Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Design arguments Does bad design mean no design?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In Of Designers and Dunces, Roddy Bullock entertaininglyly addresses the claim made by Professor Donald Wise of the University of Massachusetts that defects in the human body show that there is no design in nature.

Unwise person: I’ll admit it’s art, but it’s bad art.

Wise person: But you will agree that it is the work of an artist. Yes?

Unwise person: No.

A “bad design” claim, if sustainable, might come better from a medical doctor than a geologist, but medical doctors do not appear to be among materialism/Darwinism’s fans.

Comments
bj: When I first ran across the idea of panspermia I thought it was just another crackpot new-age type notion. But I liked Fred Hoyle's SF novels so I read a couple of his books on panspermia. The more I read the more plausible it seemed. This was just opposite to my experience with neo-Darwinism. DaveScot: Fred Hoyle's proposal for undirected panspermia is not that spores make it here from some blown-up planet where life arose, but that spores are ubiquitous in the universe; in dust, comets, e tc.. If so, it's not unlikely at all that they would land on earth. His theory is that life had no beginning, and the universe has existed forever. He wrote a whole cosmology text using this model, accounting for background radiation etc. used to support the "big bang" and showing that the evidence supports his steady state model as well as a "big bang". He was actually the one who coined the term. In his theory, spores more or less constantly (at least intermittently) rain down on the earth, which could theoretically explain the sudden appearance, time and time again, of new features of life appearing fully formed. They're either coded into the genome anciently and expressed when conditions become right, or possible the genetic code arrives via comet. This also can account for the appearance of life on earth almost immediately after it cooled enough to support it, and far sooner than could reasonably be expected for it to arise de-novo. It fits the fact of very early life much better than Darwinism. Of course a directed process also fits the facts. As I mentioned, I personally believe in a directed process, but I don't think the idea of an undirected one can be readily dismissed. Dave C.dacook
November 17, 2006
November
11
Nov
17
17
2006
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT
trystero57 - What DaveScot said. But I would go further and say that people are religious because of the evidence for a designer and NOT the other way around-> that being that people are IDists because they already believe in "God". ------------------------------------------------------------ Mark Frank: I haven’t time to recreatethem but I would like to assure you that I am quite familiar with a lot of the ID literature and arguments. To us it sure doesn't look like it. Just about all of your arguments have been either answered or refuted in ID literature.Joseph
November 17, 2006
November
11
Nov
17
17
2006
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT
Jason/Kairos I just want to say that I did respond to posts number 74 and 80. But neither post got published and I did not think to preserve them. I haven't time to recreatethem but I would like to assure you that I am quite familiar with a lot of the ID literature and arguments.Mark Frank
November 16, 2006
November
11
Nov
16
16
2006
11:35 PM
11
11
35
PM
PDT
Trystero Yes.DaveScot
November 16, 2006
November
11
Nov
16
16
2006
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT
Hello. I'm new here. I was wondering are there any IDers here who don't believe in any particular formulation of god per se, but are simply sufficiently persuaded by ID to believe that there must be a designer, without speculating on (non-scientific!) grounds what or whom that designer might be? Best wishestrystero57
November 16, 2006
November
11
Nov
16
16
2006
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT
dacook Undirected panspermia where the source is another solar system is so improbable that for all practical purposes it is impossible. The chance of a life bearing planet around another star blowing up and some bit of it reaching the vicinity of the earth is slim to none. Planets are simply too small of a target in the vastness of interstellar space. Not only that but the journey would take millions of years and it would have to survive burning up in our atmosphere and land in a suitable spot. There's a strong consensus on that point. http://astrobiology.arc.nasa.gov/news/expandnews.cfm?id=295 It's at least debatable whether life could survive a trip from Mars to earth and while it could probably get here on a comet there's practically no way for any significant chemical evolution to happen outside an environment where liquid water can exist. An additional part of the problem is that life originating within our solar system but not on earth doesn't buy you anything. As best we can tell life appeared on the earth not long after the formation of the solar system. Mars or any other place in the solar system wouldn't have had any longer period of time than the earth had for chemical evolution to proceed. The galactic habitable zone, however, appears to have contained solar systems suitable for intelligent organic life as we know it for about 4 billion years before our solar system formed. So the only defensible panspermia is directed panspermia. It does no good to promote an undirected version of panspermia when it can be easily shot down as unreasonably improbable. Facts don't have to be reasonable but hypotheses do.DaveScot
