|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What IS evidence of design? (CLOSING STATEMENTS ONLY) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Hi slevesque,
I don't know if you saw, and assume you've missed any edits to, Message 174 so I just wanted to bring it to your attention.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
slevesque writes: Still, I guess you could tell me the problem you see with irreducible complexity, since I do think that claims that it has been ''completely and utterly demolished'' are far from the actual reality of it. I've never seen a convincing argument that the presence of IC or specified complexity indicate design. I'm curious as to why you think that they do. In particular I find it interesting that anyone who could not check Behe's work for themselves would believe anything he had to say.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4669 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
In case you are, why do you think that IC is evidence of design? (a short answer is all that is necessary) I guess you could say that it is an inductively proven premise, since every IC system of which we know the origin was designed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4669 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
I've never seen a convincing argument that the presence of IC or specified complexity indicate design. I'm curious as to why you think that they do. In particular I find it interesting that anyone who could not check Behe's work for themselves would believe anything he had to say. All I said was that any claim that it had been ''completely and utterly demolished'' seem pretty senseless to me, partly because I doubt a whole lot of people here have read Behe's original book, let alone all the updates and ''answers to the critics'' he has done through his blog and other books. there is more to the idea of IC then what you read on talkorigins.com ...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
slevesque writes: I Think you are going in the wrong direction in this discussion. The issue is not if there are designed things that can look just like undesigned things, but if there are specific attributes that you will only ever observe when looking at something that was designed. This is not saying, of course, that all designed things have these attributes, but rather that if you do observe one, then it was designed. One such criteria that was proposed by the ID movement was irreducible complexity, another was specified complexity. I have seen other criteria proposed such as emergent properties but it was a bit ill-defined. The basic idea was that if a certain numbers of pieces were arranged in a specific way in order to have a new property emerge (such as the arrangement of metal that makes a plane fly), then it was designed. So it not really what characteristic do all designed thing have in common, but rather what characteristic can identify something as designed if it is present. So give us the way that you can identify Specified Complexity or why Irreducible Complexity would indicate design. I can assure you that so far no one in the ID cult has done so. Edited by jar, : appalin spallin Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
I guess you could say that it is an inductively proven premise, since every IC system of which we know the origin was designed. What about the IC systems that we do not know the origin of? How does IC evidence design in these instances?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 334 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
irreducibly complex system as one 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.
Is IC real'y evidence of design If i remove the glass from my window it isno longer functioning as a barrier, tough it still functions as a look trough hole. So my window is not designed? Edited by frako, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Removed by author
Edited by NoNukes, : Going into lurk mode for this thread. Don't want to dogpile
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4669 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
What about the IC systems that we do not know the origin of? How does IC evidence design in these instances? You can inductively conclude design in those instances.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4669 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
If i remove the glass from my window it isno longer functioning as a barrier, tough it still functions as a look trough hole. So my window is not designed? IC systems are designedSystem A is not an IC system Therefore system A was not designed Classic example of denying the antecedent.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
You can inductively conclude design in those instances.
How? Edited to add: Consider the following argument. All known planets orbit the Sun. Therefore, any new planets we discover must also orbit the Sun. I would think that inductive reasoning is a very poor way of finding the truth, wouldn't you? Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4669 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
All IC systems are designed
System A is IC Therefore system A was designed The first premise comes from the induction: all IC systems of which we know the origin were designed,therefore, all IC systems are designed. To negate this you would need to find a counter-example. The second premise is an observation. The conclusion follows. AbE:
Edited to add: Consider the following argument. All known planets orbit the Sun. Therefore, any new planets we discover must also orbit the Sun. This would be inductively true up to the point where we find a counter-example, which we have.
I would think that inductive reasoning is a very poor way of finding the truth, wouldn't you? Inductive reasoning is central to the scientific process. Theories are proven until counter-examples are found. Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
All IC systems are designed System A is IC Therefore system A was designed How did you determine that all IC systems are designed? You seem to be inserting the conclusion in the premise.
all IC systems of which we know the origin were designed We don't know the origin of the flagellum, therefore this does not apply nor does the rest of the argument. Adding the ABE part:
Inductive reasoning is central to the scientific process. Theories are proven until counter-examples are found. That is easy. Each and every molecule is irreducibly complex. If you remove one atom you lose the function of that molecule. Take a nitrogen out of an amino acid and you no longer have that amino acid. It no longer functions in the same way. We also observe that amino acids can and do come about through natural processes. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 334 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
IC systems are designed System A is not an IC system Therefore system A was not designed Classic example of denying the antecedent.
Ok then name and IC designed system and il show you how removing a part never removes the functionality at best it changes its functionality ergo there are no ireducibly complex systems
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4669 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
How did you determine that all IC systems are designed? You seem to be inserting the conclusion in the premise. quote: We don't know the origin of the flagellum, therefore this does not apply nor does the rest of the argument. You seem to be struggling to understand how induction works, that much I can tell. Let's take a less contentious example: 1. All swans are white2. This is a swan 3. Therefore it is white Now this first premise is proven inductively by the following: All the swans I have seen are whitetherefore, all swans are white Now suppose I hid a swan in a box, and asked you what color it was. Wouldn't you be justified to inductively conclude that it was white ? Would you be justified to say ''I have not seen this swan, so it does not apply nor does the rest of the reasoning'' ?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024