quote:
quote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
ID postulates that organisms exist due to an intelligent designer's
interventions. To find suitable evidence of design we can look
to existing designed systems and see if there are similarities
between biological systems and what we would expect to find
in an intellgently designed system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Here, you first need to hash this out with NosyNed. He tells us that we can’t take this approach because the analogy between things humans design and natural things is totally off base.
I think there are two different things going on here and you misapply my objection to the analogy.
One point is using manufactured things that we know are designed and saying "these can't come about by accident they had to have a designer" and then, by analogy, saying that a living thing couldn't have come about by "accident" it, by analogy, had to have a designer.
The point of the evolutionary idea is that it demonstrates that "design" can appear without a designer. But it requires imperfectly reprocing things to work on and that doesn't apply to a manufactured object.
The second point being made is that if we just look at some design but don't know if it is "intelligently designed" or not is there a way to distinguish one that is designed from one that evolved? This isn't considering the manufactured or reproducing aspects and is different from point one above.
In this case the ID folks are not only claiming an "intelligent" designer but an all-knowing all-powerful one as well. One might be expected to figure the designs from this guy would be pretty darn good and clearly distinuguishable from "designs" that evolved which doesn't have any future knowledge, is constained by what is there as a starting point and is subject to contingent events.
Well, when we look at the two ends of two different ways of arriving at a "design" we see that that of living things is pretty clearly (for many reasons, some of which have been given) not in the "intelligently" designed side of the fence but rather on the evolved side. This view isn't by analogy but is by comparing and contrasting.
How clear is all that?
edited to change object to objection
[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 07-02-2003]