November 15, 2006
November
11
Nov
15
15
2006
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT
Mark Frank: Well yes there is a lot I don’t understand. You say it is an inference - but you don’t give any detail about the inference. There are many books written that do just that. I really hope you don't hope to learn about ID by visiting blogs and/ or discussion forums. Mark Frank: It appears to go something like this: Humans are capable of creating these distinctive patterns. Umm, what distinctive patterns are you talking about? Mark Frank: All the other forms of intelligence that we can observe are not. I know of many non-human intelligences capable of producing amazing patterns and functional designs. Mark Frank: Therefore, whereever we see these patterns they are a universal indicator of intelligence of some kind - possibly non-human. You really need to delve into some ID literture. Mark FRank: As for “nature’s origins require something beyond nature”. Well of course you can put any noun you like in that sentence instead of “nature” and it sounds equally convincing. The point, of course, is if one is to exclude ID because of some implication to the non or super natural, one has to use the SAME standard for all, even the materialistic alternative to ID. Mark Frank: Either you have an infinite regress or somewhere along the line you accept that something has not got an origin outside of itself. Who Designed the Designer? Mark Frank: I don’t see why that shouldn’t be nature (also I am not convinced that the word “nature” in this context has a clear meaning - but that’s another (long) story). You don't understand the logic behind the design inference yet you think it is logical that nature can account for the origin of nature? I think I see the problem... And, as I posted in another thread that design inference can be tested and either confirmed or falsified.Joseph
November 15, 2006
November
11
Nov
15
15
2006
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT
Mark,
First how do we know intelligence is capable without knowing something about the intelligent agent?
This suggests that we understand acts of intelligent agency by understanding the agent and then comming to see that his acts are intelligent. I believe that this approach is fatally flawed. If we say that an act that is committed is intelligently produced because the perpetrator is an intelligent agent, then the question arises: How do we know that the agent is intelligent to begin with, and even if we know this, how do we know which acts are intellient and which aren't? Now it could be the case that we define certain physical characteristics which must correspond with any act of intelligent agency. This is to say that in order for us to understand that an act has been intelligently wrought, we must see that it could come from a certain type of physical source acting in a certain physical manner. The problem with this is that it doesn't explain how we come to an understanding of informational content. Informational content from an external mind cannot be simply defined into existence; it must be understood. For example, I understand that a vocal utterance of "dog" refers to a furry quadrupedal mammal not because I see that it comes from an embodied human source, but rather because I recognize that a pattern (the audible utterance of "dog") in a certain situational context is likely the product of an intelligent cause consciously referring to a particular type of animal. I don't see how it would make any difference if the physical source of the utterance were a human body or a tree or God shouting down to us from the sky. Furthermore, I would like to note that the very notion that any intelligent agent (including humans) can be "detected" is not without serious problems. Consider a guy named Danny who is standing at the top of a three point arc holding a basketball. You observe him take a beautiful shot and swishes it. Let's isolate the event of the ball traveling through the air and passing throught hoop and trace its cause. In our ordinary everyday language, when asked to identify the cause of this event, we would normally say that Danny is the cause. But what is Danny? The direct physial antecedent of the event could be viewed as the contractions of certain muscles in a certain manner. Very well, but what is the cause of these muscular contractions? One could say that it is the result of the firing of neurons in the brain which terminates in the nervous stimulation of the muscles in use. Great, but what is the cause of this pattern of neural firings? On the physicalistic analysis, physical cause begets physical effect from the beginning to the end of time. Yet, when we understand an event to be intelligently produced, we understand the causal chain to terminate with an original, intelligent cause (e.g. Danny) which we merely associate with a physical body. Insofar as each step in the causal chain can be chalked up to either contingency or regularity, no intelligent agency can be present, for the physical order is merely behaving in its prescribed manner.crandaddy
November 15, 2006
November
11
Nov
15
15
2006
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT
Mark,
Humans are capable of creating these distinctive patterns. All the other forms of intelligence that we can observe are not.
