Spotting Beretta's "designer" {Now only 1 summation message per member}

If even the simplest of bacteria needs a designer, then the designer would certainly need a designer.End of that argument, as we disappear into the black hole of infinite regression. Apart from that, we have a designer who always designs within the parameters of evolutionary possibility. There's no reason why the designer can't do Haldane's proverbial rabbit in the PreCambrian, or something interesting like a marsupial elephant, or a snow-kangaroo.On a normal designed planet, there would be thousands of complete anachronisms, both living and in the fossil record, which would not fit into any theory of evolution. Yet here on earth, it is clear that our intelligent designer is trying to make it look as though evolution is the story.Indeed, she appears to be bending over backwards to conceal herself and give nature the credit/blame, so we must rely on blind faith if we are to believe she exists.

Only? Rabbit fossils in the Precambrian? 100 million year old hominids?On a designed planet, there should surely be thousands of such anachronisms, and any theory of evolution would be impossible. That's why, if Beretta understood the evidence, he would be opting for a designer who only designs within the parameters of evolutionary possibility with the intent being to deceive anyone making the kind of careful observation of Her Creation that modern biologists make.It's either evolutionism or omphalism

Me neither. I may have read you wrong, but I took something you said to mean that there was only one way to falsify the ToE.However, the designer is the subject, not ToE, and I'm only half-joking when I say we have to consider omphalism. There is actually an alternative, and that's a very laissez faire designer(s) who just maybe kicks things off with the first self-replicator, and perhaps adds some light touches along the way.Either way, here's a personal prediction. I.D. supporters will never be able to agree amongst themselves about what the designer does and doesn't design.This is for the same reason that all the world's monotheistic religions and all their sects and theologians can never agree on what God is and what he does.It's due to what I call the zero evidence problem.

Rabbits in the Precambrian would undermine the idea of evolution itself as an explanation for the origin of species, and therefore all evolutionary theories (Lamarckian, for example, as much as the modern theory).

I understand what you mean here, but I think you need to phrase it carefully, because in a sense, it exists. Micro-organisms are known to increase mutation rates in relation to stress, increasing their chances of producing a strain that might be able to cope.Also, genetic drift could, theoretically, produce the effect that you're describing.

Rabbits in the Precambrian were just Haldane's way of pointing out that evolution could be falsified. The observations made in the last 100 years about evolution in progress would stand, by definition (they're observations) but they could no longer be used to explain the history of life on earth.This is important. The fact that we never find evolutionary impossibilities is central to the role of the ToE as an explanatory theory not only for what's going on now, but for the entire history of life on earth (except for its genesis).

No, the theory would need reworking. A mechanism would have to be added, as genetic drift was, for example. In this case, it would be called "magic".But the point of rabbits in the Precambrian is to highlight what's wrong with the creationist way of looking at the fossil record. They point to its incompleteness, but the wrong incompleteness. They should be concerned about the missing fossils that would destroy the ToE. Those are the real gaps.In a sense, the evolution/creation debate discusses the fossil record the wrong way round. From a creationist point of view, there's absolutely no reason why we shouldn't find rabbits (or humans) in Precambrian rocks. With all the fossils dug up, there should be thousands that couldn't possibly be fitted into the evolutionary view, the nested hierarchies. Yet there are none.Omphalism or evolutionism? Which do you think explains this?Shall we have a vote on whether or not there's a deceiving designer?

Me neither. Try rolling two di, and if it comes to a 2 or a 12, suspend yourself until you sober up.

