Refuting the ARGUMENT BY DESIGN.

by nicolaou 122 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  tec

  Going on a month long vacation in a week - no computers - ... so I'll get a new one when I get back :)

  Goodnight, Nickolas.
• 

  wobble

  What a tremendous thread, a classic for the " best of section " I would say.

  This is a bit off topic, but I am surprised Tammy says she hasn't heard the argument about apparent design proving a Creator, didn't Paul start it all with "Every house has a builder...."?

  I agree with Talesin too, that when discussing this with JW's or others who do not understand how Science uses the word "Theory", very different from our everyday usage, we need to express ourselves well.

  Perhaps referring to "the proven evolutionary process" or something similar but less ponderous, then the onus is on them to prove that evolution does not, and did not happen.

  I am confident that one day it will be proved to us how life got started here on Earth, we already have the hypothesis in place.

  The argument about a designer will still probably rage on though, many humans are frightened by the concept of individual responsibility it seems to me, so they like to have a God to blame for the problems of society, and to leave it to "god" to sort those problems out.
• 

  sizemik

  Yes, it's semantics,,, but semantics is important in many arguments. . . . Talesin

  Most of the pertinent points for both side of the debate have been made . . . and many made very well IMO. To continue adding flesh to the bones - ad nauseum, by further examples will probably add little that is new enough to further us toward anything conclusive. That's not to say it wouldn't be interesting. It's probably worth adding some perspective by examing the semantics as Talesins post suggested.

  Reference to "The Theory of Evolution" as a description of a branch of science has become virtually obselete in conveying any specific quantifiable meaning. The subject has pulled in almost all of the branches of science . . . biology, chemistry, physics, geology, astro-physics, astronomy to name but a few . . . and a host of sub-caregories to boot. It involves the micro (molecular/microbial) through to the macro (environmental/astrological). It's probably more productive to confine a debate to one (or two at most) areas of interest, and exhausting it, before moving cafetaria style through them all.

  Creationism from the WTS perspective is pretty lightweight in it's observations. I recall a WT publication (the "creation" book I think), where Darwins' Origin of Species is debunked by saying something like . . . "as to explaining the origin of species . . . it does nothing of the sort" The conclusion was made after establishing that the book cast very little light on the origin of "life" . . . a subtle but clever deflection. The fact is, Origin of Species does discuss in logical detail the mechanisms by which new species emerge. Much of what Darwin concluded has been added to and modified, but the basic premises still hold true under the scrutiny of succeeding scientific examination . . . a feature of hypothesis founded in fact.

  The Origin of "life" is but a small specific area of interest, in the context of the overall examination of evolution v design. Conclusions reached have little effect on the general science of Evolution which is a process.

  Therefore I agree with wobble . . . "Evolutionary process" is an area of discussion through which the various branches of science can be introduced. "Evolutionary process" is an observable and provable fact. It is merely how the specifics of that process works that involves any kind of evolutionary theory. There really is no "Theory of Evolution" . . . it's more like an outdated definition. It's better to stick to a specific branch of science and establish that an "evolutionary process" is present. Establishing that progressive change is a feature of the natural world can be easily established through any single branch of science. Progressive change within the natural world is far easier to observe and prove than "The Theory of Evolution"

  When a "creation theory" argument is presented . . . it's probably best to counter by establishing that "progressive irreversible change" is a feature of the natural world and then choose a single branch of science to establish this truth. For example you might say . . . progressive irreversible change can be seen in the biological history of life by the "fact" that the majority of species that have lived have become extinct, and that many current species have a relatively short history in the fossil record. The same can be done with geology, with the proven "fact" of continental drift and tectonic uplift giving rise to an ever-changing environment. This same feature can be demonstrated through other specific branches of science.

  It doesn't conclusively rule out the presence of "design" . . . but does establish that if design is present, it must include the feature of constant progressive change . . . or evolution (just don't use "that" word until the point has been established)

  Hope this helps with your friend tal . . .
• 

  tec

  This is a bit off topic, but I am surprised Tammy says she hasn't heard the argument about apparent design proving a Creator, didn't Paul start it all with "Every house has a builder...."?

