Why is the process blind ?

Dawkins, in "Blind Watchmaker" (1986) goes out of his way to carefully describe many different organisms and organs using terminology associated with things that were designed. From bat echolocation and electric fish to the human eye. After these very detailed descriptions he asserts each one was produced by natural selection - cumulatively ("numerous successive slight modifications").

Dawkins, (who represents all evolutionists) and myself both agree that the inhabitants of nature and physical reality exhibit the appearance of design and organized complexity. I contend that we do not need to special plead the appearance of design, that it logically corresponds with a Designer. Dawkins says the appearance is an illusion produced by a blind and mindless process (natural selection).

However, the point remains: we both agree physical reality appears designed. This is a fact that the Evolution-Creation debate has agreement on: nature and its organisms exhibit the appearance of design.

When Dawkins or any evolutionist says the evolutionary process is blind or mindless or unguided or purposeless these are adjectives that contradict the undisputed results: appearance of design and organized complexity. Based on the undisputed fact that the process produces the appearance of design AND organized complexity AND the interconnecting precision of nature the evolutionist choices to describe the process are false and reflect the bias of Materialism methodology. Objectively, based upon the undisputed results of appearance of design and organized complexity and the interconnecting precision of nature we can disregard the bias and accurately describe the same process as reflecting guidedness, purpose and Mind.

By the way: checkmate.

Ray Martinez

Romans 1:25

Who changed the truth of God into A LIE, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. All Darwinists are the liars for special pleading the appearance of design (what more can God do ?) to not correspond with Designer but a blind and mindless process of their own imagination and need.

Edited by Herepton, : add content

Edited by Herepton, : No reason given.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Dawkins, in "Blind Watchmaker" (1986) goes out of his way to carefully describe many different organisms and organs using terminology associated with things that were designed. From bat echolocation and electric fish to the human eye. After these very

Ray writes: Dawkins says the appearance is an illusion produced by a blind and mindless process (natural selection).

You migtht possibly be able to produce some concrete evidence to the contrary ?

Ray writes: This is a fact that the Evolution-Creation debate has agreement on: nature and its organisms exhibit the appearance of design.

And we are supposed to attach what sort of significance to the concept of “appearance” ?
Appearances can be deceiving.
In science, ‘appearance’ is a word we associate with speculation, not evidence.

Ray writes: When Dawkins or any evolutionist says the evolutionary process is blind or mindless or unguided or purposeless these are adjectives that contradict the undisputed results: appearance of design and organized complexity.

The burden of proof lies with the dissenter to come up with a more convincing and *functionally applicable* explanation for the observations than the status quo theory which happens to function very well in that regard.
An unspecified, omnipotent designer might be an emotionally alluring concept, but it is not very intellectually satisifying, nor is it a very useful assumption to use as a starting point for analyzing problems in modern biological science. Show me one scrap of evidence supporting the existence of some sort of ‘designer’, I challenge you. Assuming you could accomplish that feat, you might then explain to us how such a 'working model' might be used to advance our *functional* understanding of nature one iota.

Ray writes: …the bias of Materialism methodology…

Kettle calling pot black.
Scientific ‘materialism’ eshews bias. Spiritualist dogmas revel in it.
Religion is bias incarnate.

Ray writes: …undisputed results of appearance of design…

Since when is the ‘appearance’ of anything, an ‘undisputed result’ ?
The ‘appearance’ of *anything* is only a function of your limited perceptual abilities.
Or anyone’s – not to single you out.

Ray writes: …the interconnecting precision of nature…

Interactions between species in ecosystems have resulted in ‘interconnections’ between species. This much we accept? How, then, do you then decide that such ‘interconnections’ are ‘precise’ (your terminology) or simply a random outcome of a complex series of contingent events leading to a rather unique outcome?

Here is a question for you.
Can any chance outcome, however improbable it might seem based on the number of possible alternatives, be considered evidence that it’s very occurrence is beyond the realm of random probability? Because that is essentially the premise your argument is based on.

Ray writes: …we can disregard the bias and accurately describe the same process as reflecting guidedness, purpose and Mind.

