Intelligent Design just a question for evolutionists

Taq writes: The argument is that biology "looks" designed because it "looks" like machines and codes. That simply isn't true

I have addressed this silly strawman fallacy before. I don't know of one person that ever argues this apart from you.

I don't say biology "looks" designed, my argument specifically is that biology has all of the elements/feature of design which naturally will also make it look designed which is a trivial issue, because cars also look designed. I've also explained to you that on a micro-level it is not what something looks like that matters, but correct function.

Only evolutionists are stuck on the "appearance" of things. If you had actually read my new topic you would see I have answered the appearance-argument. We are not arguing appearance, we are arguing the actual features of design which are identical, such as specified complexity, contingency planning, information/density, correct materials. etc..

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Frako writes: I still think that the best argument against inteligent design, is the stupid designs we find in nature, stuff that a child would design better, Like nerves and blood vessels run trough the inside of the eye blocking light from reaching the sensors at the back of the eye, and a blind spot because of the same idiotic idea. Its equivalent of placing the lens of a camera behind the wires and chips, and then writing a computer progam to fill in the missing pieces of the picture.

This old canard has been addressed so many time now. It is probably the oldest atheist P.R.A.T.T on the internet. (point refuted a thousand times).

The receptors need to be refreshed by the choroid, the mueller cells penetrate the nerve net so the "problem" you mention here is not a problem for it is cleverly solved and we have no problem with our vision because of this. For it to count as poor design you would have to show that vision is hindered. Your complaint it is "stupid" design is the opposite of the facts, for you clearly know little about this topic. The trumpet-like mueller cells are designed CLEVERLY so that the light is taken directly to the photo receptors.

You can read more about your add nauseam argument here;

CMI writes: Actually it does make sense, as ophthalmologists know, and have explained for years, so Dawkins has no excuse for repeating such discredited arguments. Dawkins’ analogy fails because photocells don’t have to be chemically regenerated, while the eye’s photoreceptors are chemically active, and need a rich blood supply for regeneration.

(from the choroid as I explained)

CMI writes: Someone who does know about eye design is the ophthalmologist Dr George Marshall, who said: “The idea that the eye is wired backward comes from a lack of knowledge of eye function and anatomy.”1 He explained that the nerves could not go behind the eye, because the choroid occupies that space. This provides the rich blood supply needed for the very metabolically active retinal pigment epithelium (RPE). This is necessary to regenerate the photoreceptors, and to absorb excess heat from the light. So the nerves must go in front rather than behind. But as will be shown below, the eye’s design overcomes even this slight drawback. In fact, what limits the eye’s resolution is the diffraction of light waves at the pupil (proportional to the wavelength and inversely proportional to the pupil’s size); so alleged improvements of the retina would make no difference to the eye’s performance. It’s important to note that the ‘superior’ design of Dawkins with the (virtually transparent) nerves behind the photoreceptors would require either: The choroid in front of the retina—but the choroid is opaque because of all the red blood cells, so this design would be as useless as an eye with a hemorrhage! Photoreceptors not in contact with the RPE and choroid at all—but without a rich blood supply to regenerate, then it would probably take months before we could see properly after we were photographed with a flashbulb or we glanced at some bright object.

http://creation.com/...lls-backwardly-wired-retina-v-dawkins

(no doubt you will now try and come up with more examples of bad design, but before you do, you should know that logical rules prove that even bad design is still design. Showing me a car that is not well designed in your opinion, doesn't prove design is not there. The arguments of poor design in biology, have all been addressed. I can take all of those arguments to pieces but they really are boring to have to address again and again, they are not many, they are few, simply repeated many times. Repeating a few things, many times is not the same as many things being repeated. Usually it's the wiring of the eye, which people don't understand has now been proven to be very clever design, the recurrent laryngeal nerve, or men's nipples, or the pharynx. Must I show the silly errors with each one, all over again?)