  I read that according to what Paul was actually talking about, which was not about proving that God eksists according to some argument from design. WE (people who belong to Christ and God) are the house that God built and that Christ rules over, which Paul is talking about in this passage.

  So while I read that, I never had anyone else try and tell me what it means, so it never occurred to me to read it in any other way than understanding the point Paul is trying to make here.

  Peace,

  Tammy
• 

  simon17

  "Perhaps referring to "the proven evolutionary process" or something similar but less ponderous, then the onus is on them to prove that evolution does not, and did not happen."

  Ehh, thats really misleading as well. Technically theories like the evolution of species have not been "proven" in the strict sense of the word either. They are a theory in that all observable data indicates them to be true. Just as the Newtonian theory of gravitation wasn't proven when it fit all observations of the time, and indeed it turned out to be incomplete (and thus incorrect in some instances). No one can PROVE that man got here by evolution, even if all things point to it. You can even go so far as to say that God could always have made man and made the earth to appear as if evolution took place. I would say some of the principles of evolution have been directly observed but I don't think I'd be comfortable saying that macro-evolution and the entire theory has been "Proven" per se.
• 

  Billy the Ex-Bethelite

  Just wanted to mention that Paley's "watchmaker analogy" came up in a class last semester. I countered with something like...

  Suppose Paley picked up the watch and walked on. As he rounded a bend, he saw a large watch factory. As he approached the building, he was stopped by a man who asked him what he wanted.

  Paley responds, "I never knew there was a watch factory out here. How long has this been here? Who owns it?"

  Somewhat shocked and offended, this guard responds, "Are you stupid? This is a watch factory. It has been here forever!"

  "It can't have been here forever. Someone had to design it. It would have taken hundreds of men to build it."

  "Oh no. You're wrong. It obviously has been here forever, where else do you think time comes from. You obviously have no faith and ought to stop asking questions. You're just embarassing yourself!"

  Paley: "Oh, I see. You're right. Watches come from watch factories, but watch factories have always been around."
• 

  Hoffnung

  I agree that advancing the designer theory does not really resolve the problem of HOW life originated, because it merely rephrases the question to: HOW did the designer DO it? + an extra problem is created: Where did the designer come from? A question we will never find answered unless the designer reveals himself in an undisputable way.

  That is however no reason to reject the theory. It is not because of doubling the problem, that it becomes unacceptable or impossible.

  To illustrate: we will never know how the 1st wheel came about. But nobody doubts that somebody invented it. It was designed, and we don't know where the designer came from. It is not because the answer: "somebody designed it", is actually a doubling of the problem, and not really a solution, does not mean it is not true. It is a key to the solution. To find the answer, we will have to start searching for the oldest wheel. As the earth is quite old, there are many traces of all the life forms and sequences of them, with other words, it could be possible to find some of the designer tricks used, bringing us closer to the HOW-answer. That is one side.

  On the other side, to prove the anthropic principle, there are 2 necessary conditions.

  1st. Scientists will have to prove that they can build life from dead material on purpose, influencing directly the process. We are closer to this than ever before, I must admit.

  2nd. After this, they will have to prove that the necessary conditions, to bring all the building blocks of this life form together with the triggering mechanism of it, could have happened spontaneously.

  If both conditions are fullfilled, we will finally have reliable data to start calculationg how much CHANCE there is that this happened, and only THEN, the anthropic principle can be used. As far as I know, there is not enough data available, as both conditions are not yet fullfilled. But maybe I did not do my homework well enough, and scientists might have made progress in this fields.

  Ruling out the designer theory, is throwing away one of the keys to the answer of one of the most important questions one can ask. I am not convinced I should throw away that key, as there is much in nature that speaks against it.
• 

  bohm

  1st. Scientists will have to prove that they can build life from dead material on purpose, influencing directly the process. We are closer to this than ever before, I must admit.