You have yet to convincingly demonstrate any sort of bias on the part of conventional evolutionary theorists, but the implication of any kind of ‘guidedness’ or ‘purpose’ in evolution has a special term – teleology. You would do well to acquaint yourself with this term as it is the singular terminology that adequately describes your contention. There is NO evidence to suggest that any evolutionary processes are directed in any way by anything. Unless you have some new evidence ?

Ray writes: By the way: checkmate.

Whom might you be addressing? You have not yet debated anyone.

Your initial post is disappointing (butcher shop of quote mines, format disuniformity, ad hoc substanceless one liners). The biggest disappointment, though, was the evasion of my main OP (opening post) argument, which was (in a nutshell):

Both Dawkins (who represents all evolutionists) and I agree that nature exhibits the appearance of design and organized interconnecting complexity. Based on these undisputed results I logically conclude the process that produced the results is not antithesis: blind and mindless.

My question for you (as seen in the topic title) is why do Darwinists insist the process is blind and mindless when in fact it produces contra-resultant reality ? I contend that which produces appearance of design and interconnecting organized complexity can logically and scientifically be attributed to have been produced by Designer or Mind.

EZscience writes: Show me one scrap of evidence supporting the existence of some sort of ‘designer’, I challenge you.

The evidence of my contention is the undisputed results of appearance of design and interconnecting organized complexity. Darwinists are demanding an atheistic (adjective not a noun) ideological conclusion (blind and mindless) be accepted as scientific fact contrary to the undisputed observational facts. This is called special pleading and you need to explain why it is justified. Instead, you dodged the issue:

Ray writes: Dawkins says the appearance is an illusion produced by a blind and mindless process (natural selection).

EZscience responding writes: You migtht possibly be able to produce some concrete evidence to the contrary ?

Your reply is a dodge because it is purely reliance on argument by authority. I could produce persons with Ph.D.'s who say the exact opposite. IF the issue was about the genetic code randomly mutating THEN in this type of matter lay persons need authorities to establish facts because the issue is only resolvable by persons with Ph.D.'s. Outsiders are not qualified nor do they have knowledge to render opinions about the genetic code.

The present issue is why is the process that produces appearance of design and organized interconnecting complexity judged to be blind and mindless ? Based on these outcomes anyone who asserts the process is NOT blind and mindless is perfectly justified. We can explain Dawkins opinion and his perceptions of the process to be observations based on the needs of his known worldview. What are Dawkins qualifications to rely on a non-scientific principle (illusion) to explain away observational facts ? We know Dawkins is protecting his worldview. You are doing the same by implying the atheistic starting presuppositions of Methodological Naturalism are scientific fact.

EZscience, why is the process blind ?

EZscience writes: And we are supposed to attach what sort of significance to the concept of “appearance” ?

It is a word used by Dawkins and many others. "Observation" is a synonym: the cornerstone of science. It is the ONLY criteria Darwin used to produce Origin of Species.

EZscience writes: Appearances can be deceiving.

This is a YEC argument. They too special plead the geological ages to be a deception from God in order to evade an old Earth. I contend we do not need to special plead anything, unless of course you can argue a rational exemption.

In science, ‘appearance’ is a word we associate with speculation, not evidence.

Nonsense. "Appearance" is observation and neither have anything to do with speculation. This reply is ad hoc.

EZscience writes: An unspecified, omnipotent designer might be an emotionally alluring concept, but it is not very intellectually satisifying, nor is it a very useful assumption to use as a starting point for analyzing problems in modern biological science.

Atheist philosophy pretending to speak for science. Is this the reason why the process is blind ? ....your atheistic zealotry ? Randomness and chance and accident is satisfying to account for the continuous production of organized complexity and order ?

Since when is the ‘appearance’ of anything, an ‘undisputed result’ ?

The OP clearly relays the Blind Watchmaker thesis. Have you read this book ? Again, Dawkins does NOT dispute the appearance of design - he asserts it was produced by blind mindlessness not connected to Mind. I ask, again, based on the undisputed results, why is the alternative view incorrect ? I contend Dawkins belief about the observational facts is wrong. All polls have consistently showed 40 percent of the American public sees nature reflecting Mind. Your view is the untenable attempt to insult everyone who does not agree to be "stupid, ignorant, insane or wicked" (Dawkins).

Ray Martinez

Edited by Herepton, : minor grammatical edit

EZscience writes: Scientific ‘materialism’ eshews bias.

I missed this opinion in my first reply.

