Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What IS evidence of design? (CLOSING STATEMENTS ONLY)
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 63 of 377 (607822)
03-07-2011 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Dr Jack
03-06-2011 11:47 AM


How about this: designed artefacts are identifiable because they have been shaped to assist a known third part with identifiable influence on the artefact.
This is something that Darwin put forward as a potential falsification of evolution.
"If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection."--Chapter 6, "Origin of Species", Charles Darwin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Dr Jack, posted 03-06-2011 11:47 AM Dr Jack has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Briterican, posted 03-07-2011 3:39 PM Taq has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 77 of 377 (607912)
03-07-2011 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Briterican
03-07-2011 3:39 PM


As I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer, I wonder if any of you could explain to me how this is NOT related to symbiosis, OR, why Darwin would revise said quote were he alive today?
Symbiosis benefits both species. For example, flowers offer nectar as a benefice to bees. Bees, in return, transfer pollen from one flower to the next. Both benefit.
What you would need to find is a feature that encouraged or facilitated parasitism.
Having seen this argument come up sooooo many times, I question the very use of the word "designed" as an adjective. All the definitions are inadequate to answer this debate. It's like we need to split the word into two versions, one meaning "designed by an intelligent agent" and the other "ordered and structured".
Indeed. Waves create designs in rock. Clouds form designs all of the time (I always see dragons for some reason).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Briterican, posted 03-07-2011 3:39 PM Briterican has seen this message but not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 103 of 377 (608026)
03-08-2011 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Richard Townsend
03-08-2011 11:05 AM


I don't know. But I'm pretty sure they don't go through anything resembling a human design process (identifying requirements, identifying solutions options, etc)
Then it would seem that complex designs do not require a conscious, intelligent designer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Richard Townsend, posted 03-08-2011 11:05 AM Richard Townsend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Richard Townsend, posted 03-08-2011 11:45 AM Taq has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 106 of 377 (608039)
03-08-2011 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Richard Townsend
03-08-2011 11:45 AM


Well, if you call them designs, then yes, but that's begging the question.
No more so than any ID argument. If a tornado blew through a wax factory would it make honeycomb?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Richard Townsend, posted 03-08-2011 11:45 AM Richard Townsend has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 118 of 377 (608081)
03-08-2011 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by slevesque
03-08-2011 4:04 PM


One such criteria that was proposed by the ID movement was irreducible complexity, another was specified complexity.
Do you consider either of these as legitimate indicators of intelligent design, and if so, why?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by slevesque, posted 03-08-2011 4:04 PM slevesque has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by slevesque, posted 03-08-2011 4:19 PM Taq has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 120 of 377 (608085)
03-08-2011 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by slevesque
03-08-2011 4:19 PM


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.
Personally, I think those flaws are best seen when the Socratic method is applied. If you don't mind, I will ask you questions and we will see where it goes. Interested?
In case you are, why do you think that IC is evidence of design? (a short answer is all that is necessary)
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by slevesque, posted 03-08-2011 4:19 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by slevesque, posted 03-08-2011 5:07 PM Taq has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 126 of 377 (608099)
03-08-2011 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by slevesque
03-08-2011 5:07 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by slevesque, posted 03-08-2011 5:07 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by slevesque, posted 03-08-2011 6:02 PM Taq has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 131 of 377 (608112)
03-08-2011 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by slevesque
03-08-2011 6:02 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by slevesque, posted 03-08-2011 6:02 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by slevesque, posted 03-08-2011 6:13 PM Taq has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 133 of 377 (608115)
03-08-2011 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by slevesque
03-08-2011 6:13 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by slevesque, posted 03-08-2011 6:13 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by slevesque, posted 03-08-2011 6:32 PM Taq has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 137 of 377 (608120)
03-08-2011 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by slevesque
03-08-2011 6:32 PM


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?
If I challenged your conclusion wouldn't you need to show that it was white? Or do you simply not have to demonstrate it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by slevesque, posted 03-08-2011 6:32 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by slevesque, posted 03-08-2011 6:45 PM Taq has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 145 of 377 (608132)
03-08-2011 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by slevesque
03-08-2011 6:45 PM