  2nd. After this, they will have to prove that the necessary conditions, to bring all the building blocks of this life form together with the triggering mechanism of it, could have happened spontaneously.

  I think you are starting the wrong place.

  To begin, we can both agree neither of us a-priori know what happends if you take a planet like the early earth and leave it alone for a few billion years: It fall completely and totally outside the scope of what our experience can tell us anything about.

  There is some chance life will arise spontaneously, and there is some chance that a god exist AND he will create life (notice it is a compound statement), and there is some chance something 3rd will happend which give rise to life.

  Certainly we can agree the two first are positive statements of the kind we should not treat as given unless positive evidence is supplied. I feel you properly draw attention to that fact by your two quoted items - but certainly we must make equal demands for the theistic scientists before we will accept "god made life" as an explanation, otherwise we would be engaged in special pleading. So what is the similar list of "demands" we make from theistic scientists?
• 

  sizemik

  If both conditions are fullfilled, we will finally have reliable data to start calculationg how much CHANCE there is that this happened, and only THEN, the anthropic principle can be used.

  Hoffnug . . . I have to point out . . . the anthropic principle is still valid when assessing whether the conditions under which life can exist can be duplicated elsewhere in the universe. This possibility can be reasonably established by applying the principle . . . without it having to follow that "therefore life must exist" being the conclusion. It is simply a consideration that must be undertaken in order to establish the possible/impossible. Other considerations must enter the equation for sure . . . but this in itself does not invalidate the principle.

  Scientists will have to prove that they can build life from dead material on purpose.

  This too is ever so slightly slanted language in comparing life with dead material. All the material making for life is dead in it's isolated state . . . it is a combination of dead materials which make up anything living . . . the nature of the materials themselves does not change . . . we are kept alive and nourished by dead materials.

  The wheel illustration is limited also . . . because we are armed with the knowledge that such an object is in fact designed. When it comes to the natural world there is no such premise . . . in fact this is the mystery which lies at the heart of the question we are seeking to answer.

  But I take your point . . . there are unanswered questions. And no . . . I wouldn't throw away the key on any possibility . . . but the progressive change we see in the natural world continues without extra-natural input. Sometimes things cannot be established for a certainty . . . we can at best only deal with liklihoods. Being open to possibilities is not such a bad thing IMO.
• 

  Terry

  Simply put, the theory of evolution is supported by powerful empirical evidence, and is 99.9% a fact, therefore, scientists call it so. However, the average JW, who is extremely ignorant of science, is going to close their minds snapped shut as soon as you start throwing around the term "Evolution is a fact".

  Imagine a guess being made about the ratio between the distance across a circle and the distance around the same circle (Diameter to Circumference)

  by people without higher math skills. That guess would probably be wrong as to exactness. Close, perhaps, but wrong.

  We call this ratio Pi

  The Egyptians didn't have to possess math skills for a workable Pi. They used a rope! The laid out the rope in a circle and "modeled" the circumference. Then, they measured across the diameter. It gave them an approximate fraction: Egyptian value of 256/81.

  This is not exactly accurate, but, workable for smaller circles as 3.16 (We now know Pi is 3.14159..etc)

  In the Bible, however, a passage in 1 Kings inadvertently spills the beans on Pi from God's point of view.

  In great detail the building of Soloman's temple includes the measurements of a large, circular cauldron call a SEA.

  23He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits[o] to measure around it.

  Note that the passage in I Kings explicitly gives both the diameter and the circumference. An estimate of pi is simply the ratio of the circumference to the diameter: 30/10 or exactly three. Yes, Pi =3!

  Now, you are going to ask what all this talk of Pi has to do with the argument by design, right?

  God designed the temple and the Sea. God should certainly know the correct ratio of Pi!

  And yet----

  3 is wrong!

  Apologists have an argument of their own that this is just an approximation and not a literal blah blah blah.

  Yet, so many EXACT details are given it is a real stretch to accept that argument.

  Facts are facts.

  What we chose to believe about facts IS IRRELEVENT to reality.