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

DrA writes: I see mikey tried to start a new thread to commit the same silly logical fallacy as in this one. Mikey, mikey, please try to think of a new mistake.

"I am afraid it is you who are mistaken, young Skywalker...about a great......many.....things." - The Emperor, Return Of The Jedi.

Edited by mike the wiz, : changed "thing" to, "things"...

for it is cleverly solved and we have no problem with our vision because of this.

make 2 dots on a piece of a paper then look at one and move the distence of the paper from your ees untill the dot vanishes and it looks like the paper is blank, then tell me we dont have problems whit our vision because of this idiotic design.

If you don't at first succeed..increase the dosage of question begging epithets. First it was "stupid" now it is, "idiotic design".

Lol.

Frako writes: make 2 dots on a piece of a paper then look at one and move the distence of the paper from your ees untill the dot vanishes and it looks like the paper is blank, then tell me we dont have problems whit our vision because of this idiotic design.

Oh absolutely, and you clearly have spent a lot of time thinking about that link, and about this issue haven't you?

But before you CHANGE THE GOAL posts, I must first ask you this; your complaint was X, and I have answered X, showing you were wrong and the nerve net in front is a clever design. Now you have changed the issue to locating dots on a page, does this mean you have acknowledged you were wrong about the previous complaint?

Frako writes: make 2 dots on a piece of a paper then look at one and move the distence of the paper from your ees untill the dot vanishes and it looks like the paper is blank, then tell me we dont have problems whit our vision

But this is logically, proof we don't, for if you have to ask me to do something strange with my eyes in order to show me there is something wrong with their design then doesn't that show how weak your argument it?

Frako, there's a problem with your legs as a design, take a hammer and smash your knee caps to pieces, then tell me there isn't a problem with this "idiotic design" of leg.

OR, you can grow a modicum of humility and just admit that you simply DESIRE to say that eyes are poorly designed.

Eyes are very complex, I watched a two hour seminar about them, and the things of cleverness mentioned took most of the time, the wiring of the retina, experts know isn't really a problem. Even if we accepted some complaints about the eye, I think logically it is much more realistic to regard those complaints as, "imperfections" rather than design flaws.

For example, chasing dots on a page hasn't really been a problem for my vision until, well....now, when you mentioned it.

So it seems to me you may have a case in arguing, "why isn't design perfect".

But even if I was evolutionist I wouldn't call the eye, "stupid". Eyes are miraculous, even if you are evolutionist you could say "a miracle of evolution", which although is an oxymoron, at least acknowledges the facts. The fact is eyes are not only beautiful but they are made in congruence with the rest of the face, brain ears. You don't look into a beautiful woman's eyes and think, "stupid", do you? The eyes are incredible, to know why would take hours of discussion, mentioning a few trivial complaints and saying, "we should infer idiotic design" is the fallacy of slothful induction, against the weight of the evidence that shows all eyes are not only viable designs, but are aesthetically pleasing, too.

Let's put the shoe on the other foot. If evolution is true, we could reasonably expect more design problems rather than slight imperfections, given there would be no designer at all. Is it conceivable that every design, every species, would be viable into the millions and there would never be even one bad design, like some type of species, "making do" with an eye where it is largely opaque because it really was wired wrong, (like it isn't).

If it's all evolution, you have to be realistic, you would expect many odge-bodge designs. To argue from hindsight, "we would expect what we see", is an easy game to play isn't it, but evolution would never predict millions of viable designs.

Your arguments strikes me as a rather desperate attempt to focus on the one or two rather trivial imprefections shall we say...it is like saying, "this forest contains no trees because look, here is a spot where there are none."

That's slothful-induction, when you ignore the majority of the evidence and instead focus on the few examples, and then infer a conclusion based on the few examples, rather than on the majority of examples.

The majority of the evidence (99.9999%) shows staggering intelligent design, and the 0.0001% that show "trivial imperfections", aren't even problems for design.