Expecting natural causes and explanations for natural phenomena does not come from a philosophy, but from human experience and common sense. It is those who look for unnatural explanations for natural phenomena who do so due to some bizarre philosophy.All the explanations for natural phenomena that have ever proven to be true have been natural, so when we observe things as yet unexplained, or only partially explained, it is only natural that we treat natural explanations as the default likelihood.If you hear a strange unidentified noise in your house, consider the possibilities of it being caused by the plumbing, or the wind rattling something, or other such things, before you bring in the exorcist to rid you of a poltergeist. That's the scientific attitude.If you were to buy a little lamp in Egypt, then rub it one day, and green smoke poured out, forming itself into a genie who granted you three impossible wishes, then I'd be the first to agree that you need a supernatural explanation for a supernatural event.Who knows, perhaps we will one day find something that is not part and product of the natural universe. Perhaps all is natural except the moon, which was put there by a moon goddess, or all except the rings of Saturn, which were put there by artistic wizards from extra-universal dimensions.We can keep an open mind. But so far, experience tells us that with hundreds of sound natural explanations for natural phenomena, and no unnatural ones, that it's always more than 99% sure that any observed and described phenomenon, like LIFE, for example, will have natural origins and explanations.Common sense born of experience, Beretta. No grand philosophy required and, sadly for you, no intelligent designer required either.But don't despair! Nature itself could have been designed, and the methodological naturalism of science is not anti-theistic, as so many creationists seem to think. Methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism are not the same thing.Edited by bluegenes, : Title added

Haven't got what you ordered, ikabod, but will this do?Beretta, it looks designed, doesn't it? But we know the mutation that "designed" the extra finger.

Beretta, are you saying that you would call natural processes supernatural? By all means, put forward the standard I.D. argument that certain things in nature cannot be produced naturally because they're too complex. But natural processes aren't "magic" by definition.Our ancestors thought that the supernatural was required to explain numerous phenomena for which we now have natural explanations. That's why intelligent scientists continue to look for natural explanations for phenomena that have not been explained. Common sense born of experience, mate, not the grand philosophical viewpoint that you want it to be.If we explain a spectacular volcanic explosion by attributing it to a fit of anger on the part of the volcano God, we'll never find out the truth about what causes such events.I.D. is about intervention in the laws of the universe as we know them. The claim is that the supernatural is necessary to explain life. Right or wrong, that's where the magic comes in. In the naturalistic explanation, we claim no magic, which is why we point to observable mechanisms like mutation, natural selection and genetic drift. Right or wrong, no magic.

But which hand and which fingers were designed? If one mutation can make this change, could mutation cause one finger to move into opposition to the others, and become a thumb, for example? It wouldn't be magic for that to happen, would it?What was the original hand? A paw perhaps? Or a fin with a wrist (something we find at exactly the expected period in the fossil record)?

At some point, Beretta, software must be able to write itself. Otherwise your intelligent designer requires an intelligent designer.All your arguments make your intelligent designer a logical impossibility. Both intelligence and complexity must be able to exist without an intelligent designer, otherwise no intelligent designer can exist.

You're missing the point, Beretta. It's your own arguments that make a designer impossible. Whenever you describe something as requiring a designer, it means that your designer would also require a designer.Obviously, whether there's a designer or not, it must be possible for things like complexity and intelligence to exist without requiring a designer.Your arguments contain an inbuilt contradiction, and are therefore self-defeating. They make life an impossibility by any route, but we're here.

No. Surely you know that indirect evidence is perfectly acceptable in science, and you can be sure that Rick believes in the existence of many things that he cannot see.You still don't seem to want to understand the difference between metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturalism. The science that we use to study the universe is the same whether that universe was created by some form of intelligence or not.You're on the correct track in trying to point out things that you think couldn't be produced naturally as being evidence of intelligent design. Your main problem is technical, in that we can think of ways in which highly complex organs can evolve, which doesn't disprove the existence of your designer(s), but does mean that you're still without evidence, direct or indirect. Another problem is that gaps do not mean gods, so lack of human knowledge doesn't constitute evidence for a designer.But never mind. It's fun looking for a designer and trying to figure out what he must be like by observing his designs. You mention bacterial flagella, presumably because you think they can't evolve. Some of the creatures with these are pathogens for us. So, we see a somewhat bizarre trait in the designer, because our immune systems are also complex. This really looks like two competing designers, or a mad designer who is competing with himself.Strangely, the evolutionists' view of an arms race between parasite and host seems to explain these directly competing complexities so much better than any I.D. hypothesis.What I maintain about the designer is that she must be deliberately trying to leave the impression that evolution is the culprit, or leaving things to evolve intentionally. There's absolutely no reason why a designer should design only within the parameters of evolutionary possibility, so we either have a designer for whom evolution is part of the design, or a designer who's deliberately attempting to deceive observers.Which do you think most likely?