I don't think you're capable of backing up that assertion (which I bolded). Far as I know no one has attempted to apply ID to the patterns created by animals. While I think your objection is unreasonable (the reasons for why I think this others have already covered) it's at least possible to attempt to answer it.
As for “nature’s origins require something beyond nature”. Well of course you can put any noun you like in that sentence instead of “nature” and it sounds equally convincing. Either you have an infinite regress or somewhere along the line you accept that something has not got an origin outside of itself. I don’t see why that shouldn’t be nature
Sounds like you'd agree with Bill on that score:
Additionally, the designer of ID is claimed to be “supernatual,” when in fact the nature of nature is precisely what’s at issue, and the designer could be perfectly natural provided that nature is understood aright.
and
The conflation of ID with supernaturalism is inappropriate. What’s at issue is the nature of nature. Is nature the sort of place where telic organizing principles can operate? That’s all ID requires. It does not require supernatural designers who operate outside nature. Intelligence can be a PERFECTLY NATURAL aspect of the physical world.
Now obviously Bill is assuming that our knowledge of nature will eventually broaden beyond the current limited understanding.Patrick
November 15, 2006
November
11
Nov
15
15
2006
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT
dacook and davescott, Regarding panspermia, at first look it just seems strange. But as time goes and along and really having difficulty believing in an outside the universe intelligence, I am seeing that trying to keep the answers within what we know-the known universe, is a good idea. Panspermia is consistent with that goal.bj
November 15, 2006
November
11
Nov
15
15
2006
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT
Joseph
That is why it is called an INFERENCE! And as with all inferences future research can either confirm or refute it. But guess what? THAT is the nature of science! Science relies on our current undertsanding. And the design inference relies on our current understanding of what intelligent agencies are capable of (which we can observe with the multitude to differing designing species on this planet), coupled with our current understanding of what nature, operating freely, is capable of. We take all that and couple it with the fact that nature’s origins requires something beyond nature regardless of what position you take (pro-ID or anti-ID). Please let me know if there is something about the above that you do not understand.
Well yes there is a lot I don't understand. You say it is an inference - but you don't give any detail about the inference. It appears to go something like this: Humans are capable of creating these distinctive patterns. All the other forms of intelligence that we can observe are not. Therefore, whereever we see these patterns they are a universal indicator of intelligence of some kind - possibly non-human. I don't get the logic. As for "nature's origins require something beyond nature". Well of course you can put any noun you like in that sentence instead of "nature" and it sounds equally convincing. Either you have an infinite regress or somewhere along the line you accept that something has not got an origin outside of itself. I don't see why that shouldn't be nature (also I am not convinced that the word "nature" in this context has a clear meaning - but that's another (long) story).Mark Frank
November 15, 2006
November
11
Nov
15
15
2006
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT
DaveScot; "I agree with you about panspermia. Are you familiar with Crick & Orgel’s directed panspermia?" Yes, and I hold personal opinions along those lines. I do like Brig Klyce's approach, however, because it does not require any supernatural agent or uninvestigatable outside director and so is more easily defensible and acceptable to the scientific naturalist/materialist folks. Fred Hoyle (an early proponent of panspermia) was, I believe, an atheist, but intelligent and intellectually honest enough to see the fatal flaws in Darwinism and go looking for other explanations. Panspermia is perfectly compatible with ID as well. I believe panspermia and ID complement each other very nicely and would like to see much more discussion between the proponents of these ideas. I believe it could lead to a synthesis with real potential to displace Darwinism. Dave C. http://www.panspermia.org/dacook
November 15, 2006
November
11
Nov
15
15
2006
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT
#69 Mark Frank:
X) Whereever this pattern is found it is a sign of intelligence of some kind, even if human intelligence is not possible. X does not obviously follow from A and B.