For example, how can a braking system on a car be "idiotic design" if they are viable, function correctly, don't break down, but because you can't go from 60mph to 0mph in 1 second, you conclude it is, "idiotic design". If it isn't designed to do that, then it isn't bad design. A bus also is not designed to go around a corner like a ferrari can. Our eyes aren't meant to do strange dot-chasing manoeuvres, but does it mean the design is, "idiotic"? Hmmmmm.

So it seems to me when atheists say, "stand on one foot, squint with one eye behind your back and whistle dixie! SEE! You can't, therefore terrible design!" forgive me for taking such arguments with a large pinch of salt.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

But this is logically, proof we don't, for if you have to ask me to do something strange with my eyes in order to show me there is something wrong with their design then doesn't that show how weak your argument it?

But you always have a blind spot. Doing something strange with your eyes is just the only way you're going to notice it, but it's there affecting your vision all the time, without you noticing it. (And arguably a problem you don't know you have is worse than a problem you do know you have: for example a fool who thinks he's clever is worse off than a fool who knows he's a fool.)

If it's all evolution, you have to be realistic, you would expect many odge-bodge designs.

And that's what we've got.

But if there was a perfect creator, you'd expect none.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

But if there was a perfect creator, you'd expect none.

But you need to remember that the Biblical creator in Genesis 2&3 was far from perfect and in fact learning by doing so you would expect piss poor design.

mike the wiz writes: I don't say biology "looks" designed, my argument specifically is that biology has all of the elements/feature of design . . .

That seems to be a distinction without a difference. What is different between "looks designed" and "has all of the elements/features of design"?

Also, biology does not have all of the features of design. First, things designed by an intelligence do no fall into a nested hierarchy. Biology does. Second, designs serve a function needed by a designer. Life doesn't. Life's only function is to replicate.

mike the wiz writes: I've also explained to you that on a micro-level it is not what something looks like that matters, but correct function.

How do you determine what the "correct function" is?

We are not arguing appearance, we are arguing the actual features of design which are identical, such as specified complexity, contingency planning, information/density, correct materials. etc..

How did you determine that these features can only come from design?

Obviously evolutionists generally believe the ID movement is creationism

Correct. The ID movement is fundamentally based upon a teleological argument for the special intervention (almost universally) of a deity in the origin of the species constructed so as to appear to be a mere philosophical argument so as to 'wedge' Christian talking points into science classroom discussion.

can you appreciate that there is the classic argument of ID, since Paley

Meh, the Bible beat him to it. Aquinas after that. The Greeks beat all of them.

which didn't really refer to creation or Christianity

Well Paley did say during his Watchmaker and Eye analogy:

quote:

---

If any thing can abate our admiration of the smallness of the visual tablet compared with the extent of vision, it is a reflection, which the view of nature leads us, every hour, to make, viz. that, in the hands of the Creator, great and little are nothing.

---

So yeah, Paley was using a teleological argument to defend the position of Creationism.

Or can you recognise it is possible to form a syllogism which contains no premise pertaining to God or creationism, within it?

Teleology certainly could - but the ID movement, Aquinas, Paley, The Bible and the Greeks? Not usually, they are usually driving towards the notion that the designer is the Creator.

Can you recognise this?

While I acknowledge that you might not accept the present form of ID as anything other than a watered down form of creationism, can you accept that if a syllogism contains no premises that mention creation or God, then strictly speaking, technically, the syllogism itself is not creationist?

Agreed.

The reason I ask this is my own intelligent design argument was never intended to be similar to an ID movement, it is just a syllogism that takes us to the conclusion that life is intelligently designed.

That would be rare, but not unheard of.

I am not asking anyone to agree with my argument, all I am requesting is that you can acknowledge that strictly speaking, if I only argue one ID argument, and it really isn't part of any creationist movement to get ID in a classroom, but really is just my own ID argument, then can't that ID argument be regarded as having little to do with creationism, if there is no words or premises in the argument that refer to or depend on creationism, and the argument still stands even if creationism is false?

Yes.