Materialism only allows non-supernatural explanations, interpretations and conclusions. This is an undisputable atheistic bias. You are attempting to assert that atheists have no bias = could one expect an atheist to try anything else ? Everyone has a bias (not a matter of opinion).

The reason why the process is blind is because Darwinists are grinding a philosophic atheistic axe under the disguise of science. You MUST assert the process is blind despite the contra-resultant outcome because of your anti-Creator worldview.

I could produce quotes by evolutionists saying all of the evidence in existence for hominid evolution could fit on a billiard table. This, of course, is untrue. The accurate space needed to fit all of the evidence for human evolution could fit in a space 1 inch long and a quarter inch wide, that is, in the amount of space that the word assumption takes up. That assumption is the Materialist starting assumption that appearance of design does not correspond with Designer. EVERYTHING that follows after the assumption is faithful to the assumption despite the observational facts.

Now that I know you are uneducated and/or ignorant I will not waste anymore time reading or responding to your messages.

Percy: Send me a TEist or I am through with this atheistic nonsense packaged as neutral objective science.

Ray Martinez

Edit:

Subscribing to Materialism does not disable the capacity to have bias. What could possibly make a person come under this delusion ? Answer: Need. The need to mask the atheistic biases and starting assumptions of Materialism.

RM

Edited by Herepton, : No reason given.

Ray writes: The biggest disappointment, though, was the evasion of my main OP (opening post) argument: Both Dawkins (who represents all evolutionists) and I agree that nature exhibits the appearance of design and organized interconnecting complexity. Based on these undisputed results I logically conclude the process that produced the results is not antithesis: blind and mindless.

This is not an argument. It is an inference.
Let me ask you a question, Ray.
Would you say that organismal survival is NEVER affected by chance events?

Ray writes: My question for you (as seen in the topic title) is why do Darwinists insist the process is blind and mindless … ?

Because there is no evidence to the contrary and every indication that is actually the case. Your argument is just hand-waving. Organizational complexity can be a result of design, but that doesn’t mean it can only result from design.
Have you ever heard of ‘secondary succession’ in ecology?
Think of a small volcanic island that undergoes and eruption.
This island has a complex, interconnected ecosystem that is (almost) completely destroyed by the eruption – a chance event.
A combination of the survivors and possibly new immigrant species will eventually form a new ecosystem just as complex and interconnected as the first one – but different – as a result of this chance event. There are many contingent events that affect the survival of individuals in a population, just as they affect the survival of species in an ecosystem.

Ray writes: I contend that which produces appearance of design and interconnecting organized complexity can logically and scientifically be attributed to have been produced by Designer or Mind.

You can contend all you want, but you haven’t any evidence.
That assumption leads nowhere. If all organizational complexity requires design, the designer must himself be very complex, so who designed him/her ?

Ray writes: undisputed results of appearance of design and interconnecting organized complexity. Darwinists are demanding an atheistic (adjective not a noun) ideological conclusion (blind and mindless) be accepted as scientific fact contrary to the undisputed observational facts.

You haven’t produced any facts yet, only a dogmatic repitition of the same little chorus, that ‘complexity must be evidence of design’. If you would take the time to actually try and understand the mechanisms described by Dawkins in ‘The Blind Watchmaker’ you would see that no designer is required. We can see nature changing around us all the time, sometimes advancing in complexity, without any evidence of any designer guiding anything. Not only is a designer NOT necessary for the process, the assumption that there is one adds a superfluous complication that clouds understanding, rather than clarifying it. And if there is a ‘designer’, where does it all end? Is EVERYTHING designed and guided? Does NOTHING happen by chance?

Ray writes: This is called special pleading and you need to explain why it is justified.[ \qs] Ray, you are the one pleading for a special case that must be justified – the addition of some unidentified (omniscient and omnipotent?) designer to a process that works perfectly well without one. Ray writes: Dawkins says the appearance is an illusion produced by a blind and mindless process (natural selection). EZscience responding writes: You might possibly be able to produce some concrete evidence to the contrary ? Your reply is a dodge because it is purely reliance on argument by authority.

No, it is merely a request for evidence, a word you don’t seem to grasp the meaning of.

Ray writes: I could produce persons with Ph.D.'s who say the exact opposite.

Now THAT would be argument by authority.

