Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 67 (9078 total)
86 online now:
Aussie, kjsimons, PaulK, Tanypteryx (4 members, 82 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,038 Year: 6,150/6,534 Month: 343/650 Week: 113/278 Day: 11/24 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why only one Designer
ringo
Member
Posts: 19733
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 8 of 377 (612111)
04-13-2011 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Jon
04-13-2011 10:21 AM


Re: The Fewer the Merrier
Jon writes:

If you can 'explain' it with one designer, why try to explain it with one thousand?


As frako already said, they're using human design as an analogy. For all intents and purposes, that's the only argument they have.

Human design is usually done by committee (or it evolves over a period of time with a series of designers). If IDists were honest about their "conclusion", that's what their Designer would be like.

But of course it isn't a conclusion at all. They start with the Designer they want to prove and work their way back through the analogy, blatantly ignoring the parts that don't fit.


If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Jon, posted 04-13-2011 10:21 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Jon, posted 04-13-2011 11:29 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19733
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 10 of 377 (612127)
04-13-2011 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Jon
04-13-2011 11:29 AM


Re: The Fewer the Merrier
Jon writes:

I think the human analogy only goes so far;


And that's a major flaw in the design hypothesis. The analogy doesn't take them where they want to go. Once they have the predetermined answer, they have to stop the inquiry lest it bring up any pesky complications, like a pantheon.

Jon writes:

... if we can look at the nature of the 'design', we should be able to figure out the competence of the designer(s) and from there make a rough guess as to how many there were(/are).


Of course the last thing that IDists want to do is figure out something that they already "know".


If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Jon, posted 04-13-2011 11:29 AM Jon has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Coyote, posted 04-13-2011 12:25 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19733
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 13 of 377 (612139)
04-13-2011 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by slevesque
04-13-2011 12:39 PM


slevesque writes:

Yes, they sometimes use human designs as analogy, but their arguments do not rest on this analogy (contrary to what Ringo claims).


Feel free to point out how it is contrary. Show us how ID thinking is independent of the fact of human design.


If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by slevesque, posted 04-13-2011 12:39 PM slevesque has not replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19733
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 36 of 377 (612248)
04-14-2011 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by kbertsche
04-14-2011 10:15 AM


I don't think a "first cause" has any relevance to the design hypothesis. The designer(s) that we're talking about are essentially the last cause, not the first. IDists are reasoning back from the designed to the designer. They're not taking into account the designer's supervisor or the chief engineer or the CEO of the company.

ID is as bad an idea from a (monotheist) religious viewpoint as it is from a scientific viewpoint.


If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by kbertsche, posted 04-14-2011 10:15 AM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19733
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 57 of 377 (612288)
04-14-2011 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by slevesque
04-14-2011 1:55 PM


slevesque writes:

Behe believes in the fact of evolution (nested hierarchy, fossil record, etc.) but not on the Neo-Darwinian mechanism.


Every creationist accepts evolution to some degree (though I'm old enough to remember when they rejected "microevolution" too). You can't use that as a criterion for separating evolutionist from creationist.

What separates creationism from science is postulating a creator/director/designer.


If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by slevesque, posted 04-14-2011 1:55 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by slevesque, posted 04-14-2011 2:18 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19733
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 59 of 377 (612290)
04-14-2011 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by slevesque
04-14-2011 2:18 PM


slevesque writes:

All I'm saying is that ID and creationism isn't the same thing. You can't interchangebly use both words to talk about the two.


It has already been pointed out that the cdesign proponentsists disagree with you.

Your point has been refuted a thousand times.


If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by slevesque, posted 04-14-2011 2:18 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by slevesque, posted 04-14-2011 2:52 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19733
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 66 of 377 (612298)
04-14-2011 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by slevesque
04-14-2011 2:52 PM


slevesque writes:

I don't understand this. ''cdesign proponentsists'' ??


Google it. "Creationist" and "design proponent" are completely interchangeable. They have been used interchangeably - i.e. a whole book had "creationist" edited to "design proponent" and if it hadn't been for that one pesky typo, nobody would have noticed the difference.


If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by slevesque, posted 04-14-2011 2:52 PM slevesque has not replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19733
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 67 of 377 (612299)
04-14-2011 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by slevesque
04-14-2011 2:52 PM


Double post.

Edited by ringo, : Removed double post.