The syllogism I have used for ID, was never meant to be used as a creationist argument, but only as a way to ASCERTAIN if an object or thing, is designed; If something has the elements of design it is designed. (X is X, Law of identity) Life has the elements of design Therefore life is designed.

I agree with your syllogism. However, you didn't include intelligence in this, so I can hardly say you presented an intelligent design argument here.

Now I am not arguing this argument here and now, I know you don't accept it, but can you accept the conclusion only says whether something is designed?

Agreed.

It is not meant to say who or what the designer is, and has nothing to do with who or what the designer is.

Exactly. It could be a God, aliens or evolution by natural selection. Your argument is neutral to all these possibilities.

I just fail to see how it isn't a generalisation, to say that my argument would be creationism because of the modern ID movement, the conclusion, "it is intelligently designed" also makes no mention of by who or what, just that there is a recognition that the object FEATURES hallmarks of intelligence.

Except for the part about it not actually concluding 'it is intelligently designed'. Which seems to me like a rather important issue.

That said, it is not really much use as far as arguments go. Like basically all syllogisms, it isn't very useful at all except in so far as to explain some basic part of your position. If you are hiding the premise 'if something is designed, it is by intelligent agency', which you seem to be based on your extra-syllogistic discussion then you are making a logical error. But if we assume this additional premise, the syllogism can be entirely valid. I don't see any reason to suppose it is true, but valid? Sure.

I just fail to see how it isn't a generalisation, to say that my argument would be creationism because of the modern ID movement, the conclusion, "it is intelligently designed" also makes no mention of by who or what, just that there is a recognition that the object FEATURES hallmarks of intelligence.

I'll let you have it all if you will acknowledge that a thing that designs other things strongly implies 'the elements of design', and if that is so, it must also be designed...thus rendering it somewhat useless or at least trivial. To be saying anything of interest, you'd need to start discussing the course of the regression.

Materialists tend towards explaining things in ever more simple with the argument that wherever the regression ultimately leads, it could hardly be called 'intelligent'.

If you are proposing an ever increasing series of intelligent designers {interplanetary alien scientists, interstellar alien scientists, intergalactic alien scientists, pan-universal alien scientists} you'd have to keep a tight leash to avoid the tempting offer to cut things off before you started describing typically divine properties (transcending time and space, eternal, an intelligent unmoved mover etc).

I think the more classical ID argument is much more BASIC than creationism

Agreed. All believers in some kind of Creator deity or deities for thousands of years have used 'the argument from design' to support their particular worldview.

It seems to me, if I mention ID, I am tarred with the brush of the modern ID movement, and people will say, "ID is religion.

Yeah, that's because ID is a specific thing. If you don't want to be tarred with that, avoid the term 'ID'. Go with teleology. At least you'd be signalling to the educated that you aren't necessarily arguing for a Creator - although those that know you will probably perceive a man furiously working behind a curtain you'd like us to pay no attention to.

---

I made this post without having actually read any of the replies, so apologies for repeat points. I thought it might be interesting to get my blind response.

You are muddying-the-water. When we examine whether something is intelligently designed, we can 100% know the features of design because we can examine things we already know to be designed. That's the first step. Secondly, we can also tangibly examine the object-in-question to see if it has those features. HOW CAN WHAT A THEORY SAYS ABOUT THE OBJECT, AFFECT WHETHER IT HAS THOSE FEATURES OR NOT?

Well the 'we know this feature is designed, so this suggests this similar feature is also designed' idea is in fact a theory. A theory is what you apply to data (the object and its features) in your case for making an argument that this is evidence for you theory that similar features were intelligently designed.

According to the law-of-the-excluded-middle, either the object in question qualifies as having the features of intelligent design, or it does not. Because we can DIRECTLY examine it, why would indirect conjecture of a theory, have any weight?