It's just the difference between deduction and inference. But inference is based on the implicit use of a modus tollens reasoning based on the implausibility that the opposite argument be true (please read the paper by Larmer). This is a very common and sure way of aquiring knowledge both in the scientific realm and in the all day life.
So all I am asking is for is the intermediate steps.
Please excuse me but this seems a classical reversal of the burden of proof :-) More seriously. You haven't at all meet my question: do you really think that for the proposed highly ordered and hierarchical arrangement of stones the design inference could be reasonably (!!!) put in question?kairos
November 15, 2006
November
11
Nov
15
15
2006
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT
This reminds me of the demand that every single conceivable indirect Darwinian pathway must be investigated before Darwinism can be rejected.Patrick
November 15, 2006
November
11
Nov
15
15
2006
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT
Mark Frank So all I am asking is for is the intermediate steps. That's a reasonable request if and only if intelligent design and unintelligent design are held to the same standard. All I'm asking for is a positive demonstration that unintelligent processes can produce the complex nanometer scale machinery found in living cells. Absent that positive demonstration the unintelligent mechanism has no defensible right to be the exclusive theory behind the origin and diversity of life. Both intelligent and unintelligent means should be presented as live options until one or the other is either falsified or confirmed. That's all I'm asking.DaveScot
November 15, 2006
November
11
Nov
15
15
2006
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT
Mark Frank First how do we know intelligence is capable without knowing something about the intelligent agent? Second - what about the unintelligent causes we don’t know of? The capability is demonstrated in the product. SETI assumes that a laser modulated at a very high frequency is something that only intelligence could produce. If it can be positively demonstrated that a laser modulated at high frequency could be accomplished by a non-intelligent process then it's back to the drawing board for SETI. They need know nothing about the intelligence beyond that which is demonstrated by the product of the intelligence. The same principle holds true for a biological product. It is posited that only intelligence can produce the complex machinery found in living things. If it can be positively demonstrated that non-intelligent processes can produce the same product then it's back to the drawing board for ID. DaveScot
November 15, 2006
November
11
Nov
15
15
2006
06:47 AM
6
06
47
AM
PDT
Mark Frank: First how do we know intelligence is capable without knowing something about the intelligent agent? Second - what about the unintelligent causes we don’t know of? That is why it is called an INFERENCE! And as with all inferences future research can either confirm or refute it. But guess what? THAT is the nature of science! Science relies on our current undertsanding. And the design inference relies on our current understanding of what intelligent agencies are capable of (which we can observe with the multitude to differing designing species on this planet), coupled with our current understanding of what nature, operating freely, is capable of. We take all that and couple it with the fact that nature's origins requires something beyond nature regardless of what position you take (pro-ID or anti-ID). Please let me know if there is something about the above that you do not understand.Joseph
November 15, 2006
November
11
Nov
15
15
2006
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT
Simply by applying mere scientific reasoning thet MUST consider what we know about natural forces and their possinbilities and NOT speculate about what we don’t know.