It's all probalistic. It depends on the strength of the induction. You are never obliged to accept an inductive conclusion, however, there comes a point where it is unreasonable to reject it, as you be right a very small percentage of the time.
Fair enough. The problems I see with this inductive argument is that the IC systems of unknown origin dwarf the IC systems of known origins. If you had catalogued 5 million white swans and there was an estimated 5.1 million swans world wide your induction would hold weight.
Even worse, your induction is incomplete. All known intelligences capable of producing IC systems are humans. Therefore, we would have to conclude that humans designed the flagellum and all other IC systems found in biology. This can't be true given human history.
We also have examples of IC systems coming about through stepwise change, such as the mammalian middle ear. We know that the current mammalian middle ear does not work without two of the bones, and yet we can see a series of fossils where the middle ear started with just a single bone and then incorporated two other bones through time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by slevesque, posted 03-08-2011 6:45 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by slevesque, posted 03-09-2011 2:39 AM Taq has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 146 of 377 (608133)
03-08-2011 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by slevesque
03-08-2011 6:51 PM


a mousetrap ?
A tie clip?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by slevesque, posted 03-08-2011 6:51 PM slevesque has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 164 of 377 (608188)
03-09-2011 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by slevesque
03-09-2011 2:39 AM


We have a boatload of IC systems that we know were designed in many different spheres of technology. The only IC systems that we do not know the origin are biological systems.
My point is that the biological systems far outnumber the human made IC systems. You are using a relatively small number of IC systems from non-reproducing designs to make a generalized statement about a much larger number of IC systems from reproducing organisms that, btw, evolve.
The induction is not incomplete, in fact you yourself give the answer.
Suppose we replace the first premise.
All IC systems are designed by humans
System A is IC
Therefore system A was designed by humans
Here is the inductive argument.
All IC systems of known origin were designed by humans.
Therefore, all IC systems of unknown origin were designed by humans.
We know this can't be true, therefore IC fails as evidence of design.
If all IC systems are designed by humans, then biological IC systems were designed by humans
biological IC systems are not designed by humans,
Therefore not all IC systems are designed by humans
Therefore, not all IC systems are designed. Period.
Let's try to clear up all the logical steps leading to IC maybe being a candidate for identifying designed systems before going into counter-examples.
Until you show that the inductive argument does not require humans as the designer then I would say that the inductive argument has failed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by slevesque, posted 03-09-2011 2:39 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by slevesque, posted 03-09-2011 5:11 PM Taq has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 165 of 377 (608190)
03-09-2011 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by havoc
03-09-2011 10:23 AM


That is exactly what I think. From reading this board it sounds like most of the Darwinists on this board will admit design is self evident when it is the result of a human act.
I would call it non-controversial. When an archaeologist is digging at a site and comes across an arrowhead and an earthworm which one do you think he sends back to a museum as an artefact of intelligent engineering?
Seems to me that most here would accept specified complexity or intentional order as designed so long as we are familiar with its designer.
If you could show us how to measure such things we could certainly entertain it.
Since they discount a creator of life out of hand then the same order seen in the living things is not excepted as designed.
Surely you need evidence of something before you accept it as true, don't you? Why should we be any different?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 10:23 AM havoc has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by jar, posted 03-09-2011 11:15 AM Taq has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 173 of 377 (608201)
03-09-2011 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by havoc
03-09-2011 11:31 AM


So you know something is designed by the evidence of design. Now my point was that and arrow head is accepted as designed by evolutionists because they know the maker ie: man. So to them it is self evident. Maybe we don’t disagree on this point. It goes back to the inductive argument from earlier in this thread. All arrow heads are designed so this arrow head must be designed. It seems perfectly logical to me.
We can also observe designers making arrowheads, and we can even find ancient sites where the arrowheads were made complete with arrowheads that didn't make the cut and the flakes of flint left over from the process. We also observe that arrowheads do not reproduce, so they can't make themselves. Not so with life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 11:31 AM havoc has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 1:41 PM Taq has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024