You explain, I suppose, the eye as having been intelligently designed based on the theory that it has (for instance) lots of clever parts interacting in a specific way so as to allow vision. And intelligent agents can in fact arrange parts cleverly in a specific way for optical purposes. Your theory then is that the data you find in the eye suggests the explanation for the existence of the eye lies in some kind intelligent designer having deliberately designed it much like, for instance, a camera.

So it would be foolish of you to throw out the concept of using theory when analysing data because then you would have no evidence to support your conclusions.

Think about it properly

Right back at you.

If someone came up to you and placed a football at your foot, and said, "please tell me is this a football" and you went to examine it and they clicked their fingers and said, "oh hang on a minute, we have a theory this isn't a football, it's brilliant and most people accept the theory by neurotic agreement so forget the examination" Would that be an intelligent way to proceed, when you have the football in front of you and can simply test whether it is one?

I'd say 'what is the theory?' and 'what data do you have, that in light of this theory serves as evidence for it?'

In the same way, I don't need the speculation of evolution-theory to tell me if a rabbit has the features of design, I simply examine it's make-up and see that it does; - specified complexity - information - contingency planning - correct materials (not metal or enamel for a stomach) - aesthetics and symmetry - goals and subgoals - congruency/integration of systems in union of the overall goal. (eyes, ears used for balance, don't get in each others way, etc..car wheels don't get in the way of the carburetor, etc..it is all a union of corresponding integration). - information storage density - directed energy

Which, according your theory, all indicates an intelligent designer - right?

Likewise I could list a number of features that suggest unintelligent design, and even more - a specific kind of unintelligent design by recourse to a different theory.

So it comes down to 'how do we assess different theories?', 'Are there methods for determining which theory is the stronger, or better, in some way or my some measure?'

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

When we say that cells have molecular machines, we actually mean that they have machines.

Sure, but they are messy stochastic machines that operating by bumping into each other with bias. If my car drove 2 miles forwards and then 1.5 miles backwards I'd hardly regard it as intelligently designed. Likewise if it proceeded down the road by bumping into the wall on one side, bouncing off, hitting on coming traffic and spinning around, driving the wrong way and being turned around again and then stopped working altogether and used gravity to direct itself for twenty minutes, then started up again at a normal angle to my destination, drove off a bridge, got carried half a mile off down a river where it hit a rock that knocked it back on course and away I went....that'd hardly be the hallmark of intelligence.

This isn't metaphorical language -- and the same is true for genetic codes.

ddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddf ffffffffffffffffffffe adfdst grfflflkflfl l fgg If It turnddddddddddddddddddddlldldldled o

uuuuuuuutttttttt {see the eighth word in my reply} dddddsosslslsa I dlfdfa spppppppppppp0000k3333ereeeerere lkjklklkljlike ssssthis wwrwwwoooooooodwoooodwoodwoodwoodwouldwouldworldwoodwould uuuuuuuyooooooyou thththtink IIIII wassawas intelilililigentigentigent?

If the genetic code is to be thought of as a code, it is not passing on its messages in a way that any intelligent agent ever has. Optimised? Maybe. Messy, ugly, referential, double meaningly, ambiguously and contingent on very specific conditions to be read? Sure.

But this isn't so for life. When we look at life under increasingly higher resolutions, the deeper the engineering analogy becomes.

Nope, the more messy and stochastic and chaotic and disorganized it becomes.

There are actual machines with discrete, modular parts.

That behave in a way that no intelligent person would design something to work if they wanted to keep their job as an engineer.

At a core, basal level, there are systems that smack of rational design -- systems and machines that are not reflective of hodge-podge, jury-rigged Neo-Darwinian co-option mechanisms.

Only if you look at simplified representations of them for the purposes of understanding stochastic tendencies without showing those stochastic tendencies because they typically confuse the crap out of people who are trying to learn what's going on in general.

We can then take that as a working hypothesis, further refine it, and see where the hypothesis' predictions and explanatory powers takes us.

They've taken us no further than the ancient Greeks managed to get. Did Paley advance the argument in some compelling way? There is no explanation present.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.