|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 5845 days) Posts: 27 From: Oklahoma City, Ok Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Irreducible Complexity and TalkOrigins | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Okay, so Mt. Rushmore is designed (we at least agree on that), but you don't really know why we know that it was designed. If we were wandering around lost in South Dakota and came across Mt. Rushmore, we would know that it was designed, but you really haven't thought about it enough to understand how it is that you know that it was designed. Rather than try to figure out why you really do know that it was designed, you bring in irrelevant quotes by Dembski; you probably don't really understand what he's trying to say, but you are hoping that it answers the questions.
What you really need to do is ignore Dembski. I mean, come on, you know Mt. Rushmore was designed. You don't need any gobbledegook like "specified complexity" or any of the other high-falutin' sounding crap that Dembski or Behe spouts. You knew that Mt. Rushmore was designed well before you even heard of Dembski or Behe. Just think for yourself. How do you know that Mt. Rushmore was designed? How do you know that Mt. Rushmore isn't the resulf of random, chance erosion patterns? How do you know that there isn't something about the mountains in South Dakota, some process that will naturally produce something like Mt. Rushmore? Don't reply immediately. This isn't a chat room. You can take your time to think the problem through and write a well-thought out response. I do feel that you need to think about this. Edited by Chiroptera, : Silly typo -- although, given the nature of this board, "wondering" is probably appropriate, too. If it's truly good and powerful, it deserves to engender a thousand misunderstandings. -- Ben Ratcliffe
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 4991 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
Suroof writes: a serious model for the evolution of blood clotting would have to include such things as: a quantitative description of the starting state, including tangentially interacting systems; a description of the initial regulatory mechanisms; a quantitatively-justified proposal for a step-by-step route to the new state; a detailed plan for how regulatory mechanisms accommodated the changes; and more Well I'm no biologist so I won't continue this line of argument. There are others here who will better answer these points. However, I would ask you, as an ID proponent, to consider what you are arguing for: i) ID has no model. It has no explanation for the "design" process. It makes no attempt to identify a "designer" (other than poorly veiled references to God). ii) It makes no positive claims whatsoever. ID "research" is based entriely on nit-picking at controversial areas of evolution, seemingly unaware that problems with evolutionary theory do not automatically validate a non-existent ID model. In short, before worrying about the "irreducible complexity" of blood clotting you should first be showing us how ID works and who is doing it. Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4190 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
In short, before worrying about the "irreducible complexity" of blood clotting you should first be showing us how IC works and who is doing it. That is what has been asked ever since ID was first contemplated. Still no model as to how it works or who or what the designer is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22394 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Suroof writes: Yes, if you have any idea as to how the irreducible core of the blood clotting system (as described in message 65) evolved in a Darwinian step-by-step model please show us. I see that RickJB has picked up the blood clotting issue. As the discussion has already made clear, there are a wealth of possible natural pathways. No scientific unknown has ever resolved to a supernatural origin. The correct answer to something we do not know is, "We do not know," not, "God did it." The entire history of religion is one of deciding God did it, while the whole history of science is, "Gee, how about that, just matter and energy following natural laws once again! Who woulda thought!" Just like everything else in this world, blood clotting has a natural origin. You simply ignored the more important points in my Message 93, concerning the complete lack of objective methods for measuring SC, and the infinite regression of the designer to a supernatural origin. ID has no scientific facets, only supernatural. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
reiverix Member (Idle past 5819 days) Posts: 80 From: Central Ohio Joined: |
I guess I'm just not getting the whole ID thing. What is the criteria for 'looking designed'? It seems to me it's just based on human perception and that's why you keep bringing up Mt Rushmore.
Does this mean the surface of Mars is designed?
Mars Face Edited by reiverix, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I guess I'm just not getting the whole ID thing. What is the criteria for 'looking designed'? It's the argument from incredulity (a logical fallacy):
Coupled with the "all {A} is {B} ... {B}!!! ... therefore {A}" logical fallacy:
IDians ("ID christians" - in case there is any other kind) pride themselves on their grasp of logic. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : i we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4190 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
IDians ("ID christians" - in case there is any other kind) pride themselves on their grasp of logic. I think they are grasping at straws.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Is that why the straw man argument is so common?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4190 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Ha! Ha! Ha!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2642 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
Su,
Let's get one thing straight. "Intelligent designer" means "god".
4. Does your research conclude that God is the Intelligent Designer? I believe God created the world for a purpose. The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God. OREGON: Ask Governor Kate Brown to Veto Legislation Mandating LGBT Content in ALL School History, Geography, Economics and Civics Curriculums | Family Policy Alliance The various incarnations of Pandas and People:
Creation Biology (1983), p. 3-34: “Evolutionists think the former is correct; creationists because of all the evidence discussed in this book, conclude the latter is correct.”
Biology and Creation (1986), p. 3-33: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.” Biology and Origins (1987), p. 3-38: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.” Of Pandas and People (1987, creationist version), p. 3-40: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.” Of Pandas and People (1987, “intelligent design” version), p. 3-41: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view.” Page not found · GitHub Pages |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
wall-on-the-fly Junior Member (Idle past 5947 days) Posts: 2 From: VA Joined: |
This whole idea of finding design in Mt Rushmore is a bit silly. I don't see how this boils down to anything other than a poorly constructed argument from analogy. As others have begun to point out, we all recognize design in these giant stone heads because we've all seen human faces, and we've seen the humans who make statues and paintings and models of human faces. The analogy is reasonable here.
But just as when Hume dismantled this argument more than two centuries ago, this analogy as applied to universes, or worlds, or even organisms has no basis. While perhaps everyone has seen a person construct an artistic representation of a human, NO ONE has ever seen a grand designer constructing a universe, a world, or an organism. There is absolutely no basis in our experience to make such an analogy. We have only one experience with one universe, so no analogy is possible. This is called making stuff up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.0 |
Hi wall-on-the-fly, and welcome to EvC!
I agree with your criticisms, but if you think the Mt. Rushmore example is silly, you've only just begun to scratch the surface of creationist weirdness... Mutate and Survive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
and a relativistic welcome for me, wall-on-the-fly,
This whole idea of finding design in Mt Rushmore is a bit silly. Actually we can use this argument as a basis for another: if we can determine design solely from the object with no context, then we should be able to detect design where we don't know whether there was a designer or not. Thus we should be able to develop a technique that can distinguish the design of DNA and test it with known modified plants and animals and bacteria. Enjoy. ps - if you haven't figured it out yet, type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote: also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window. Edited by RAZD, : . we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
One thing that is interesting about the Mt. Rushmore example is just how much information we can actually gather by looking at it.
For example:
The only reason Creationists or IDists even use the Mt. Rushmore example is that they are as ignorant of what data is available there as they are about biology, genetics, geology and all other science. Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
And most important of all (in my opinion), we know that humans exist, we know that humans make carvings of other humans, and we even know the reasons that humans make carvings of other humans.
Meanwhile, we have no real evidence for a candidate for a designer of life, we don't know whether the candidates that have been proposed have a habit of actually designing life, and we don't even know why such a designer would even do so. It has become fashionable on the left and in Western Europe to compare the Bush administration to the Nazis. The comparison is not without some superficial merit. In both cases the government is run by a small gang of snickering, stupid thugs whose vision of paradise is full of explosions and beautifully designed prisons. -- Matt Taibbi
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024