Why the "painting" argument of Intelligent Design doesn't prove anything

B_Deserter

I was thinking about one of the favorite examples Intelligent Design proponents like to use: the painting. Often, the person will hold up a painting of a Mona Lisa, or point to some words written in the sand on a beach, or a 747 and point out that none of these things exist by chance. The painting has a painter, someone wrote the words in the sand, and a whole crew of people engineered and built the 747.

The main problem I see with this argument is that it always uses non-living matter. Paint is not alive, neither is sand, nor is an airplane. These things do not contain DNA, nor do they reproduce. That is the fatal flaw. You can point to how the bacterial flagellum looks like a rotary motor, but it's not a motor. It's not made of metal and it doesn't use gasoline. In fact, if a scale working model were somehow possible, the whip-like propeller wouldn't be able to move the vessel at any great efficiency. You simply cannot compare living systems that reproduce with non-living systems that do not. The whole premise of evolution is that genes are not perfectly passed down to offspring, and that sometimes these mutations are beneficial, sometimes they are not. That's it. Evolution is a theory of life, not of inanimate objects.

Deputy Dog

How about first life? Who designed that?

LtCmd.Lore

How about first life? Who designed that?

Yeah, I don't think I've ever heard the 747 thing talking about Evolution. It's normally directed at abiogenesis. However it's still horribly flawed. If you toss a nut at a bolt, they'll just bounce off each other. If you toss one amino acid at another, they will bond. And that is the key difference. There's a huge difference between organic molocules bonding with each other to form more complex things. (Which happens constantly.) And inorganic metals falling together to form machines. (Which, as far as I know, never happens.) They are not comparable. This argument relies on the audience's ignorance about chemistry. If you don't realize the difference between organic and inorganic molocules, this analogy would probably strike you as convincing. But suffice to say, amino acids DO bond with each other and from more complex structures. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/organic/amino.html ____ Also, aside from biochemistry, order arises from disorder all the time. Just look at crystals. And stalagmites. And stars. And snowflakes. Those are all examples of nonliving materials, in a disorganized state, naturally forming together into a complex organized structure, with no guiding intelligence neccesary. Lore - W.W.S.D?

Satanus

DeputyDog

Who designed your god? Jewish sheep herders? Life wasn't designed. Life derived from consciousness. Consciousness is.

S

Deputy Dog

Lore

There's a huge difference between organic molocules bonding with each other to form more complex things. (Which happens constantly.)

Not to form life.

And inorganic metals falling together to form machines. (Which, as far as I know, never happens.)

Also, aside from biochemistry, order arises from disorder all the time. Just look at crystals. And stalagmites. And stars. And snowflakes. Those are all examples of nonliving materials, in a disorganized state, naturally forming together into a complex organized structure, with no guiding intelligence neccesary.

Looks like you want it both ways.