|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1478 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A thought on Intelligence behind Design | |||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Ever watch crime shows on TV-- something like 'The New Detectives"? The investigators pick up what pieces of evidence they can and work up a plausible reconstruction of events, assuming the perpetrator does not confess. That is all that is going one here. In neither case can you watch the event-- it has already happened. Nor can you re-enact it in all details-- most of those details are missing. You can't test the scenario except by analyzing the degree to which it fits the evidence. You can test bits and pieces of evidence, and use those tests to tie everything together. But in the end, what you have is a plausible story. So, assuming you are comfortable that police investigations can return useful conclusions, it doesn't make sense to complain as you do about the reconstruction of flagellum evolution.
quote: The non-teleological explaination is the default, simply because the teleological requires that we assume processes for which we have no evidence. It makes much more sense to explain things via processes we know about and can investigate.
quote: We investigate what we can investigate. And we don't investigate what we can't investigate. I don't see the problem. Teleological causes are not really amenable to investigation unless you know there is an intelligence, as in the case of criminal investigation. Even so, the investigation is of efficient causes. There is no way to directly investigate the teleological. A plausible teleological cause is constructed and called 'motive.'
quote: This isn't really accurate. The IDC critic claims we can show non-teleological processes and so why assume additional processes which we cannot demonstrate?
quote: Excuse me, Warren? You seem to be complaining that some people want evidence.
quote: 1) Critters which are not cobbled together from spare parts.2) Components which are well designed for their function. I could probably think of more, but those would go a long way. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
Howdy...
quote: Neither request is unreasonable, Warren. In fact, the only absolute proof we could find of a designer is to meet the designer. But we aren't talking about absolute proof-- at least, I'm not talking about absolute proof. I'm talking about scientific proof, which is compiling the evidence and working out the most likely explaination for it.
quote: I've read through what others have written. I'll comment in a moment.
quote: All reasonable requests. The first would certainly clench the deal. Finding a manufacturer's tag would certainly prove ID. Not finding such a tag does not disprove ID. I don't know why you find this so objectionable. The second... well, every ID theorist I have ever read has made the Irreducible Complexity argument and that argument is just this-- that X couldn't have possibly evolved. This one is the ID theorist's fault. As for the third, if it were going to happen, it likely would have. Nonetheless, it falls into the same category as the first. Now, comments on my criteria: Crash, in Post # 167, states that...
As an ID critic, I guess I would have to ask: How well is "well designed"? If I can "intelligently" come up with a better solution, is it still "well designed"? I think we'd have to deal with this statistically. Basically, as Crash suggests, if we mere mortals can find flaws/weaknesses in a design and/or improve the design we are forced to consider it less than optimal and place it on a scale accordingly. Minor problems count few points against. Major problems count more. The 'perfect form' would be the most flaw-free form we could devise. It is an abstraction, obviously, but we do it all the time-- auto safety ratings, for example. There is no perfectly safe automobile, but that doesn't stop us from having a standard for comparison. NosyNed, in Post # 168 states...
quote: This is basically what I meant by 'critters not made up of spare parts.' So, no problem there. Holmes, in Post # 171 states...
I think a designer could just as easily use spare parts as new ones so point #1 is not sufficient. I agree. It isn't sufficient. It would be an indication, however. It is a matter of the direction of inference. A designer could use spare parts as well as new, so finding the use of spare parts does not rule out design. On the other hand, finding all-new custom parts in significant quantities would indicate, but not prove, design. Holmes raises another issue which I have already addressed. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Lol... we get asked stuff like this actually.
quote: Sorry bud, but the evolution vs. Darwinian evolution just shows an ignorance of the theory of evolution. What has basically been done is that 'easy to track' changes are labeled Darwinian and 'difficult to track' changes are called 'evolution' -- ie. direct evolution vs. circuitous evolution. This distinction is unwarranted. Because we don't know exactly how some things evolved does not warrant claiming that the evolution was via some special process. And, the way this distinction was phrased makes it appear that chance is not a component of 'darwinian' evolution. The 'chance' processes are ascribed to a different 'evolution.' Something I find interesting about this line of reasoning is that it doesn't much lead to an ID conclusion. The conclusion we have is that it isn't 'Darwinian' evolution but is instead some other form of evolution.
Co-option is the most commonly cited circuitous means to generate an IC system. Bur this really isn't Darwinian evolution (i.e. step by step changes captured by selection.) This is essentially a return to raw coincidence to account for apparent design. This is BS. The author-- Mike Gene, as per your attribution-- misrepresents evolution flat out. This REALLY is 'darwinian' evolution. The author cuts his own throat actually. If an organism survives and reproduces, its 'changes' are captured by selection. Thus, any path, no matter how convoluted, counts as 'step by step changes captured by selection.' Evidence must be provided for that path, of course. Lets back up a bit.
quote: You've provided no evidence for this statement. Nor have you provided any evidence that IC systems exist at all. In fact the argument presented cuts the legs out of IC by the simple fact that it allows for IC systems to evolve. If they evolve, they are not IC.
quote: What makes you think that anything at all about life is linear?
quote: To say that evolution of any kind kind produce IC systems means those systems are not IC. Then how does one make the jump to a designer?
quote: Who the frell is Mike Gene? Is this him? Welcome idthink.net - BlueHost.com I love this bit from the site!
quote: Lol... To be fair the rest of the paragraph follows,
quote: ... but to be honest, Mike Gene is a clever expositor of the same old crap. I took the time to read a few of his articles.
quote: Yes. It must be, but that isn't the case. See, a plausible pathway of evolution is sufficient to foil a claim of IC. It is not sufficient to prove that that is how the feature actually evolved.
quote: Did you intend for this to make sense? ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Well, right, that is what doesn't make sense-- kinda screws IC to say that something can evolve. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024