Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
84 online now:
jar, Phat, Stile (3 members, 81 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,228 Year: 4,340/6,534 Month: 554/900 Week: 78/182 Day: 12/38 Hour: 9/1

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why only one Designer
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 286 of 377 (613761)
04-27-2011 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 285 by Blue Jay
04-27-2011 1:39 AM


Re: Going in Circles
Parsimony is also about limiting the number of assumptions. Assuming one designer rather than an unknown number is an additional assumption. Thus it is more parsimonious to leave the number of designers unspecified until the evidence is in.

Which means that the typical ID position of assuming a single designer without considering the evidence cannot be justified by parsimony.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Blue Jay, posted 04-27-2011 1:39 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Blue Jay, posted 04-27-2011 2:49 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 290 of 377 (613773)
04-27-2011 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 288 by Blue Jay
04-27-2011 2:49 AM


Re: Going in Circles
And even if we assume that the evidence favoured a designer, some unknown number would still be more parsimonious than assuming 1. Where's the need for an answer that would justify that assumption ?

(Personally, I would argue that none would be a more parsimonious answer, since the existence of a designer would raise much the same questions as the claimed evidence of design in the universe, questions that seem to be only answered by more assumptions).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Blue Jay, posted 04-27-2011 2:49 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by Blue Jay, posted 04-27-2011 9:53 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 293 of 377 (613793)
04-27-2011 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 291 by Blue Jay
04-27-2011 9:53 AM


Re: Going in Circles
quote:

Arguably, there is no immediate need for it beyond completing the objective of this thread. More long-term reasons would be to clarify the proper usage of parsimony and to prevent evolutionists from wasting time on invalid criticisms of ID.

I'd say that you were wrong on all three points. The point of this thread is why IDists insist on a single Designer - and we must remember that they use this Designer to account for both the Universe and earthly life. Clearly parsimony does not support that - the most that you have claimed is a weak preference for a single designer of our universe, not a refusal to even seriously consider alternatives. The criticism that IDists mean God is not invalid at all. It's clearly supported by the evidence.

quote:

I think I agree. But, just to clarify, are you suggesting that, even if we have already assumed design, "no designers" is the most parsimonious answer as to the number of designers?

No, although it seems to me that often special pleading is used to avoid the implication of an infinite regress of designers. Which is hardly parsimonious.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by Blue Jay, posted 04-27-2011 9:53 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by Blue Jay, posted 04-27-2011 5:02 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 297 of 377 (613833)
04-27-2011 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by Blue Jay
04-27-2011 5:02 PM


Re: Going in Circles
quote:

I think I've done a good job of showing that parsimony does, in fact, support this. I would like you to explain where my argument is wrong.

To justify insisting on a single designer you would have to show that parsimony favours assuming one designer over making no assumption about the number of designers. So where is the argument that established that.

I would add that the qualities expected for a designer of the universe and a designer for life on Earth seem sufficiently distinct that I really have to question why parsimony would prefer one entity over two. It seems to me that an entity that WOULD do both is rather less likely than two separate entities even before we consider the reasons for thinking that there are multiple designers for life on Earth.

quote:

I'm not clear on what you mean here. Can an argument that appeals to parsimony ever conclude anything more than "a weak preference"? I wouldn't think so.

I certainly can think of cases where parsimony is stronger than it is in this case. For instance if you have two theories which adequately describe some aspect of reality, but one requires large numbers of ad hoc assumptions, parsimony could even be a compelling argument. But in this case, where it is simply choosing which unevidenced assumption to use as a default - when there is no good reason for choosing any of them, it is hard to imagine a weaker argument.

In fact parsimony makes a stronger case for NOT assuming any particular number of designers. And this is why parsimony is AGAINST the ID assumption of a single designer. If ID were a genuine scientific enterprise this assumption would not be made at this point.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Blue Jay, posted 04-27-2011 5:02 PM Blue Jay has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022