Ray writes: IF the issue was about the genetic code randomly mutating THEN in this type of matter lay persons need authorities to establish facts because the issue is only resolvable by persons with Ph.D.'s. Outsiders are not qualified nor do they have knowledge to render opinions about the genetic code.

But for some strange reason, virtaully all those who do study it and come to understand how it works conclude that changes in genetic sequences can and do occur by chance errors of replication.

The present issue is why is the process that produces appearance of design and organized interconnecting complexity judged to be blind and mindless ?

Once again, that is the most parsimonious explanation and there is no reason to add anything to it. You must justify adding something unecessary to the explanation.
Dawkins explained, very effectively I think, how an eye can evolve increasingly complexity through a long series of very small changes. What you have to remember is that you are only seeing end products of the process after many rounds of selection have eliminated all the less-advantageous designs. There is no need for a ‘guided’ process, nor is there any evidence that ANY process in organic evolution has ever been guided.

Ray writes: We can explain Dawkins opinion and his perceptions of the process to be observations based on the needs of his known worldview.

It is those of religious conviction that have ‘needs’ associated with their worldview. Scientists seek explanations – and not mythological ones either.

Ray writes: EZscience writes: And we are supposed to attach what sort of significance to the concept of “appearance” ? It is a word used by Dawkins and many others. "Observation" is a synonym: the cornerstone of science. It is the ONLY criteria Darwin used to produce Origin of Species.

Where on earth did you learn that?
An observation is NOT synonymous with ‘appearances’.
An observation requires some sort of quantification to be scientific.

Ray writes: EZscience writes: Appearances can be deceiving. This is a YEC argument.

Little bit of a stretch here, don’t you think?
YEC is a predetermined position that seeks to warp all evidence to fit a biblical myth.

The difference is that science requires evidence ro support or refute theories of how things work – and the simple ‘appearance’ of something is never sufficient evidence for how it came to be that way. While they may or may not be consistent with certain mechanistic explanations, appearances don’t explain anything on their own.

Ray writes: "Appearance" is observation and neither have anything to do with speculation. This reply is ad hoc.

You really don’t have a concept of evidence, do you Ray?
Or at least no respect for the scientific definition of evidence.

Ray writes: Atheist philosophy pretending to speak for science.

I haven’t invoked any atheism. And as a professional scientist, I can speak for science – at least so far as to defend it from your illogical attack.

No. It is because there is no evidence to suggest a designer or any ‘guidance system’ for natural change.

Yes, when you are willing to open your mind and comprehend the actual process.
Why this insistence on a designer, Ray? Do you feel a need to believe in God?
Do you feel your fragile little mythology is threatened when the mean old atheistic scientists say something can happen without the guiding hand of god?
I suggest you are the one displaying religious ‘zealotry’.

Ray writes: Blind Watchmaker thesis. Have you read this book ?

Many years ago. And unlike you I actually understood it.

Ray writes: Again, Dawkins does NOT dispute the appearance of design

No one is disputing the ‘appearance’ of design.
You are floggin a dead horse here.

Ray writes: Why is the alternative view incorrect ?

Once again, because all evidence points in the other direction.

Ray writes: All polls have consistently showed 40 percent of the American public sees nature reflecting Mind.

So what? More than 40% of Americans probably couldn’t even enunciate a cogent description of the scientific method if asked. Science is not a democratic process.

Ray writes: Materialism only allows non-supernatural explanations, interpretations and conclusions.

You finally said something that is correct.

…only to follow it with total drivel.

Ray writes: This is an undisputable atheistic bias.

To contend that a process can function without the action of a god does not, in any way, equivocate to denying the existence of one.

Ray writes: You are attempting to assert that atheists have no bias

No, I am asserting that science strives to eliminate bias – dogma such as yours has no mechanism for recognizing bias, let alone eliminating it. Science does.

Ray writes: The reason why the process is blind is because Darwinists are grinding a philosophic atheistic axe under the disguise of science. You MUST assert the process is blind despite the contra-resultant outcome because of your anti-Creator worldview.

I haven’t even shared my ‘world view’ with you and you are just ‘blindly’ flailing your arms around and accusing all scientists of ulterior motivation.

Ray writes: Now that I know you are uneducated and/or ignorant I will not waste anymore time reading or responding to your messages.