Uhm - these are fine sounding words but can you actually give me the logic. I have the initial premisses: A) Humans create complex heirarchical patterns (agreed) B) We have not observed any natural processes that create similar patterns (not sure I agree, but willing to accept as I am sure you can find some pattern that meets this requirement) I also know the conclusion. X) Whereever this pattern is found it is a sign of intelligence of some kind, even if human intelligence is not possible. X does not obviously follow from A and B. So all I am asking is for is the intermediate steps.Mark Frank
November 15, 2006
November
11
Nov
15
15
2006
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT
#60
What do you mean by genuine heirarchy? What’s an ersatz heirarchy look like? I will assume you just mean heirarchy. You may believe that a heirarchy is only a product of intelligence. I only recognise that heirarchies are often the result of human intelligence. ... But that is not the point. I am sure with sufficient attempts you will find some pattern that humans produce for which I cannot find an equivalent naturally produced pattern. The real point is how will you prove that pattern (whatever it turns out to be) is a universal sign of intelligence and not limited to a human context?
Simply by applying mere scientific reasoning thet MUST consider what we know about natural forces and their possinbilities and NOT speculate about what we don't know. For genuine hierarhy I mean something that is hierarchically organized AND it has never been recognized as the product of natural forces. So, I am not speaking of simple one- or two-level hierarchical arrangement, i.e. something that could be obtained as the result of forces as crystal annealing. Instead, I mean something with five hierarchical levels of patterns, each one embedded in the higher one and with shapes completely irreducible to it. Consider for example a stone arrangement that: 1. At the higher (first) level there is a configuration such as: \|/ /|\ 2. At the second level, each segment of the 1st level is composed by a sequence of patterns belonging to three different shapes: |_/\_| OO--OO ++__++ 3. At the third level, each part of the 2nd level is composed by a sequence of patterns belonging to two different shapes: XX----XX °°°°\/°°|__ And so on .... Do you really think that in this case would be fair to state: "heirarchies are often the result of human intelligence"? Or would you frankly admit that Atom is right when writes: "if intelligence is the only cause we know of that is capable, we have no choice but to say that is our current best explanation of the effect."kairos
November 15, 2006
November
11
Nov
15
15
2006
12:29 AM
12
12
29
AM
PDT
dacook When I took "Human Anatomy and Physiology" in college (27 years ago for me) there were 25 women and 2 men in the class counting the professor as one of the men. This was back before political correctness was something of concern. I remember the prof, when he was going over female anatomy (specifically the vagina) saying "God must have been a sanitation engineer because who else would locate a playground between two waste disposal sites." He sure made anatomy fun! The labs were a blast too. I even remember his name - Bill Cotter. He told us we could remember what major vitamins humans needed to get in their diet by the phrase "Bill Cotter Eats" (B, C, and E). I agree with you about panspermia. Are you familiar with Crick & Orgel's directed panspermia? http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/D/dirpans.htmlDaveScot
November 14, 2006
November
11
Nov
14
14
2006
11:55 PM
11
11
55
PM
PDT
Patrick - again I struggle to understand what you have written - but I will concentrate on the sentence I do understand.
So now you’re demanding that we must know the potential for all possible Designers before any design inference is warranted?
That is not what I mean't to say. I am only objecting to this logic: A) Whenever we have observed events of type X in the past it has been the the product of deliberate human intelligence. B) We observe an event of type X in circumstances where it cannot have been product of human intelligence. C) Therefore event X must have been produced by another (unspecified) intelligent agent. Not only does C not follow from A and B, A and B do not even give us a reason for supposing C. Atom
if intelligence is the only cause we know of that is capable, we have no choice but to say that is our current best explanation of the effect.
