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.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

The situation is even funnier that this.IDists use Mt Rushmore because they know that we can recognize design, and constrast design with things that are not designed. The faces on Mt Rushmore are designed. But the back of Mt Rushmore is not designed, and neither is the nearby Harvey Peak.Oops. Reflect on the implications of that.Humans are usually pretty good at recognizing design. Behe is an exception to this general rule.Cheers -- Sylas

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

Not to be difficult, but what is it about Mt. Rushmore that indicates that it was designed? What is it about Mt. Rushmore that should convince me that there are no natural processes that could have produced those faces?

First, just to make sure we're all speaking about the same thing, when folk refer to Mt. Rushmore I take it to mean the artwork and not the whole mountain.I think there are two things that indicate design. One is we have other examples of similar faces that were produced naturally. One good example until it collapsed was the "Old Man of the Mountain" in Franconia State Park, NH. If the level of detail of the two were compared, don't you believe that the difference in detail alone would be sufficient to infer design? Secondly, all four faces on the Mt. Rushmore carving are portraits of specific, documented historical figures. Unlike generic depictions, for example portraits of Jesus, we are fortunate enough to have paintings done from life of two of the figures and photographs of the others. I would say the tool marks left on the sculpture. The marks themselves are too regular and from processes we are intimately familar with.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

One good example until it collapsed was the "Old Man of the Mountain" in Franconia State Park, NH. If the level of detail of the two were compared, don't you believe that the difference in detail alone would be sufficient to infer design?

---

Hmm -- I wonder if there is a natural process that produces faces in rock, the Old Man in the Mountain being where the process hadn't yet finished, and Mr. Rushmore being in more of a final state?--

quote:

---

Secondly, all four faces on the Mt. Rushmore carving are portraits of specific, documented historical figures.

---

But I know that those faces arose from natural means -- those four individuals grew from faceless embryos, and so the faces came about by way of the natural processes of developmental biology (based on the science of biochemistry) -- unless you want to hypothesize that a designer directly guides the development process.So, we know that there is at least one naturalist process that can produce those very faces -- perhaps there are more that we are not yet familiar with?--

quote:

---

The marks themselves are too regular and from processes we are intimately familar with.

---

Ah! Now this is becoming compelling. So, if we assume that living species are designed, or that certain biochemical processes were designed, maybe there are tool marks to indicate this?My point is that the analogy with Mt. Rushmore is a bad analogy for IDists to use. We already know a priori that Mt. Rushmore was designed. If Mt. Rushmore is to used as an analogy, we have to pretend that we do not already know that it is designed -- and then try to figure out what characteristics it has that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that it was designed.The tool marks is a good one -- my hat off to you, jar. I was thinking more on the lines that we know humans create sculpture, and know the processes humans use to do it, and so Mt. Rushmore looks all the world like things we know humans designed. But this is less compelling than your example, since it is possible that there are natural processes that can produce the same product. I like the tool marks.I guess my real point is that the only method of inferring design that I know of is to compare the object under study with objects known to have been designed. I feel that your first two attempts fail since we know that the Old Man in the Mountain was not designed, and the real faces of the real historical figures also either were not designed or, at least, is still under contention.This is where the IDist fail -- to show that some living system has been designed they need to find examples that are known to have been designed and then isolate the unique characteristics of those designed systems to compare with the living systems directly.

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.

I wonder why the creationists don't use the "Old Man of the Mountain" monument as an example of ID, hmmm....I'd add to this: Humans are also good at seeing patterns and recognizing patterns/design where none exist (ie. Face on Mars, Old Man of Mountain).

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

Hang on... I'm just going to have to spell this out to make sure I'm understanding you correctly.Are they saying that to recognise something that has been designed, it must be distinguished from the naturally occuring or undesigned, and that whether it appears to be designed or naturally occuring is a meaningful indicator of whether it was or not?If this is the case then by recognising that the faces are the products of design, the IDer proves that god didn't have a hand in making any of the natural world!If that makes sense then you are right, it is funny!

you can also find broken tools (and other evidence of the workers) in the rubble under the sculptured faces that are consistent with the tool marks (and that would show evidence of being handled).

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

one could argue that the "old man" was just a much older sculpture that had weathered to where all evidence of it's manufacturing was obliterated, and had originally been of an equally compelling historical figure that has since been lost in time. what was the original face of the sphynx before it was recut?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}