Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-18-2019 9:34 PM
27 online now:
dwise1, edge, jar, JonF (4 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 856,976 Year: 12,012/19,786 Month: 1,793/2,641 Week: 302/708 Day: 77/52 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is my rock designed?
Parasomnium
Member (Idle past 891 days)
Posts: 2191
Joined: 07-15-2003


(7)
Message 133 of 219 (639723)
11-03-2011 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by Dawn Bertot
11-03-2011 12:43 AM


Re: is my rock design
Dawn Bertot writes:

We simply dont, recognize design by WHO might have put something together, but by its existing organization, function and purpose

This is why the design argument can never be overturned or refuted

Well, that's settled then: the design argument is not science. If it were, it would have to be falsifiable, which you just proclaimed it isn't.

Dawn, the crux of the design argument is that ID-ists infer the existence and the intelligence of a designer from the observation of apparent design. They do concentrate on who and not so much on how. They see organization, function and purpose, and conclude that it must have been put together by someone - and a very specific someone too, even if they don't always admit it openly.

Scientists too see organization, function and purpose, but they conclude it must have been put together somehow, not necessarily by someone. True, an eye is highly organized, it is functional in various ways, and it clearly serves the purpose of providing vision to its owner. But how does that indicate there can only be one explanation for the way it came to be? Even if we were to accept that intelligence must be involved, there would still be room for more than one explanation. The specifics of various eyes, if considered thoroughly, do not really indicate brilliant design. On the contrary, if anything, they could indicate incompetent design, or mis-communication among a team of designers, or multiple cases of plagiarism among competing designers, et cetera. If we look beyond eyes and consider, for example, malaria, we might even be tempted to conclude the existence of an evil designer, or a blundering designer, who let a dangerous experiment escape the lab. Or, at best, a benign designer who happens to give the interests of Plasmodium falciparum precedence over those of Homo sapiens.

And those are just a few possible explanations if we entertain the thought of intelligence being involved. Since intelligence itself is a rather complex phenomenon, which demands an explanation of its own, it might serve us well to look for other, simpler explanations. The mindless process that ensues when organisms with varying heritable traits compete for scarce resources, i.e. the process of evolution, is a very viable candidate in that respect. It accounts for (self-)organization, function, and purpose just as well as intelligent design, and it has the added benefit that it also accounts for apparent blunders and other mishap, while obviating the need for the involvement of intelligence. Occam would be pleased.


"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-03-2011 12:43 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by EWCCC777, posted 11-09-2011 2:43 PM Parasomnium has responded
 Message 150 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-11-2011 2:42 PM Parasomnium has responded

  
Parasomnium
Member (Idle past 891 days)
Posts: 2191
Joined: 07-15-2003


(2)
Message 138 of 219 (640387)
11-09-2011 2:15 AM


Topic please!
Larni writes:

Erm. Why bother posting if you have nothIng to say?


subbie writes:

How would he ever post?

And how are these responses conducive to the debate? Lately I've come across a lot of invective comments from the evolutionist camp. I'd have thought they knew better.

Could we please concentrate on the topic?

(Added by edit)
It's not that I don't appreciate your cheers on my previous post, Larni and subbie, but that's how it goes: I only discovered it after I posted my admonishing comment, otherwise I would have posted something less grumpy.

Edited by Parasomnium, : sugaring the pill


"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

  
Parasomnium
Member (Idle past 891 days)
Posts: 2191
Joined: 07-15-2003


(1)
Message 147 of 219 (640450)
11-09-2011 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by EWCCC777
11-09-2011 2:43 PM


Re: is my rock design
Hello EWCCC777,

Thanks for your sincere reply. Others have already commented on your thoughts on things like proof and evidence and such, so I'll just concentrate on your remarks about parsimony.

You said:

quote:
The idea that a supernatural Being created man from dust, then breathed into Him, creating life -- well, it may be a supernatural concept (which might not be pleasant to Occam's dsicriminating palate), but if allowed, it is certainly simpler than the idea of so many years and so many miniscule changes taking us from "goo-to-you," if you'll excuse the creationist humor.

First of all, rest assured that William of Occam would have no problem at all with the supernatural concept you described. He was, after all, a Catholic monk.

Next, I think you are mistaken when you say that the supernatural scenario is simpler than the evolutionary one. Many years and many mutations do not make the intrinsically simple process of evolution any more complex. The only thing they do is guarantee the gradual accumulation of the results of each step. Though the end result can become very complex indeed, the process toward it is not.

The supernatural scenario, on the other hand, is intrinsically more complex because of the need for a supernatural being, which itself is complex beyond compare. Maybe it looks simple: "God created everything", but looks are deceptive. The very concept of God makes it extremely unparsimonious.


"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by EWCCC777, posted 11-09-2011 2:43 PM EWCCC777 has not yet responded

  
Parasomnium
Member (Idle past 891 days)
Posts: 2191
Joined: 07-15-2003


(4)
Message 155 of 219 (640889)
11-14-2011 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by Dawn Bertot
11-11-2011 2:42 PM


Re: is my rock design
Dawn Bertot writes:

It only matters if order law and purpose are present

Dawn, a few posts ago you mentioned organization, function and purpose. Now you've shifted your position to order, law and purpose. You are not moving goal posts, are you? Because if you are, I predict you'll get short shrift from a lot of people here. Most of them do not take kindly to this kind of tactic.

Let me put my argument this way: I completely agree with you that we see organization, function and purpose (I'll stick with your original goal posts) in living nature. I would even go so far as to call it 'design' in a certain sense of the word. The sense of 'design' I'm talking about is the same as when we would speak of how wind and water had 'sculpted' a rock into a peculiar shape. It is very important to keep this in mind when we talk about design. So I would, for example, not hesitate to say that an eye was 'designed' for vision, in the 'sculpted' sense of 'design'.

So who designed it all? Well, before I go into that, let me say that I think it's a loaded question. It presumes that design can only originate from an intelligent entity, a person who plans it all in advance, and who has certain goals in mind. I think that's not the case when we are dealing with life. To find out what happened we should ask which kinds of process could possibly have designed - 'sculpted' - life. So we should ask "who or what designed it all?" One candidate would indeed be a process involving an intelligent designer, but that's by no means tho only possibility.

The process of evolution is another way of 'sculpting' life into its myriad forms. It does so by trying lots of variations and remorselessly selecting only the best improvements, simply by having too many individual organisms for the environment to sustain them all. Under those circumstances significantly more will survive and procreate, who have what it takes to do so. They're the ones who pass on their winning variations. The comparison with the sculpting of a rock by wind and water is an apt metaphor, if only because of the comparable time scales.

So, we see organization, function and purpose in nature. But is it evidence of planned design by an intelligent designer? Or is it evidence of relentless 'sculpting' by mindless natural processes? Modern science has found many, many clues that support the latter, and none that compels us to assume the former.

Edited by Parasomnium, : Post testing


"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-11-2011 2:42 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-15-2011 11:05 AM Parasomnium has responded
 Message 160 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-16-2011 7:45 AM Parasomnium has not yet responded

  
Parasomnium
Member (Idle past 891 days)
Posts: 2191
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 158 of 219 (641024)
11-15-2011 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Dawn Bertot
11-15-2011 11:05 AM


Re: is my rock design
There's no rush, Dawn, feel free to take your time. It's better to think a little longer about one's responses and write them with care, than to rush them off and regret them afterwards.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-15-2011 11:05 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019