If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by slevesque, posted 04-14-2011 2:52 PM slevesque has not replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19733
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 77 of 377 (612321)
04-14-2011 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Straggler
04-14-2011 6:58 PM


Re: Parsimony
Straggler writes:

Our experience of reality indicates that the parsimonious conclusion is significantly more likely to be correct than not doesn't it?


Wouldn't it be parsimonious to suggest that there is only one zebra in Africa?


If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Straggler, posted 04-14-2011 6:58 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Straggler, posted 04-14-2011 7:11 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19733
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 81 of 377 (612325)
04-14-2011 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Straggler
04-14-2011 7:11 PM


Re: Parsimony
As I understand parsimony, it has less to do with counting individual entities and more to do with counting "kinds" of entities. Given that zebras exist, parsimony doesn't suggest that one zebra is more likely than a thousand. Similarly for designers.


If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Straggler, posted 04-14-2011 7:11 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Straggler, posted 04-14-2011 7:28 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19733
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 87 of 377 (612333)
04-14-2011 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Straggler
04-14-2011 7:28 PM


Re: Parsimony
Straggler writes:

On the basis that we know that the universe exists but have no evidential reason to think that any designer does the path of least assumptions would seem to be that the universe exists without the need to assume the prior existence of a designer.


That isn't the topic though. The OP suggests that if the universe was designed, multiple designers are more likely than one. I'm saying that that isn't contrary to parsimony.

In fact, a single designer requires the extraneous assumption that an individual can exist without a supporting population, which is contrary to everything we know about reality. A population of Loch Ness monsters is more likely than one.


If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Straggler, posted 04-14-2011 7:28 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Straggler, posted 04-14-2011 7:52 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19733
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 91 of 377 (612340)
04-14-2011 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Straggler
04-14-2011 7:52 PM


Re: Parsimony
Straggler writes:

But on the first cause creator front (which is surely what the underlying issue is here) parsimony would stipulate no designer at all, followed by a single designer, followed by two designers and so on and so forth.


As far as I'm concerned, "first cause" is a complete non-issue. In itself, it's an extraneous assumption.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, we're looking backward from design to a designer. If the designer itself can't be susbstantiated, what point is there in speculating about its boss?


If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Straggler, posted 04-14-2011 7:52 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Straggler, posted 04-14-2011 8:11 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19733
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 96 of 377 (612346)
04-14-2011 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Straggler
04-14-2011 8:11 PM


Re: Parsimony
Straggler writes:

... sweeping aside the whole issue seems more like a debate tactic than a genuinely thought out position.


It's a tactic for staying on topic. We were talking about the number of designers and you claimed that one is more parsimonious than many. You have since, I think, admitted that that claim was incorrect.


If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Straggler, posted 04-14-2011 8:11 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Straggler, posted 04-14-2011 8:33 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19733
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 101 of 377 (612351)
04-14-2011 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Straggler
04-14-2011 8:33 PM


Re: Parsimony
Straggler writes:

But a single first cause is indisputably more parsimonious than multiple first causes isn't it?


I don't see why. I'm sticking with the idea that putting a number on it requires an extraneous assumption.

Straggler writes:

And with regard to ID and the matters of religion this thread seems to be aiming at it is really "first cause" rather than simply number of designers that is the issue here. No?


I've already said, "No." The one who brought up first causes was kbertsche, not the OP.


If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Straggler, posted 04-14-2011 8:33 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by kbertsche, posted 04-14-2011 9:43 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied
 Message 107 by Straggler, posted 04-15-2011 4:18 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19733
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 110 of 377 (612411)
04-15-2011 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Straggler
04-15-2011 4:18 AM


Re: Parsimony
Straggler writes:

As Occam himself put it: "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem" (entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity).


As I said, my understanding is that that applies to different kinds of entities, not multiple instances of the same kind.

Straggler writes:

Surely you agree that zero unevidenced designers is the most parsimonious proposition. This really is incontrovertible isn't it?


That isn't the topic here. We're considering the hypothetical if there is at least one designer.

Straggler writes:

You know as well as I do that the term "designer" in this context is absolutely one and the same thing as the notion of a first cause creator of some kind.


Not at all. As I've already said, if we see design in the universe, that only points to the last cause, not the first. There could have been near-infinite generations of "causes".

Some causes might have cooperated with each other. Some might have competed with each other. Some might be extinct. In the case of life on earth, we have evidence of common descent. In the case of phantom designers, we don't.


If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Straggler, posted 04-15-2011 4:18 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Straggler, posted 04-18-2011 5:15 PM ringo 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