Comments on: Design of Life: Extinction – and so, good night, the final curtain … http://www.uncommondescent.com/the-design-of-life/design-of-life-extinction-and-so-good-night-the-final-curtain/ Serving The Intelligent Design Community Mon, 13 Feb 2012 17:45:48 +0000 hourly 1 By: jerry http://www.uncommondescent.com/the-design-of-life/design-of-life-extinction-and-so-good-night-the-final-curtain/comment-page-1/#comment-167814 jerry Fri, 01 Feb 2008 15:39:15 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/the-design-of-life/design-of-life-extinction-and-so-good-night-the-final-curtain/#comment-167814 Nearly all the arguments for one's point of view on evolution is negative. We destroy the other's arguments with negative information about their position to support our own position. The theodicy argument and the imperfect design argument are the cornerstone for denying an intelligent input especially one from the Judeo Christian God. The attack on naturalistic basis for evolution is based on the negative evidence for Darwinian processes. Namely, there isn't any positive evidence for gradualism but wild speculations. So those who doubt Darwinian processes use essentially negative information and not positive information for another process. We arrive at intelligent inputs to evolution by default. Namely, there is no evidence for a naturalistic process to produce the results we see in life's progression. However, we also gloss over the inconsistencies that exist by postulating an intelligent designer popping in an out of the environment every so many millions of years to effect a change in life's course. I personally don't find any big deal with extinction. If there is a plan for life to lead to humans and somehow it needed 4.5 billion years then a lot of adjustments had to be made along the way including extinctions. We no longer use a lot of things that our ancestors thought essential. In chess it is necessary sometimes to sacrifice the queen in order to achieve success. So loss of previous intelligently designed elements is no big deal. However, what intelligence is necessary to monitor a situation for all this time and then make the adjustments when necessary. These are all questions that do not get discussed that thoroughly and strike at the heart of the ID discussion. There are a lot of inconsistencies in this debate. And we may never be able to answer them. When I was growing up I was taught there were a lot of mysteries in life that we would probably never solve. While science can consistently add to our understanding there are some mysteries that are beyond science. Nearly all the arguments for one’s point of view on evolution is negative. We destroy the other’s arguments with negative information about their position to support our own position. The theodicy argument and the imperfect design argument are the cornerstone for denying an intelligent input especially one from the Judeo Christian God.

The attack on naturalistic basis for evolution is based on the negative evidence for Darwinian processes. Namely, there isn’t any positive evidence for gradualism but wild speculations. So those who doubt Darwinian processes use essentially negative information and not positive information for another process.

We arrive at intelligent inputs to evolution by default. Namely, there is no evidence for a naturalistic process to produce the results we see in life’s progression.

However, we also gloss over the inconsistencies that exist by postulating an intelligent designer popping in an out of the environment every so many millions of years to effect a change in life’s course.

I personally don’t find any big deal with extinction. If there is a plan for life to lead to humans and somehow it needed 4.5 billion years then a lot of adjustments had to be made along the way including extinctions. We no longer use a lot of things that our ancestors thought essential. In chess it is necessary sometimes to sacrifice the queen in order to achieve success. So loss of previous intelligently designed elements is no big deal.

However, what intelligence is necessary to monitor a situation for all this time and then make the adjustments when necessary. These are all questions that do not get discussed that thoroughly and strike at the heart of the ID discussion.

There are a lot of inconsistencies in this debate. And we may never be able to answer them. When I was growing up I was taught there were a lot of mysteries in life that we would probably never solve. While science can consistently add to our understanding there are some mysteries that are beyond science.

]]> By: vjtorley http://www.uncommondescent.com/the-design-of-life/design-of-life-extinction-and-so-good-night-the-final-curtain/comment-page-1/#comment-167786 vjtorley Fri, 01 Feb 2008 13:46:37 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/the-design-of-life/design-of-life-extinction-and-so-good-night-the-final-curtain/#comment-167786 I have a question relating to extinction. I have read an article reporting that Christopher Hitchens, in his debate with Jay Richards, refused to accept the evidence for design in nature, on the grounds that a Designer would not create different kinds of organisms, only to watch them become extinct, which is what has happened to more than 99% of all the species that have ever lived. Hitchens IS making an assumption here: from the premise that God does nothing in vain, it does not necessarily follow that God would never allow His own handiwork to be destroyed. Nevertheless, the assumption is a plausible one: designers do not normally like seeing their handiwork destroyed. Where Hitchens goes wrong, I would suggest, is in identifying God's "handiwork" with the various kinds of CREATURES that have lived on Earth during the past 4 billion years, instead of identifying it with the irreducibly complex STRUCTURES that God has designed. Once we recognize this point, we can now clarify the theological issue at stake here. If God does not like to see His handiwork destroyed, then we should expect irreducibly complex STRUCTURES (not SPECIES) to endure over time, once they have been created. So my question is: does anyone know of an irreducibly complex structure that once existed in the natural world, and does not now exist? If there is one, then Hitchens has indeed scored a rhetorical point. The trilobite eye might spring to mind for some readers, but this would be an invalid example, in my opinion, as it does not appear to have any IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX features that distinguish it from the other kinds of eyes that can be found in the animal kingdom. Presumably, if God designed the eye, then He did so by designing the genes that code for eyes in the various animal lineages, long before they diverged from one another. Can anyone think of any other intelligently designed structures that have disappeared from nature? I have a question relating to extinction. I have read an article reporting that Christopher Hitchens, in his debate with Jay Richards, refused to accept the evidence for design in nature, on the grounds that a Designer would not create different kinds of organisms, only to watch them become extinct, which is what has happened to more than 99% of all the species that have ever lived. Hitchens IS making an assumption here: from the premise that God does nothing in vain, it does not necessarily follow that God would never allow His own handiwork to be destroyed. Nevertheless, the assumption is a plausible one: designers do not normally like seeing their handiwork destroyed.

Where Hitchens goes wrong, I would suggest, is in identifying God’s “handiwork” with the various kinds of CREATURES that have lived on Earth during the past 4 billion years, instead of identifying it with the irreducibly complex STRUCTURES that God has designed.

Once we recognize this point, we can now clarify the theological issue at stake here. If God does not like to see His handiwork destroyed, then we should expect irreducibly complex STRUCTURES (not SPECIES) to endure over time, once they have been created.

So my question is: does anyone know of an irreducibly complex structure that once existed in the natural world, and does not now exist? If there is one, then Hitchens has indeed scored a rhetorical point.

The trilobite eye might spring to mind for some readers, but this would be an invalid example, in my opinion, as it does not appear to have any IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX features that distinguish it from the other kinds of eyes that can be found in the animal kingdom. Presumably, if God designed the eye, then He did so by designing the genes that code for eyes in the various animal lineages, long before they diverged from one another.

Can anyone think of any other intelligently designed structures that have disappeared from nature?

]]>