Originally posted by Ahmad:
'Purpose' and 'function' are not the same thing.
To an extent, it is. Anything that functions... functions for a certain purpose.
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).
I have suggested in the 'Irreducible Complexity' thread
that this reasoning is an argument from incredulity and
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.
But surely the whole IC == design argument boils down the
the opinion that 'that couldn't evolve', and so IS an argument
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.
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.
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?
Life developed by adapting to where it had to live.
Thats how life developed. How did it originate?
At this stage I'd only be guessing ... still no need to resort to
mythology just yet surely
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?
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