Leaving so soon? And departing with a barrage of insults?
I thought you actually wanted to debate something.
Instead, you have simply repeated and re-phrased your circular argument that ‘design impliers a designer’ and cast wild and uncorroborated assertions about the ulterior motives of scientists, their beliefs, and their covert agenda.

Edited by EZscience, : formatting

Edited by EZscience, : ..and more formatting.

Edited by EZscience, : No reason given.

Herepton writes: Percy: Send me a TEist or I am through with this atheistic nonsense packaged as neutral objective science.

As you wish.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

EZ: Why are you unable to produce a post reflecting format uniformity ? Blue box your opponents text all the time and not some of the time. I have every right to walk away knowing what is written leaves you wanting. But I am caged and my handlers want performance. So I have reconsidered and will re-commence grinding.

EZ writes: This is not an argument. It is an inference.

This was your reply to my OP argument = inability to refute. That OP argument says there is mutual agreement pertaining to the outcomes of the process that produces observational reality (appearance of design, interconnecting ORGANIZED complexity). The Darwinian description of the process is diametrically counterintuitive. The Design description is perfectly congruent. The disharmony between the two is caused by worldview starting assumptions (philosophic) and not scientific facts or data.

I suppose you will continue to evade and butcher my quotes ?

Let me ask you a question, Ray. Would you say that organismal survival is NEVER affected by chance events?

Of course it is. But you are deflecting away from the narrow OP argument. The implication of your point is pure (rhetoric) misuse of logic.

Because there is no evidence to the contrary and every indication that is actually the case. Your argument is just hand-waving.

You have yet to address the OP argument in good faith. Dawkins agrees with Paley about the results and outcomes. We, logically say the same corresponds with Designer. Dawkins says the process is non-sentient, inantimate and blind. These are atheistic adjectives that defy the undisputed results. Your part is to evade.

My logic is invulnerable. It all boils down to starting assumptions and methodology.

EZ writes: Think of a small volcanic island that undergoes and eruption. This island has a complex, interconnected ecosystem that is (almost) completely destroyed by the eruption – a chance event. A combination of the survivors and possibly new immigrant species will eventually form a new ecosystem just as complex and interconnected as the first one – but different – as a result of this chance event.

A chance catastrophe is not evidence that the process that produced the ecosystem was driven by chance. You are arguing in a incoherent circle.

Human engineered mechanisms of complexity are undisputably produced by purposeful design. But the same in nature is not = only when a worldview need is present.

If all organizational complexity requires design, the designer must himself be very complex, so who designed him/her ?

The source of ALL misunderstanding about the Bible is really caused by the complexity of the Author. Science has voluminously determined that complexity is the irrefutable sign of His involvement. Dawkins in Blind Watchmaker asks the same (phony) question - a question that little kids who do not know any better ask. Then Dawkins, unaware of his hypocrisy goes on to say pure chance caused First Cause. Impossible. DNA replication machinery needed to jump start cumulative selection did not poof into existence. The only source for poofing is the Bible. You cannot have it both ways. Once you rely on and invoke chance, this is equivalent to Biblical "out of nothingness". EDIT: Genesis says nature and mankind had supernatural beginnings. Dawkins knows this but the needs of cumulative selection have boxed him in. Darwin knew this too. This is why in the 2nd Edition of Origin he added the word "Creator" in the last famous paragraph. Both views require "out of nothing" origins. We have a source and you do not. Darwin has no source for his Creator invocation since, whatever Genesis says, it says origins was NOT by common ancestry.

Whether the outcome or the origin we have the upper hand. Darwinists special plead the outcome and need the "out of nothing" beginning. We are faithful to observation and have always insisted origins was supernaturally commenced.

RM

Edited by Herepton, : add content

Ray writes: This was your reply to my OP argument = inability to refute.

No, there is nothing to refute. You don’t even have an argument. All you have is an inference, and an unsupported one at that.

Ray writes: That OP argument says there is mutual agreement pertaining to the outcomes of the process…

Yes, the ‘appearance’ of design. So what ? That does not imply that *only* purposeful design can produce organic complexity. Your argument is circular. It looks like a duck and quacks like a duck so it probably is a duck.

Ray writes: I suppose you will continue to evade and butcher my quotes ?