Not true. First how do we know intelligence is capable without knowing something about the intelligent agent? Second - what about the unintelligent causes we don't know of?Mark Frank
November 14, 2006
November
11
Nov
14
14
2006
10:28 PM
10
10
28
PM
PDT
Mark Frank said: " What reason have you for supposing that any given pattern is a sign of universal intelligence as opposed to human intelligence? " To prove something is a universal sign of intelligence we would have to do one of two things: Either - A) Examine every intelligence in the universe to see if it produces the sign. (Which is impossible to prove "done", since you can always say maybe there is one intelligence we missed) or B) Show that the ability to create the sign can be deduced from the definition of intelligence. Now, why should we prove either? If we see effect X and we see that intelligence as a causal class can produce effect X, and only intelligence has been shown to do so, then we are justified in treated effect X as a sign of intelligent action. This can be overturned the moment we find some non-intelligent explanation for effect X, in which case we'd have two possible explanations: intelligence and the newly found causal class. Then we'd have to use probablility to decide which class is most likely the actual cause. But if intelligence is the only cause we know of that is capable, we have no choice but to say that is our current best explanation of the effect.Atom
November 14, 2006
November
11
Nov
14
14
2006
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT
So now you're demanding that we must know the potential for all possible Designers before any design inference is warranted? You would not find an example with animals acceptable; the other intelligence must meet or exceed human intelligence? Sounds like you're setting the standard so high just so it cannot be answered in a manner you'd find emotionally unacceptable.Patrick
November 14, 2006
November
11
Nov
14
14
2006
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT
Patrick OK. I will lower the requirement a bit. What reason have you for supposing that any given pattern is a sign of universal intelligence as opposed to human intelligence? We know of the propensity for humans to create some types of patterns (not surprisingly patterns that other humans recognise as meaningful). What do we know of the propensity of any other type of intelligence?Mark Frank
November 14, 2006
November
11
Nov
14
14
2006
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT
The real point is how will you prove that pattern (whatever it turns out to be) is a universal sign of intelligence and not limited to a human context?
Arbitrarily upping the requirements are we, Mark? Can you prove that such patterns are not universal signs of intelligence? Now besides hypothetical aliens we could look at structures made by known animals in order to attempt to answer that question. I'm not sure if any ID theorist has spent the time to do so. Problem is, as you should know ID purposefully was biased in such a manner that while false positives are not a problem false negatives are. So while a beaver dam or a bee hive were designed by limited intelligences ID might (as in, I don't know) produce a false negative. But if there is an instance of a pattern produced by an animal that warrants a design inference then at least you'd have your answer, unnecessary though I may think it be.Patrick
November 14, 2006
November
11
Nov
14
14
2006
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT
I first heard the "bad design" argument in 1983, in my first year medical school anatomy class from an excellent professor of anatomy. While there are some things I wonder about (why the heck does the prostate have to surround the urethra; what a lot of trouble that causes!) I think that this argument against design is hubris: We have no idea what constraints the designer had to deal with or what other factors may be/have been present necessitating things to be the way they are. My conversion from Darwinism began in the human anatomy lab. Nearly 25 years later I now consider myself a "post-Darwinist." I find it unbelievable that the fantastic multi-level integration of bodily form and function can have arisen from Darwinian mechanisms. I think we need more than ID, however. It is not nearly the complete theory required for a new paradigm. I recommend consideration of the ideas found here: http://www.panspermia.org/ David A. Cook, M.D. (B.S. in Biology)dacook
November 14, 2006
November
11
Nov
14
14
2006
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT
Kairos "In fact we recognize thta genuine hierarchy is ONLY a product of intelligence. " What do you mean by genuine heirarchy? What's an ersatz heirarchy look like? I will assume you just mean heirarchy. You may believe that a heirarchy is only a product of intelligence. I only recognise that heirarchies are often the result of human intelligence. I am almost certain that some crystals arrange their atoms in heirarchies. But that is not the point. I am sure with sufficient attempts you will find some pattern that humans produce for which I cannot find an equivalent naturally produced pattern. The real point is how will you prove that pattern (whatever it turns out to be) is a universal sign of intelligence and not limited to a human context?Mark Frank
November 14, 2006
November
11
Nov
14
14
2006
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT
This appears to be independent of the context of the designer but it isn’t. If it were truly independent then the location of the stones would not affect the strength of the design hypothesis.
