|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: The Sex Life of 747 Aircraft | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member  Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
I agree with Ned that the 747 metaphor is a useless argument to refute evolutionary theory.
However I think it is relevant as an argument against materialism. Obviously the 747 represents one point in the evolutionary development of aviation. It didn't just come into being by accident. Modern man represents a particular point in the evolutionary process, and I think that it requires a huge leap of faith to believe that it just happened by accident. At the very least, I contend that a reasoned position that both the evolutionary process of aviation that produced the 747, and the evolutionary process that resulted in mankind had as a basic requirement, an idea or intelligence. Everybody is entitled to my opinion. 
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
NosyNed writes: It is not a leap of faith to suggest that while we are not the result of accident (that is a misunderstanding of the process) we are also not the result of the kind of design process that produced the 747. We have run various experiments in design by evolutionary processes. The "designs" produced have characteristics that are like us but not like the 747. This work is evidence for (and therefore not needing faith) that we are the product of evolutionary processes and not of human-like (the only kind we know) design. The process that produced the 747 should not be called an "evolutionary process" when comparing it to biological evolution. The two processes are very, very different. I used the word accident, but feel free to insert whatever word you like. The 747 evolved from an idea to the Wright Bros and others, to the Sopwith Camel, to the DC3.......... and now nearly to the 787 or A350. Mankind seems to have evolved from single cell creatures to.......current life forms. (not wanting to get nit-picked I'll leave out the ones in the middle as I know I'll get something wrong. ) Biologists can look the various stages, and they can research natural selection and see how it works. The information that they have discovered about DNA is astounding. They can tell us how the process took place but in the end they can't say why anything took place. We know that behind the evolution of aviation there are ideas and intelligence. We can regard the evolutionary history of all living creatures and come to our own conclusions about whether an intelligence is responsible, or, (and I'll leave out the word accident), there is no intelligence involved. I'm not a biologist and know virtually nothing about it so I have to form my opinions to a large degree on those who do. Francis Collins and others see the evolutionary process as, (as Collins puts it), "The Language of God", whereas others, including yourself it seems, come to a totally materialistic conclusion. Neither position can be proven, ergo, both are a matter of faith. It is my view that the most reasonable opinion is that there is an external intelligence, whereas you come down on the other side of the fence. We are both people of faith on the issue, it's just that we put our faith in different things. Edited by GDR, : No reason given. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Percy writes: In other words, analogies and metaphors aren't evidence of anything. The evidence we do have says that the same physical laws that govern our universe today have governed it for billions of years, and none of that evidence points to an intelligence. All the evidence we have shows that everything we observe happening or that we gather evidence of having happened obeys the same physical laws throughout all time throughout the universe. If there's an intelligence guiding the process, its actions are indistinguishable from the results of physical laws. I agree. Metaphors and analogies don't constitute evidence. That isn't my point. The 747 metaphor is just an illustration of the point I was trying to make. In the end, as I said to Ned, we look at what we do know, and then use our reason to come to conclusions on what we believe about what we don't know. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Percy writes: If you're doing science, you don't draw conclusions about things you don't know. You create hypotheses for which you then devise experiments and/or observations to test them. I have never suggested that it was about science. Either there is an intelligent designer or there isn't. You go with what you know and form an opinion on what you don't know, but that definitely is not science.
Percy writes: And you're not even drawing conclusions about things we don't know. You're using the 747 metaphor to draw conclusions opposite to what we already do know. You're letting metaphor trump evidence. In fact, if you recall your message that I originally replied to, you claimed that the metaphor trumps materialism, quite a feat for a poetic device. I am having more and more trouble trying to defend this particular metaphor aren't I? In the end I guess the best I can do with it is what Paley was doing with his watch. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Percy writes: The fact that is it common to use the same word evolution for changing design and changing life forms is an accident of nomenclature. They use two different definitions of the same word. To interpret this accident as some kind of evidence that design evolution is at heart the same thing as biological evolution is a significant mistake. These are empty rhetorical arguments just one rung above, "That's evolution with an 'e' and that rhymes with 'c' and that stands for creation." Your rhetorical argument is without substance because it rests upon games with words rather than upon evidence. Sure it's a weak metaphor but the question of why the process exists at all can't be answered by science no matter how much it finds out about the how of things.
Percy writes: You mean "why" in the sense of, "What caused this particular mutation?" Or "why" in the sense of, "Why are we here?" If the former then scientists know quite a bit of the "why". If the latter then that's the realm of religion, isn't it. I mean the latter and that's my point. If it is a matter of religion then either the Theistic conclusion or the Atheistic conclusion is an issue of faith.
Percy writes: And if you do draw such conclusions, then you'll be doing so without supporting evidence and your conclusions won't possess any scientific validity I agree. As I said it's a faith issue. However that doesn't mean that you can't look at both the scientific data and the historical data to come to the conclusion that you believe sounds most reasonable.
Percy writes: Evolution is a theory based upon mountains of experimental and observational data, so this isn't faith. The process we believe created all the species present today on our planet has been observed countless times in the here and now, and projected back in time it not only accounts for the record of life's history we find in the ground, but also the degrees of genetic relatedness we find amongst life today. This is not faith but well established theory. On the other hand, no evidence for a cause of species diversity outside the realm of the natural world has ever been found, and to attribute the progression of life to the actions of a never-observed intelligence is based upon faith, just as you say. I have no problem with that. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Re the 747 metaphor see my reply to Percy.
NosyNed writes: You may offer up Collin's explanation for his views if you think they are germane. As I recall he simply believes that all of creation was kicked off by his god and that living things did, in fact, evolve (bevolve) through biological processes and that humans do not show specific signs of intelligent design. Just that the universe is set up so that it is possible. If he says otherwise I'd like to see his arguments in support of his views. I spent some time with google but couldn't find a specific response. I have read his book "The Language of God" and the best answer I can give is that he sees God as being reponsible for all of creation including the evolutionary process. My understanding of his position is that after the evolutionary process was started it was then driven by biological processes. This was the best site I could find.http://discovermagazine.com/...feb/interview-francis-collins Edited by GDR, : No reason given. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Percy writes: I can see the problem now. You're injecting a religious question into a science thread. You later say you have no problem with the implications of the scientific evidence, so if you would like to tackle evolution on religious grounds then there are other threads for that. I'm sorry Percy. I hadn't noticed this was in a science forum. Mind you, here is how Ned started his opening post.
NosyNed writes: I'm proposing this topic so it can be referred to anytime anyone brings up the 747 in a junkyard strawman (or any other arguments like Paley's watch). That sounds to me like maybe it should have been put into something other than a science forum. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