I haven’t evaded anything, nor have I altered your choice of words in quoting you. I am still waiting for you to produce something resembling a cogent thesis statement.

Ray writes: The implication of your point is pure (rhetoric) misuse of logic.

I haven’t even made my point on this yet, but since you now accept that chance can play a role in how things change, there is at least a slim hope that I can explain to you how complexity can arise by contingent processes.

Ray writes: Dawkins says the process is non-sentient, inantimate and blind. These are atheistic adjectives that defy the undisputed results. Your part is to evade.

Come on Ray, you’re so reactionary. How can adjectives be ‘atheistic’. Do you have atheists hiding under your bed too? Your ‘undisputed results’ do not even comprise a conclusion that warrants dispute. Your are just inferring something out of pure speculation.

Ray writes: My logic is invulnerable. It all boils down to starting assumptions and methodology.

No, it boils down to *reasoning* and your ‘starting assumption’ is merely an unsupported inference.

Ray writes: A catastrophe is not evidence that the process that produced the ecosystem was driven by chance. You are arguing in a incoherent circle.

I haven’t argued anything yet, but I will now.
The point is that a new ecosystem will evolve – with new complexity replacing the old – simply because of this chance catastrophe, like so many others that have shaped the planet. It doesn’t require any designer monkeying with the system and the system itself doesn’t have any mind or conscious objective. Its just a group of organisms competing for available niches. So if completely novel ecological complexity is able to evolve before our very eyes, why should we not conclude it was able to do so in the first place before we were around to observe it?

Ray writes: Human engineered mechanisms of complexity are undisputably produced by purposeful design.

Yes, but living things are not. At least no one has produced any evidence to support that conclusion, least of all you.

Ray writes: Science has voluminously determined that complexity is the irrefutable sign of His involvement.

Really? You might possibly have a decent reference from all this ‘voluminous science’ ?

Ray writes: The only source for poofing is the Bible.

I can’t help but agree with this. But now you are trying to warp the topic to abiogenesis. That’s not what I came to discuss. The process, Ray, the PROCESS of organic change and the fact that it is undirected. Please stay on topic.

Ray writes: Darwinists special plead the outcome and need the "out of nothing" beginning. We are faithful to observation and have always insisted origins was supernaturally commenced.

You are still off topic about abiogenesis, but supernatural explanations are complete non-explanations as far as science is concerned because they don’t help us understand anything.

We see the undirected process of organic change around us all the time.
We can measure it in many ways, but you have to make an effort to understand the science instead of dismissing the whole process because of an inference you happen to personally dislike (no need for a god).
We can *quantify* degrees of genetic relationship that are entirely consistent with common ancestry.
We can use ‘molecular clocks’ to infer the timing of major taxonomic events.
We can directly observe speciation in progress.
None of the processes we observe in nature show any evidence of being ‘guided’, nor does any natural system show evidence of ‘purpose’ in the nature of its changes.

Edited by EZscience, : extra text pasted

EZ writes: No, there is nothing to refute. You don’t even have an argument. All you have is an inference, and an unsupported one at that.

Admin writes: www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=19&t=377&m=1#7 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=19&t=377&m=1#7">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=19&t=377&m=1#7 Your topic is fine.

You have evaded the OP argument because you cannot refute. That is why my last comment in the OP said: "By the way: checkmate."

Ray

Ray writes: ...based upon the undisputed results of appearance of design and organized complexity and the interconnecting precision of nature we can disregard the bias and accurately describe the same process as reflecting guidedness, purpose and Mind.

I take it this is what you want to pass for an argument?

The 'bias' is in fact on your side because you have chosen to see complexity as 'reflecting guidedness' when it need not.

You have chosen to see purpose in a process without any evidence of purpose. This is teleology - and it is unscientific.

Further, you have chosen to hypothesize a 'mind' with a purpose behind the process, again without any evidence for the existence of such a mind.

And Nature might be interconnected, but it is anything but precise.
Most biological processes, if you look closely enough at them, are in fact, very imprecise. Just like replication of the genetic code.

Your insistent contention that organic complexity implies a purposeful designer because of it's 'appearance' is without any supporting evidence and is nothing more than hand-waving.

Ray writes: By the way: checkmate

So you want to claim victory in the OP before it has even been challenged? You need to be more open to criticism if you want to learn something in your debating experience.

