How do we tell the difference, Ahmad?

I think the point being made is that suggesting that IC
is evidence of design is an argument from incredulity.'I cannot believe that this intricate system could have evolved.'is basically the claim being made in any IC related design
argument.If anyone can come up with a feasible route for the development
of any IC then it fails as an argument ... and arguments from
incredulity are impossibly weak to begin with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ahmad:

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."

---

'Purpose' and 'function' are not the same thing.Even with a lay defintion of 'purpose' we are considering the
issue of 'intent' and thereby assigning an intelligence to
the design process (i.e. a designer).Because a 'system' exists which performs a function does not
mean that it has 'purpose'.Behe definition (nor acceptance of it) of IC is not at
issue. Most us a willing to accept that all IC means is that
if you remove a component the thing is broke.We differ in that evo's can accept that IC's can develop naturally
while creo's don't.I have suggested in the 'Irreducible Complexity' thread
that this reasoning is an argument from incredulity and
nothing more.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ahmad:

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

---

Nope.Just because you break something by removing a component
doesn't mean it was designed with a purpose, and it certainly
doesn't follow that it couldn't have developed unaided.That is a connection yet to be made.The definition of design you have given (apart from making
'Intelligent Design' an oxymoron) relys on 'purpose'.You still have to show that there was an 'intent' behind
anything (i.e. that is WAS designed). Effectively you have
said that in order for something to be designed it must
be designed by someone ... which is the only real design
criterion I can think of at present ... and that means we
have to seek evidence of a designer.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ahmad:

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

---

Life developed by adapting to where it had to live.The universe isn't finely tuned to support life on Earth,
life on Earth has adapted to exploit the universe.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ahmad:

quote:

---

'Purpose' and 'function' are not the same thing.

---

​

To an extent, it is. Anything that functions... functions for a certain purpose.

​

quote:

---

​

On the difference between function and purpose::-

​

Gunpowder :: Function == Explosive.

​

Purpose :: To kill people (when used in bombs and bullets)
Purpose :: To entertain people (when used in fireworks).

​

---

​

quote:

---

I have suggested in the 'Irreducible Complexity' thread
that this reasoning is an argument from incredulity and
nothing more.

---

​

It is not a new suggestion. Many critics have already made similar suggestions and accusations. However, I disagree. "Incredulity" primarily indicates "disbelief". The "faith" element is not in question here. What is in question is the "evidence" to show that irreducibly complex molecular machines was or could have been made by naturalistic processes. Imaginary pathways are no good.

​

quote:

---

​

But surely the whole IC == design argument boils down the
the opinion that 'that couldn't evolve', and so IS an argument
from incredulity.

​

---

​

quote:

---

Just because you break something by removing a component
doesn't mean it was designed with a purpose, and it certainly
doesn't follow that it couldn't have developed unaided.

​

That is a connection yet to be made.

---

​

The connection is evident. If a system is IC, then it must have had all its parts from the very moment of its existence, i.e, it was specially created. That means all the components were functionally designed to coordinate and perform the function of the system.

​

quote:

---

​

Comes back to pre-supposing design.

​

IC argument as stated above makes the assumption that the current
function was the design intent from the outset ... becomes
a circular bit of reasoning then.

​

---

​

quote:

---

You still have to show that there was an 'intent' behind
anything (i.e. that is WAS designed). Effectively you have
said that in order for something to be designed it must
be designed by someone ... which is the only real design
criterion I can think of at present ... and that means we
have to seek evidence of a designer.

---

​

"Intent" is "Purpose". If something is "irreducible", it must have been "designed" for a purpose. And what else criterions of "design" do you postulate?

​

quote:

---

​

'must have'?

​

---

​

quote:

---

Life developed by adapting to where it had to live.

---

​

Thats how life developed. How did it originate?

​

quote:

---

​

At this stage I'd only be guessing ... still no need to resort to
mythology just yet surely

​

---

​

quote:

---

The universe isn't finely tuned to support life on Earth,
life on Earth has adapted to exploit the universe.

---

​

So now the Anthropic Principle gets wrong? Whats next? The second Law of thermodynamics?

---

quote:

---

​

How do my comments violate the anthropic principle?

​

All that says is that if the universe were different then life
as we know it couldn't exist ... which is what I said.

​

What has the second law of thermodynamics to do with life
on earth anyhow ? .... see all of them closed/open system
arguments go rushing by again

​

---