I have answered the appearance-argument. We are not arguing appearance, we are arguing the actual features of design which are identical, such as specified complexity, contingency planning, information/density, correct materials. etc.. Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member (Idle past 194 days) Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
Frako writes: I still think that the best argument against inteligent design, is the stupid designs we find in nature, stuff that a child would design better, Like nerves and blood vessels run trough the inside of the eye blocking light from reaching the sensors at the back of the eye, and a blind spot because of the same idiotic idea.Its equivalent of placing the lens of a camera behind the wires and chips, and then writing a computer progam to fill in the missing pieces of the picture. This old canard has been addressed so many time now. It is probably the oldest atheist P.R.A.T.T on the internet. (point refuted a thousand times). The receptors need to be refreshed by the choroid, the mueller cells penetrate the nerve net so the "problem" you mention here is not a problem for it is cleverly solved and we have no problem with our vision because of this. For it to count as poor design you would have to show that vision is hindered. Your complaint it is "stupid" design is the opposite of the facts, for you clearly know little about this topic. The trumpet-like mueller cells are designed CLEVERLY so that the light is taken directly to the photo receptors. You can read more about your add nauseam argument here;
CMI writes: (from the choroid as I explained)
Actually it does make sense, as ophthalmologists know, and have explained for years, so Dawkins has no excuse for repeating such discredited arguments. Dawkins’ analogy fails because photocells don’t have to be chemically regenerated, while the eye’s photoreceptors are chemically active, and need a rich blood supply for regeneration. CMI writes: Someone who does know about eye design is the ophthalmologist Dr George Marshall, who said: The idea that the eye is wired backward comes from a lack of knowledge of eye function and anatomy.1He explained that the nerves could not go behind the eye, because the choroid occupies that space. This provides the rich blood supply needed for the very metabolically active retinal pigment epithelium (RPE). This is necessary to regenerate the photoreceptors, and to absorb excess heat from the light. So the nerves must go in front rather than behind. But as will be shown below, the eye’s design overcomes even this slight drawback. In fact, what limits the eye’s resolution is the diffraction of light waves at the pupil (proportional to the wavelength and inversely proportional to the pupil’s size); so alleged improvements of the retina would make no difference to the eye’s performance. It’s important to note that the ‘superior’ design of Dawkins with the (virtually transparent) nerves behind the photoreceptors would require either: The choroid in front of the retinabut the choroid is opaque because of all the red blood cells, so this design would be as useless as an eye with a hemorrhage!Photoreceptors not in contact with the RPE and choroid at allbut without a rich blood supply to regenerate, then it would probably take months before we could see properly after we were photographed with a flashbulb or we glanced at some bright object. Mueller cells backwardly wired retina v Dawkins - creation.com (no doubt you will now try and come up with more examples of bad design, but before you do, you should know that logical rules prove that even bad design is still design. Showing me a car that is not well designed in your opinion, doesn't prove design is not there. The arguments of poor design in biology, have all been addressed. I can take all of those arguments to pieces but they really are boring to have to address again and again, they are not many, they are few, simply repeated many times. Repeating a few things, many times is not the same as many things being repeated. Usually it's the wiring of the eye, which people don't understand has now been proven to be very clever design, the recurrent laryngeal nerve, or men's nipples, or the pharynx. Must I show the silly errors with each one, all over again?) Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given. Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member (Idle past 194 days) Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
DrA writes: I see mikey tried to start a new thread to commit the same silly logical fallacy as in this one.Mikey, mikey, please try to think of a new mistake. "I am afraid it is you who are mistaken, young Skywalker...about a great......many.....things." - The Emperor, Return Of The Jedi. Edited by mike the wiz, : changed "thing" to, "things"...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member (Idle past 194 days) Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
If you don't at first succeed..increase the dosage of question begging epithets. First it was "stupid" now it is, "idiotic design".
Lol.
Frako writes: make 2 dots on a piece of a paper then look at one and move the distence of the paper from your ees untill the dot vanishes and it looks like the paper is blank, then tell me we dont have problems whit our vision because of this idiotic design. Oh absolutely, and you clearly have spent a lot of time thinking about that link, and about this issue haven't you? But before you CHANGE THE GOAL posts, I must first ask you this; your complaint was X, and I have answered X, showing you were wrong and the nerve net in front is a clever design. Now you have changed the issue to locating dots on a page, does this mean you have acknowledged you were wrong about the previous complaint?
Frako writes: make 2 dots on a piece of a paper then look at one and move the distence of the paper from your ees untill the dot vanishes and it looks like the paper is blank, then tell me we dont have problems whit our vision But this is logically, proof we don't, for if you have to ask me to do something strange with my eyes in order to show me there is something wrong with their design then doesn't that show how weak your argument it? Frako, there's a problem with your legs as a design, take a hammer and smash your knee caps to pieces, then tell me there isn't a problem with this "idiotic design" of leg. OR, you can grow a modicum of humility and just admit that you simply DESIRE to say that eyes are poorly designed. Eyes are very complex, I watched a two hour seminar about them, and the things of cleverness mentioned took most of the time, the wiring of the retina, experts know isn't really a problem. Even if we accepted some complaints about the eye, I think logically it is much more realistic to regard those complaints as, "imperfections" rather than design flaws. For example, chasing dots on a page hasn't really been a problem for my vision until, well....now, when you mentioned it. So it seems to me you may have a case in arguing, "why isn't design perfect". But even if I was evolutionist I wouldn't call the eye, "stupid". Eyes are miraculous, even if you are evolutionist you could say "a miracle of evolution", which although is an oxymoron, at least acknowledges the facts. The fact is eyes are not only beautiful but they are made in congruence with the rest of the face, brain ears. You don't look into a beautiful woman's eyes and think, "stupid", do you? The eyes are incredible, to know why would take hours of discussion, mentioning a few trivial complaints and saying, "we should infer idiotic design" is the fallacy of slothful induction, against the weight of the evidence that shows all eyes are not only viable designs, but are aesthetically pleasing, too. Let's put the shoe on the other foot. If evolution is true, we could reasonably expect more design problems rather than slight imperfections, given there would be no designer at all. Is it conceivable that every design, every species, would be viable into the millions and there would never be even one bad design, like some type of species, "making do" with an eye where it is largely opaque because it really was wired wrong, (like it isn't). If it's all evolution, you have to be realistic, you would expect many odge-bodge designs. To argue from hindsight, "we would expect what we see", is an easy game to play isn't it, but evolution would never predict millions of viable designs. Your arguments strikes me as a rather desperate attempt to focus on the one or two rather trivial imprefections shall we say...it is like saying, "this forest contains no trees because look, here is a spot where there are none." That's slothful-induction, when you ignore the majority of the evidence and instead focus on the few examples, and then infer a conclusion based on the few examples, rather than on the majority of examples. The majority of the evidence (99.9999%) shows staggering intelligent design, and the 0.0001% that show "trivial imperfections", aren't even problems for design. For example, how can a braking system on a car be "idiotic design" if they are viable, function correctly, don't break down, but because you can't go from 60mph to 0mph in 1 second, you conclude it is, "idiotic design". If it isn't designed to do that, then it isn't bad design. A bus also is not designed to go around a corner like a ferrari can. Our eyes aren't meant to do strange dot-chasing manoeuvres, but does it mean the design is, "idiotic"? Hmmmmm. So it seems to me when atheists say, "stand on one foot, squint with one eye behind your back and whistle dixie! SEE! You can't, therefore terrible design!" forgive me for taking such arguments with a large pinch of salt. Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given. Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024