You haven't been able to respond adequately to any of the points I raised in my last post, so you are just ignoring it entirely - and accusing ME of evasion.

I've carried you and tried to provoke an answer to my OP. Let me make it very easy: Why is the process blind EZ ? You are unable to answer a simple question about Darwinian science. I will now stop being an opponent and try and help you: The answer is because the personal worldviews of atheism are being "covertly" objectified. I feel you have been genuinely duped by older and smarter evolutionists and that you are actually ignorant of the materialistic/atheistic bias entrenched within the Darwinian worldview. Everyone has a bias and it is not wrong nor is it avoidable. What is wrong is the intentional hiding of bias under color of a false objectivity that does not exist. Hope this helps you in understanding your Materialistic science.

Ray

Ray writes: Why is the process blind EZ ?

Because that is the most parsimonious model.
There is no 'guidance system' required to explain evolutionary phenomena, nor have you produced any evidence of such a system.
You are hypothesizing its existence - you must demonstrate the guidance mechanism.
Furthermore, you have accepted that chance events can have long-lasting and contingent outcomes for animal populations.
So how do we objectively determine 'guided outcomes' from chance outcomes? You must produce a guidance mechanism and show how it operates and provide criteria for distinguishing its operation.

Ray writes: The answer is because the personal worldviews of atheism are being "covertly" objectified.

Sorry Ray, that's just a paranoid delusion engendered by the fragility of your own belief system.

Ray writes: ...you are actually ignorant of the materialistic/atheistic bias entrenched within the Darwinian worldview.

You are extrapolating beyond the facts. The fact is that evolutionary theory is completely neutral to the existence of god. It makes no claim one way or the other. All it sasy is that processes of organic change proceed, and can be quite adequately explained, without any 'guidance', so there is no need to postulate guidance when examining such change. Supernatural phenomena may exist, but until they can be tested objectively, they are better off ignored because they add nothing to our understanding.

Ray writes: the intentional hiding of bias under color of a false objectivity

Please explain, with concrete examples, just how evolutionary theory is not objective.
It is quite obvious that the intentional injection of religious bias into pseduo-scientific explanations has no claim to objectivity.

Ray writes: Hope this helps you in understanding your Materialistic science.

No, it doesn't help anyone understand anything to postulate a guidance system that is both superfluous and completely undemonstrable.
How does it work Ray? How can we recognize it in action?

EZ writes: There is no 'guidance system' required to explain evolutionary phenomena, nor have you produced any evidence of such a system.

I have pointed out that the Dawkins Blind Watchmaker thesis accepts Paley's Argument from Design in all aspects, except, of course, the source and cause of the undisputed appearances. It is Darwinists who assert the process contrary to the outcome. IDists logically assert that which produces these outcomes is guided in accordance with the results. Darwinists are exposed to be attempting to objectify their atheistic worldviews under the color of "it is science" = deception = indigenous trait of Satan and sign of his presence according to the Bible.

So how do we objectively determine 'guided outcomes' from chance outcomes?

Logically, blind chance cannot produce organized complexity, unless of course, you are a Darwinist with atheistic needs. Nothing on this Earth was designed by a blind human who by chance produced his invention every step of the way. Bat sonar and mimicry reek with ID. Because they are biological Darwinists steal the ID from God and assert their moronic ideas (blind and mindless NS) were responsible.

You have not produced one piece of scientific evidence to justify your atheistic conclusions except to say "it is science". Atheism is not science and 40 percent of the population knows you are liars. You are unable to correct your errors or acknowledge them. Why are you here ? Now I know why you post under a pseudonym.

The fact is that evolutionary theory is completely neutral to the existence of god.

I have just obtained controlling interest in a bridge in Brooklyn - email me if you want in ? In the meantime:

Professor Ernst Mayr: "It is apparent that Darwin lost his faith in the years 1836-39, much of it clearly prior to the reading of Malthus. In order not to hurt the feelings of his friends and of his wife, Darwin often used deistic language in his publications, but much in his Notebooks indicates that by this time he had become a ‘materialist’ (more or less = atheist)." American Scientist May 1977 p. 323

The above dating is 20 years before Origin of Species was written.