And why not? Remember that I have not referred to a simple arrangement of stones but to an arrangment that is clearly organized hierarchically according to five different levels; i.e. each inner level is embedded in the parent one but with specific shapes that are not at all reducible to the other levels. In this context hierarchy does matter and this olds independently on every pre-knowledge by designers.
However, consider if the stones were found on the moon, or, more extremely, under a kilometre of fozen methane on some remote celestial body. Now the design hypothesis is weakened because it is hard to see how a designer could physically place the stones in that pattern or why. It is still a possibility but it lacks a plausible explanation of how and why. Anyone investigating it would be much more inclined to favour a natural explanation.
That depends. If the shape would be so strongly and clearly "hierarchical, so that no other natural product could even minimally own a similar characteristic you are not scientifically allowed to discard evidence in favour of a higly hypotetical natural solution. In this case the design hypotesis would be just the by far best inference. After all the planetary condition you have supposed are not at all incompatible with alien designers acting in a very far past.
We are so used to people placing objects in regular patterns for a variety of reasons - symbolic, mathematical or just for fun - that the design hypothesis seems massively plausible on earth. But take it out of context, where no human could possibly be involved, and design is just one possible hypothesis for a very strange phenomenon. And the way to explore that hypothesis is to look for motive and means.
But it's very poor to say that we are used to recognize hierarchy as an intelligence product. In fact we recognize thta genuine hierarchy is ONLY a product of intelligence. This is the only empirical , and for this reason scientific, fact.kairos
November 14, 2006
November
11
Nov
14
14
2006
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT
Chris Hyland: There are many complex structures in nature. It is more than mere complexity that leads us to the design inference. Chris Hyland: We can conceive of an intelligence that could of created life, based on the fact that we can create complex machines. It is more like I posted in comment 52: IOW if EVERYTIME we see X,Y or Z and know the cause it is ALWAYS due to some intelligent agency, why can’t we therefore infer intelligent causation when we see something very X-like, Y-like or Z-like and don’t know the cause?
]“Thus, Behe concludes on the basis of our knowledge of present cause-and-effect relationships (in accord with the standard uniformitarian method employed in the historical sciences) that the molecular machines and complex systems we observe in cells can be best explained as the result of an intelligent cause. In brief, molecular motors appear designed because they were designed”-- Pg. 72 of "Darwinism, Design and Public Education"
Chris Hyland: The alternative is impossible/highly improbable. Not only that but there isn't any data, observational or hypothetical, to support the premise. As for purpose- read "The Privileged Planet"- their inferred purpose was for there to be observers to scientifically discover the designed universe.Joseph
November 14, 2006
November
11
Nov
14
14
2006
05:33 AM
5
05
33
AM
PDT
I owe Kairos a response to this:
Consider an ordered arrangement of perfectly rounded shaped stones. Stones are arranged on the ground in a five-level hierarchical figure which does not look like any geometrical or biological shape. In this case the ordered arrangement of parts would be perfectly sufficinet to infer design without any knowledhe of the designer, his purposes, his attitudes to draw figures, etc.
This appears to be independent of the context of the designer but it isn't. If it were truly independent then the location of the stones would not affect the strength of the design hypothesis. However, consider if the stones were found on the moon, or, more extremely, under a kilometre of fozen methane on some remote celestial body. Now the design hypothesis is weakened because it is hard to see how a designer could physically place the stones in that pattern or why. It is still a possibility but it lacks a plausible explanation of how and why. Anyone investigating it would be much more inclined to favour a natural explanation. We are so used to people placing objects in regular patterns for a variety of reasons - symbolic, mathematical or just for fun - that the design hypothesis seems massively plausible on earth. But take it out of context, where no human could possibly be involved, and design is just one possible hypothesis for a very strange phenomenon. And the way to explore that hypothesis is to look for motive and means.Mark Frank
November 13, 2006
November
11
Nov
13
13
2006
11:44 PM
11
11
44
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply