Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
431 online now:
Phat (1 member, 430 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 894,057 Year: 5,169/6,534 Month: 12/577 Week: 0/80 Day: 0/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does ID predict genetic similarity?
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 167 (670486)
08-15-2012 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Genomicus
08-15-2012 4:09 PM


You did not address my argument at all in the above. My argument is that if one argues that bad design is evidence against ID, then rational design is evidence in favor of ID. Instead of addressing this point, you went off into a tangent IMHO.

I did address your argument to the extent necessary to show that your argument was incorrect. I did not address whether your conclusion was correct.

The "tangent" was providing an example to show you that your argument was of an illogical form. My proposed argument regarding the ferrophile designer is of exactly the same logical form as the argument you provided

The form of your argument is that if a proposition is true (bad design implies no designer) then its inverse (not bad design implies a designer) must also be true. I can provide any number of examples of bad arguments of this form, but I should not need to do so. It is well known that the syllogism you are using is wrong.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Genomicus, posted 08-15-2012 4:09 PM Genomicus has taken no action

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1752 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 47 of 167 (670487)
08-15-2012 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by GDR
08-15-2012 5:22 PM


Re: Make up your minds!
GDR writes:

Just like we see in the evolutionary process, but there are still principles involved.

Evolution can't choose to do without them. Why would your intelligent designer necessarily choose there to be principles? What binds him to do so?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by GDR, posted 08-15-2012 5:22 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by GDR, posted 08-15-2012 5:44 PM bluegenes has replied
 Message 60 by herebedragons, posted 08-16-2012 11:54 AM bluegenes has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8551
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 48 of 167 (670488)
08-15-2012 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Genomicus
08-15-2012 12:43 PM


genomicus writes:

But if flawed design is evidence against ID, then rational design is evidence for ID. Would Avise accept the argument that since the core structure of the bacterial flagellum - or the ATP synthase, for instance - displays properties of rational design, then these systems show signs of intelligent design?

Loads of problems with this argument, the obvious one being why a godly designer would have ANY bad design at all? Was this deliberate bad workmanship to fool us into thinking that his designs aren't designed or just a Friday afternoon job?


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Genomicus, posted 08-15-2012 12:43 PM Genomicus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Genomicus, posted 08-15-2012 6:04 PM Tangle has replied

  
GDR
Member (Idle past 227 days)
Posts: 5410
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 49 of 167 (670489)
08-15-2012 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by bluegenes
08-15-2012 5:41 PM


Re: Make up your minds!
bluegenes writes:

Evolution can't choose to do without them. Why would your intelligent designer necessarily choose there to be principles? What binds him to do so?

It seems to me that anything designed and assembled by humans requires principles. I'm not saying that an intelligent designer would be bound by them, I'm just saying it is what we would expect.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by bluegenes, posted 08-15-2012 5:41 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by bluegenes, posted 08-15-2012 6:02 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member (Idle past 227 days)
Posts: 5410
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 50 of 167 (670490)
08-15-2012 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by PaulK
08-15-2012 5:31 PM


Re: Make up your minds!
PaulK writes:

I think that you have that wrong. It should be "If we are NOT the result of intelligent design, we should predict the existence of principles that can account for our existence"

Why?

PaulK writes:

There is nothing in our being designed - as such - that leads us to expect the existence of principles. At least no more than we can simply predict from our own existence.

See my answer to bluegenes.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by PaulK, posted 08-15-2012 5:31 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by PaulK, posted 08-15-2012 6:15 PM GDR has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1752 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 51 of 167 (670492)
08-15-2012 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by GDR
08-15-2012 5:44 PM


Re: Make up your minds!
GDR writes:

It seems to me that anything designed and assembled by humans requires principles.

We're constrained by the physical world, for sure. We can't do magic.

GDR writes:

I'm not saying that an intelligent designer would be bound by them, I'm just saying it is what we would expect.

Is that a royal "we"? And why would we expect it? If a designer is designing a world, why is he expected to design any particular type of world?

Be careful about making observations of the world, and then convincing yourself that an observation (there are principles) is a prediction of the hypothesis "the world is intelligently designed".

That's not how it works. The prediction should be necessary to the hypothesis. The designer would have to be bound to design a world of principles in order for principles to be an I.D. prediction.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by GDR, posted 08-15-2012 5:44 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by GDR, posted 08-16-2012 12:39 AM bluegenes has replied

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 1217 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


Message 52 of 167 (670493)
08-15-2012 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Tangle
08-15-2012 5:41 PM


Loads of problems with this argument, the obvious one being why a godly designer would have ANY bad design at all?

As soon as you step into the question of a why a divine designer would have any bad designs, you have left the realm of science and entered that of theology.

Given that it is not my position that a god designed features of life, your objection is not particularly relevant for me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Tangle, posted 08-15-2012 5:41 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Tangle, posted 08-16-2012 3:46 AM Genomicus has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17171
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 53 of 167 (670494)
08-15-2012 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by GDR
08-15-2012 5:47 PM


Re: Make up your minds!
quote:

Why?


Because saying that humans popped into existence for no reason seems pretty silly. So, if humans weren't intelligently designed there must be principles that allowed humans to come into existence.

quote:

See my answer to bluegenes.

Which seems to be no more than the naive argument that we should infer design from any sufficiently complex system - to be generous to it. It doesn't require much complexity to "operate according to principles". The orbits of the planets for instance - or even a single atom.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by GDR, posted 08-15-2012 5:47 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by GDR, posted 08-16-2012 12:46 AM PaulK has replied

  
GDR
Member (Idle past 227 days)
Posts: 5410
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 54 of 167 (670513)
08-16-2012 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by bluegenes
08-15-2012 6:02 PM


Re: Make up your minds!
bluegenes writes:

Is that a royal "we"? And why would we expect it? If a designer is designing a world, why is he expected to design any particular type of world?

Human experience has been that it requires principles for us to design something. As it is all we know, then we would expect that if we are the product of intelligent design there would be principles. That isn't to say that there couldn't be another way that we would be unaware of.

bluegenes writes:

Be careful about making observations of the world, and then convincing yourself that an observation (there are principles) is a prediction of the hypothesis "the world is intelligently designed".

We agree that there are principles involved in science including evolution. I also agree that that isn't conclusive proof of anything but we can come to our own conclusions.

It is my belief that seeing as how there are principles and order, and that out of that has come intelligent life that it is more plausible that we have come from an intelligent first cause than not.

bluegenes writes:

That's not how it works. The prediction should be necessary to the hypothesis. The designer would have to be bound to design a world of principles in order for principles to be an I.D. prediction.

If we accept the fact that we are a product of intelligent design then because of human experience it would logical that we would think it likely that there would be certain principles as part of the design. Again, it doesn't mean that we would necessarily be right following that line of thinking.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by bluegenes, posted 08-15-2012 6:02 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by onifre, posted 08-16-2012 1:41 AM GDR has taken no action
 Message 68 by bluegenes, posted 08-16-2012 6:50 PM GDR has taken no action

  
GDR
Member (Idle past 227 days)
Posts: 5410
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 55 of 167 (670514)
08-16-2012 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by PaulK
08-15-2012 6:15 PM


Re: Make up your minds!
PaulK writes:

Because saying that humans popped into existence for no reason seems pretty silly. So, if humans weren't intelligently designed there must be principles that allowed humans to come into existence.

IN that case there would have had to be principles that have existed within the universe prior to human life, which then means that there would have to be principles that existed prior to the formation of the universe.

PaulK writes:

Which seems to be no more than the naive argument that we should infer design from any sufficiently complex system - to be generous to it. It doesn't require much complexity to "operate according to principles". The orbits of the planets for instance - or even a single atom.

That doesn't tell us anything except that there are principles. It tells us nothing about why and how those principles exist.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by PaulK, posted 08-15-2012 6:15 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by PaulK, posted 08-16-2012 1:25 AM GDR has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17171
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 56 of 167 (670515)
08-16-2012 1:25 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by GDR
08-16-2012 12:46 AM


Re: Make up your minds!
quote:

IN that case there would have had to be principles that have existed within the universe prior to human life, which then means that there would have to be principles that existed prior to the formation of the universe.

And that is a problem ? (Unless you assume an eternal universe or a universe that popped into existence for no reason it HAS to be true).

quote:

That doesn't tell us anything except that there are principles. It tells us nothing about why and how those principles exist.

In other words you value jumping to the conclusion that you want over honestly assessing the evidence. Those of us who are more interested in the truth than supporting your personal beliefs do not share that assessment. The fact is that you cannot rationally jump from "operating according to principles to "it was designed"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by GDR, posted 08-16-2012 12:46 AM GDR has taken no action

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2226 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 57 of 167 (670517)
08-16-2012 1:41 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by GDR
08-16-2012 12:39 AM


Who designed the designer?
Human experience has been that it requires principles for us to design something. As it is all we know, then we would expect that if we are the product of intelligent design there would be principles. That isn't to say that there couldn't be another way that we would be unaware of.

So that's it? That's the designer of the universe? Something that shares our basic and almost primitive thought processes in designing?

That's a very limited desinger, and, as it is all we know, certainly not one capable of designing a fully functional universe, or if true, a multiverse.

It is my belief that seeing as how there are principles and order, and that out of that has come intelligent life that it is more plausible that we have come from an intelligent first cause than not.

I don't see how it makes sense to postulate a complex, intelligent entity popping up out of nowwhere and creating everything just because you see order and principles in nature.

It also doesn't dismiss you from having to explain how this complex and intelligent first causing designer came to be.

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by GDR, posted 08-16-2012 12:39 AM GDR has taken no action

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8551
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 58 of 167 (670524)
08-16-2012 3:46 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Genomicus
08-15-2012 6:04 PM


Genomicus writes:

Given that it is not my position that a god designed features of life, your objection is not particularly relevant for me.

I'm afraid you are always going to be pushed back into philosophy because saying that the design for life was not divine begs the question of how the non-divine creator came about.

That apart, a point based system based on good and bad design features in nature inorder to provide evidence for a designer isn't going to get you anywhere either, simply because with evolution, better design wins over poorer design - so the result is the same.


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Genomicus, posted 08-15-2012 6:04 PM Genomicus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Genomicus, posted 08-16-2012 12:57 PM Tangle has replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 133 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 59 of 167 (670545)
08-16-2012 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Taq
08-15-2012 4:52 PM


No designer would limit themselves to a nested hierarchy. None. There is no rational reason to do so. Us humans don't even force our designed organisms into a nested hierarchy.

But isn't that assuming that the nested hierarchy we observe today was the same product the designer originally produced? Very few people still hold to the fixity of species (although there are still some ). Even in the most extreme case, if everything was created only 6000 yrs ago and rapidly diversified after the flood we would still expect a nested hierarchy of sorts, just with large discontinuities between "kinds". The further back you push the "creation event" the smaller those discontinuities would appear. Until, on the other extreme, you have a situation like genomicus proposes that the designer "front-loaded" the LCUA and then we would expect the exact nested hierarchy we observe today.

The nested hierarchy is a consequence of the process of inheritance with modification. I agree, as per my OP, that nested hierarchies favor common descent over ID because common descent requires (ie. predicts) nested hierarchies, while ID merely allows nested hierarchies, it doesn't require it. But I don't think the fact that life can be organized into a nested hierarchy excludes the existence or involvement of a designer.

It is an argument against a competent designer (i.e. God). It could be argued that poor designs are evidence of a poor designer, but given the theological views underpinning ID these arguments are rarely used.

Again, this is assuming that what we observe today is the same product that was initially designed. I think the issue of "poor design" says more about the nature of the material world than it does about the nature of the designer. If this world were designed to be perfect in every way, wouldn't it be more of a supernatural world? But instead, the material world is subject to degradation, decay and death. Could a designer have designed a perfect world? I suppose so, but instead he made it a material universe rather than supernatural.

I saw someone arguing that he didn't believe in a designer because he had gotten a cavity. He mused that a good designer would have given us titanium teeth that never decay. Really? That's the criteria for a good designer? its not a DNA molecule that can replicate and repair itself, be passed on to the next generation, mutate to allow for diversity, package itself so as to fit within a single cell, etc... I have pretty bad teeth myself, maybe its because I drink too much pop and eat too much candy...

But I think you hit on a major problem with the ID movement when you said "theological views underpinning ID". Rather than asking where does the philosophical ideals and the scientific ideals overlap they try to turn their philosophical ideals into scientific processes. And so far have failed to have those ideals accepted in the scientific realm.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for. But until the end of the present exile has come and terminated this our imperfection by which "we know in part," I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Taq, posted 08-15-2012 4:52 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by NoNukes, posted 08-16-2012 12:01 PM herebedragons has replied
 Message 62 by Taq, posted 08-16-2012 12:04 PM herebedragons has replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 133 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 60 of 167 (670578)
08-16-2012 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by bluegenes
08-15-2012 5:41 PM


Re: Make up your minds!
Evolution can't choose to do without them. Why would your intelligent designer necessarily choose there to be principles? What binds him to do so?

Perhaps because this a physical universe. If there weren't principals how could it function? There is nothing to bind him to using the principals we observe. But why would he not be bound to establishing principals in designing a material, physical universe? If there were not principals a physical world could not exist.

My issue is that I have a philosophical position that there is a God, an Intelligent Designer. I can use scientific observations to understand certain characteristics of that designer. That should only be an issue with those that have the philosophical position that there is no God and then the difference of opinion becomes a philosophical argument, not a scientific one.

I don't think that science can possibly tell us everything about said designer because science is only capable of identifying natural causes, so the two ideals, philosophy and science, can only partial overlap. But at this "overlap" I would expect that the designer could be detected in the design.

So, I would have to agree with GDR that the fact that there are principals at all that govern the universe is evidence of a designer. Sure it is not conclusive evidence, but it is a better explanation than evolution IMO (I am referring to general evolution not specifically to biological evolution). Evolution cannot function without those principals in place, so therefore how could it have created those principals?

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for. But until the end of the present exile has come and terminated this our imperfection by which "we know in part," I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by bluegenes, posted 08-15-2012 5:41 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by bluegenes, posted 08-16-2012 7:04 PM herebedragons has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022