The absolute failure in the design is the human psyche. So many 1000s years of human life have been accompanied with much unnecessary suffering and it continues to exist. The designer - creator did a shabby job at best on this one. Maybe evolutionists have a good point there. The ethical boundaries a designer would have set to the mind, are missing.
Refuting the ARGUMENT BY DESIGN.
by nicolaou 122 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Nickolas
I'm still shaking my head.
-
sizemik
"unnecessary suffering" is found throughout the natural world . . . humans are no different . . . it' purely survival . . . by dominating one's domain
Humankind is no different . . . just more complex in how they seek to survive. This is the very driving force of evolution . . . totally impersonal . . . neither malevolent or benevolent . . . and certainly not the product of design IMO.
This is what the evidence shows as you quite rightly point out . . .
The ethical boundaries a designer would have set to the mind, are missing.
There are no ethical boundaries in the natural world . . . this is purely a human concept.
-
Knowsnothing
"Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation."
At this point, the 'argument by design' suddenly requires you to believe that everything in nature shows evidence of a designer!
Everything in nature does show evidence. The rock may not have been crafted directly, but what of the natural processes that gave it shape? What of the varied nature of elements, that all come together in harmony? That's why he ends his sentence "...in a degree which exceeds all computation."
If Earth, life, and the conditions allowing for these weren't designed, then we are simply extremely fortunate, and lack any true purpose other than to be born, procreate and die. I don't know about the after life, but that is not a satisfactory answer for me. Regardless of one's personal views, life really is too complex to have fortuitously come about, in a universe that really seems mostly inhospitable.
The argument from design is also dishonestly selective. If, as many theists would argue, the complexity of the universe is evidence of design and that this proves the existence of an even more complex Designer/Creator/God why is that entity’s complexity not evidence of an even more complex deity who, in turn, will also have to be the product of an even more powerful SuperGod? And on, and on, and on . . . Ridiculous, and the arguments given against this are weak at best.
Well, if you believe in the Bible, or at least the general idea most religions hold to, the buck eventually stops at the Highest Entity.
I think you use the fallacy of reductio ad absurdum. You try to reduce the arguement to an absurdity, when it is entirely plausible. Even if you don't subscribe to the God of the Bible, cannot creation be a valid theory? Looking at the evidence, it is.
I recently bought a Time magazine, the edition about 100 great recent scientific discoveries.
Astronomy has truly gained so much ground in these last few decades. The magazine mentioned that the space program endeavour is to look for other planets that may contain life. However, they must be in the "goldilock zone." How strange and fortunate that so far, only Earth meets this criteria.
-
Hoffnung
Another point I find very hard to explain without a designer, is how many complicated ecosystems have come to exist on this planet.
Wikipedia under the heading ecosystem states: Introduction of new elements into an ecosystem tend to have a disruptive effect. In some cases, this can lead to ecological collapse or "trophic cascading" and the death of many species within the ecosystem.
With other words, take away 1 element out of the ecosystem, and the rest might disappear with it.
This automatically brings up the question, how did all the parts of the ecosystem find each other in the 1st place? The explanation in wikipedia is far from giving any answer to this question, it is lacking examples to prove the points favoring evolution, and I have so far never gotten any serious answer to that at all.
More complexity in life and its ecosystems is usually detrimental for the survival and progress of a species, so the chances of just evolving without design are rather small.
-
bohm
hoffnung: " Because it is very similar to something we know already, with a similar end product: a human designer. That is why it sounds plausible.".
So the sun, being very bright and giving off heat, is superficially similar to a lightbulb which a human design, therefore...?
My point was that god is an awfull exlanation: it cannot be tested, it introduce a new, enormeously complicated element to explain an observation, it does not predict anything in advance, all predictions are done add-hoc and retroactive and "god did it" has a long long history of failure. PLUS as thistheother point out, the argument require special pleading least we begin to search for gods designer...
-
InterestedOne
cannot creation be a valid theory?
I suggest clarifying terms such as "hypothesis" and "theory." Also, consider the illustration of skyhooks vs. cranes as illustrated by people like Dawkins. Google Dawkins skyhook.
-
Nickolas
Hoffnung, it is conservatively estimated on the strength of the fossil record alone that 98% of all unique species that have ever existed have been driven to extinction largely as a consequence of being unable to adapt to changes in the environments in which they lived. So, yes, a change to an ecosystem will cause species to die out but such changes will also cause other species to develop and thrive, until the next change. How you have arrived at this as an indication that the chances of a species just evolving without a designer is not clear. It is precisely because of the changes that species evolve and no designer is needed. Please do some deeper research into natural selection. Dawkins has written some good stuff that is easy for a non-scientist to understand. Your words also indicate that you might have no familiarity with the anthropic principle. Worth looking into, if only to broaden your horizons.
-
sizemik
With other words, take away 1 element out of the ecosystem, and the rest might disappear with it.
It happens all the time . . . this is a constantly changing world . . . and always has been . . . seen any dinosaurs lately?
-
Judge Dread
You miss my point completely.
I know very well you will NEVER find a watch that nobody made.
You just like to play around with words.
A watch equals an "artifact" and a rock is a "natural object".
That is the way YOU see it, and the reason you see it that way is because you have no "reason" left.
JDW