Professor Stephen Jay Gould: "Before Darwin, we thought that a benevolent God had created us." Ever Since Darwin (1979) p.267

Professor Richard Dawkins: "For Darwin, any evolution that had to be helped over the jumps by God was no evolution at all. It made a nonsense of the central point of evolution." The Blind Watchmaker (1996) p.249

Professor Ernst Mayr: "There is indeed one belief that all true original Darwinians held in common, and that was their rejection of creationism, their rejection of special creation. This was the flag around which they assembled and under which they marched. When Hull claimed that "the Darwinians did not totally agree with each other, even over essentials", he overlooked one essential on which all these Darwinians agreed. Nothing was more essential for them than to decide whether evolution is a natural phenomenon or something controlled by God. The conviction that the diversity of the natural world was the result of natural processes and not the work of God was the idea that brought all the so-called Darwinians together in spite of their disagreements on other of Darwin’s theories." One Long Argument (1991) p.99 (colorization mine)

EZ writes: The fact is that evolutionary theory is completely neutral to the existence of god. It makes no claim one way or the other.

Like I said in my previous message - you are uneducated or ignorant. Your "position" betrays a fear of the Bible and an unsound theory. ALL atheists would not embrace Darwinism if they didn't think it refuted Genesis.

EZ writes: Supernatural phenomena may exist, but until they can be tested objectively, they are better off ignored because they add nothing to our understanding.

Science has objectively tested for a Designer and found one. Only Darwinists deny for obvious reasons. Nature exhibits design because a Designer made it - logical and observed.

Ray

Ray writes: I have pointed out that the Dawkins Blind Watchmaker thesis accepts Paley's Argument from Design in all aspects, except, of course, the source and cause of the undisputed appearances.

That’s a pretty important exception. And you are wrong, Dawkins would accept virtually nothing about any argument from design. Also, you fail to realize that Dawkins’ book contains nothing really novel or original in evolutionary theory. It is not an original thesis in any way. It is a popular press book designed to explain evolution to those without hardly any science background – like yourself, although it appearently failed in your case. You are using this book as if it were some kind of cornerstone work in ToE, which it is is not.

Also you don’t seem to know the meaning of the word ‘indigenous’. Traits cannot be ‘indigenous’ – only species.

Ray writes: Logically, blind chance cannot produce organized complexity

That’s just an assertion. Where is the logic? You’re not even answering the question. How do we distinguish something resulting from the ‘guidance system’ from something that changed as a mere result of chance, which you have accepted can happen?

Ray writes: You have not produced one piece of scientific evidence to justify your atheistic conclusions

Firstly, I haven’t made any conclusions w/r/t the existence or non-existence of a god. I have only said that all forms of organic change can be adequately explained without invoking interference by any god. There is a difference.
And let’s keep things clear. You are the one making a contention that must be proven, i.e. that the process is guided. If you want to discuss scientific evidence, we have to look at specific examples. Pick one and we can examine it from both perspectives.

Ray writes: Like I said in my previous message - you are uneducated or ignorant

Repeated insults are not going to gain you any credibility here. Such direct personal attacks are against the debating rules of the forum. I am surprised that Percy allows you such latitude, but he is probably just giving you ample opportunity to make a fool of yourself. I will not lower myself to respond in this vein, but rather let the readers decide who has education and who does not.

Ray writes: Science has objectively tested for a Designer and found one.

What science? Where is your reference? Your pathetic attempt at quote-mining and misconstruing the statements of scientists is not convincing. The fact is, no true scientist takes ‘argument from design’ seriously.

Ray writes: Nature exhibits design because a Designer made it - logical and observed.

You have yet to make a sincere attempt to address the questions I have posed.
Why not start with this one.
How do we objectively distinguish a trait that is a result of design from one which is merely a result of chance events that you admit can effect change in living things?
Or this one. What is the mechanism of the ‘guidance system’, i.e. how does it work. In order for your concept to qualify as science, it must have a mechanism that can be described and demonstrated. What is the mechanism of design? How can we test for it?

Until you can address these issues you are just flailing your arms in the air and reciting your dogmatic little mantra over and over. “It looks designed, so it must be designed”. That’s just handwaving.

Unless you make a sincere attemtp to address the questions I have raised, you can ask Percy to send you another opponent because I am tired of repeating myself only to have you completely ignore all the points I have raised and have you resort to quote mining.