EvC Forum: How do we tell the difference, Ahmad?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ahmad:
Hi schraf,

quote:
How do we tell the difference between an Intelligently-Designed/Irreducably Complex system and a natural one which we;

1) do not understand yet, but may in the future, and/or

2) do not have the intelligence to understand?

quote:
Good question. Before proceeding, it's very important to be clear just what I mean by "design": The imposition of structure upon some object or collection of objects for some purpose, where the structure and the purpose are not inherent in the properties of the components but make use of these properties.

Funny, that sounds just like what evolution does; uses pre-existing structures for different uses.

In this sense, it is true that natural selection "designs", by favoring individuals with certain variations to reproduce more sucessfully than others in a given environment.

quote:
So anything that is "designed" indicates "purpose"... a "function". Here's where IC takes the toll.. I prefer Behe's definition: "By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."

OK.

quote:
So anything that is irreducibly complex is intelligently designed and denotes purpose and indicates the existence of an "Intelligent Designer".

Whoa there, sparky! Don't put the cart before the horse, now.

There is a huge leap of reasoning here that you are making.

Why do IC systems indicate ID? Where is your evidence that IC systems cannot occur naturally?

The flaw is your (and Behe's) assumption that evolution occurs as a simple, linear addition of components. It doesn't happen that way. Life is much more messy.

Here is an analogy that may help illustrate what I mean:

Say you have a system composed of components A+B+C+D. This system is not, let's say, I.C.

Then a component is added. A+B+C+D+E. Clearly this is not I.C. either, since it would work without the E.

After a while, either because of modification of components or because E is redundant with another component, a component drops out.

Let's say we now have A+B+D+E.

Now, this system, by Behe's definition, may very well be irreducibly complex, in that you can't delete a component without the system failing. But, it could still evolve, hypothetically. Therefore, the argument that I.C. MUST indicate I.D. is false.

quote:
But ID can be identified by other means also. One major area of such identification would be (although off-topic), the cosmological anthropic principle: why are the constants of the universe so finely tuned to support life on this planet?

You have it backwards.

Life evolved according to the laws of nature. If the laws were different, life wouldn't have occurred, or wouldn't be the same as it is now.

quote:
Is it reasonable to suppose that this is the result either of chance or of some as yet unknown natural law?

It is just as reasonable to suppose the above as it is to suppose an omnipotent, all-powerful God created everything, at least in terms of the evidence.

What is your positive evidence for ID?

This is still the same God of the Gaps fallacy; "we don't have an explanation, therefore Godidit."

quote:
Don't mind me giving these explanations.. you may very well be aware of them or know more about them than me... but am just clarifying my position before beginning this discussion

No problem at all.

quote:
Now regarding your (1) point, the thing is we understand the system fully. That is exactly why we are saying that its irreducibly complex. We know that the system X needs components A,B,C,D to effectively function such as the removal of even one component ceases the function of the entire system.

What you so far have not been able to show is that IC systems cannot evolve naturally.

quote:
Regarding your (2) point which is completely unpredictable. You're saying that we, at the present time, don't possess the intelligence to understand such systems. You may be right.. who knows, may be in the future we can understand the system better and draw out the evolutionary pathways.

Exactly. However, if it's decided that bacterium flagella are IC, so they must be intelligently designed, then what is the point of doing research on the evolutionary history of them. What if someone comes along and finds the intermediate structure someday, just as the evolutionary pathway for blood clotting was found?

quote:
But using your own logic, it is also possible for the opposite to be true.

The opposite to be true? That we have so much intelligence that we will be able to understand everything in the universe?

quote:
We don't know. Anything is possible. But this is irrelevant to the present argument. We can make good predictions... but for the moment let us rely on the evidence at hand.

No, this point is vitally relevant to the present argument!

All your argument boils down to is because we don't understand how something could have evolved, it HAD to have been intelligently-designed.

Well, what if there is something that is just too difficult for the human intellect to understand, now or in the future?

Is it intelligently-designed simply because we do not understand it?

God of the Gaps.

quote:
One more thing... your (2) is quite noteworthy at the same time since it proves that ID/IC is a "scientific theory" which carries the potential to be falsified.

NO, ID/IC is not scientific at all because there is no positive evidence. It relies on an absenceof evolutionary evidence rather than providing any positive evidence for itself. At best, it is a philosophical argument.

If one is in keeping with scientific tennets, there can always be something we haven't thought of with regards to a problem. This is tentativity.

By contrast, Behe's IC/ID states that there is an end point in which we do not have to keep thinking. This is not science.

quote:
What do you think about people who would do something as blatantly dishonest and manipulative as this? Do you now doubt any of the other quotes or information on this site, now that you know that they do not mind lying and misrepresenting other people's words?

quote:
I understand what you're trying to say. For the record, I trust only a very few websites. It's sort of my fault because at that time I was carried away. I will try not repeating it in the future. To err is man. And I do agree with you. There are some extremely biased creationist websites which quote such "out-of-context" quotes and mislead people. But you can't deny the existence of certain evolutionist websites that do that too. The former practising it more.. I have to say. But anyways.. this won't happen in the future Insha Allah.

I don't know of pro-science websites which take Creationists out of context. Can you post some links to some?

Anyway, it sounds like you might have learned something about the lack of integrity of some people who claim to be speaking for God.

quote:
Have you contacted the site where you got the quote from to let them know that the end of the sentence was chopped off, changing it's meaning completely? If so, have they changed anything on the site?

quote:
For the record, I don't remember what site I got it from. I'll look for it. But do you really think they will change once I inform them. I really do doubt that. The thing is.. I got so mad I removed the site from my favorites. But if you really want.. I can look for it again (which I really don't want to).

Thank you, but you are right, they probably won't change their lies.

Anger at being misled is a good thing. Let it be a begining for a healthy skepticism in your life.

4 online now:	candle2, DrJones*, nwr, Phat
Newest Member:	popoi
Post Volume:	Total: 916,358 Year: 3,615/9,624 Month: 486/974 Week: 99/276 Day: 27/23 Hour: 1/1