If you don't know what is meant by "apparent designs" then you need to learn a whole lot about this subject.
I know what it means. I am attempting to discover if you know what it means.
SNIP....The word "apparent" is used to avoid them when they are inappropriate. That is when we wish to remain neutral on the issue of a designer.
Then why didn't you say that in the first place?
Evolutionists are not neutral on a Designer - anything but. Evolution says God did not create nature - transmutation by natural selection-did-it.
But "apparent design" does not mean "neutrality" it means design does not actually exist. If something looks apparently designed you are admitting design to exist but asking and saying that the same does not indicate Designer; therefore, there is no neutrality. My point is that once design is admitted to exist then logicians have the right to say the same corresponds to Designer.
Parahomologous structures in animals are identified to infer that evolution has occurred. To an evolutionist this is a logical correspondence, but design does not correspond to Designer - go figure.
Design does correspond to Designer - it is not a matter of opinion and it is perfectly logical. Your only choice is to deny that design exists in the first place and stop insulting our intelligence.
If you don't like the word apparent I'll take it out. We have more than one kind of design available for us to observe.
Take it out.
But I want you to know that I am well aware that the phrase "apparent design" is abundant in the literature. It exists largely unexplained because it is paradoxical.
The word design carries many connotations....Two of the kinds of design process produce outputs that people have treated as artifacts of intelligent processes. Now we understand that one of the kinds of process produces a very different kind of design that the other.
This comment is on the verge of stipulating a special meaning for the word "design" as not corresponding to intelligence - am I correct?
Are you setting up a bait and switch while begrudgingly admitting?
Since the look of design that we see in nature is exactly NOT the kind of design that has a foreseeing guiding designer we can, with the available evidence today, conclude that those things are designed by the process that we KNOW produces that "look".
The design we see in nature is real corresponding to Designer; from bat sonar to feathers to army ants. You cannot have it both ways: you cannot admit something looks designed but then turn around and deny Designer. All you are saying is that natural selection produces the "look" of design but the same, of course, is an unintelligent process.
Charles Darwin writes:
The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows.
Autobiography p.87
Read carefully what Darwin says. I cannot find one scholar who has ever denied or criticized the above quote as not accurate. The quote says NOW that natural selection has been discovered design does not exist in organism variation OR in the action of natural selection.
By attempting to say that a "look" of design exists you are saying it was produced by natural selection. Darwin says NO! Design does not exist (nor is it an outcome) in the "action of natural selection."
If you disagree then please include references or source cites.
Ray
™ Version 4.2
