talesin you have a PM
Refuting the ARGUMENT BY DESIGN.
by nicolaou 122 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Hoffnung
"the anthropic principle is still valid when assessing whether the conditions under which life can exist can be duplicated elsewhere in the universe."
Well, the amount of variables drastically influences the amount of chance. We do not have all the variables available to calculate the chance. Chances are that it's a lot more complicated than we thought it was. Otherwise it would have already been done, most probably. We can't know whether it is one chance in a billion or one chance in a thousand, until we have created life (duplicated its origin if you like). And that is a fact. I have nothing against the principle though. Many modern appliances would not be available without it. But only with reliable data.
"neither of us a-priori know what happens if you take a planet like the early earth and leave it alone for a few billion years".
True, however, scientists are searching for the early stages of our planet. And I think they've come quite far in that field already.
"This too is ever so slightly slanted language in comparing life with dead material."
I think you understand what I mean though. Sorry for my use of simple language. maybe "non-living" would be more accurate. standard elements and molecules like they are available in other parts of the universe. iron, oxygen, water, etc...
"The wheel illustration is limited also . . . because we are armed with the knowledge that such an object is in fact designed."
Otherwise I would not have used it, right? The point I make with it is still valid. It is all about accepting or eliminating possiblities and finding keys to the real answer. In that respect, the illustration does a good job.
So what is the similar list of "demands" we make from theistic scientists?
Bohm, I think that is one of the best questions one can ask in this debate. I hope you can come up with a list of such conditions. I will think about these as well, but I might not be fully objective, and hence overlook some conditions.
Terry, did you notice I have not quoted a single bible verse? looking for traces of a designer in the origin of life and believing in the God of the bible are miles away from each other. That has no place in this debate, IMO.
-
JonathanH
I just want to comment on the last part of the last post "looking for traces of a designer in the origin of life and believing in the God of the bible are miles away from each other" is not really true. The only reason anyone is looking for design for life is because of the hypothesis that "god" created it. Those that are pushing the ID movement are all religious in nature, and though they attempt to deny that they are speaking about any deity when they say "Intelligent designer" they are full well aware of how disingenous that is.
The starting point for any ID hypothesis is always always a religious belief, because if you remove the idea of god why would you assume that life is designed? Why would that even be a hypothesis? The question itself seems bizarre if you take religion out of the question. Outside of religion we never try to answer difficult problems about the universe by saying "Well something intelligent just made it happen." An ecologist never asks "well this lake is here, I wonder how it formed? I have an idea, this lake was designed by some intelligent designer, possibly supernatural in origin." A geologist never says "Interesting how these strata are layered....I wonder if they were layered like that because some intelligent entities designed the planet this way." Astronomers don't look at venus and say "The pattern of the winds on the north and south pole are astoundingly complex and mysterious...I bet there is some intelligence at work on that planet!" Assuming that some designer specifically created some over arching aspect of nature is never an explanation unless religion firsts enters the debate. Were it not for the religious trying to marry doctrine to the science of the day there would be no ID movement. Why would we be looking for design in life if we didn't first posit a designer?
And to comment just on the topic of ID itself, ID movement has provided no means of ever falsifying it's claims, or even demonstrated some methodology of testing it's claims. How would designed life differ from non designed life? How do you test design, or predict what is designed and natural occuring? So far all they can come up with is "well we haven't explained how trait A evolved, so it must be designed" or "B appears complex, so it must be designed" when neither of those are consistent, or even logical means of deciding whether or not anything, let alone life has an intelligent designer. The whole venture is an exercise in making an assumption, and then trying to justify the assumption by searching for facts that fit the conclusion.
-
Hoffnung
if you would have read my posts, you would know, that what you write is not true.
I have lost my religion. I do not believe the creation story in the bible to be supported by facts. Please do not be so quick in judging peoples motivation for questioning things. Because you don't have a real clue. JWs like to attack peoples motivation. It is an easy side tracking method. Which I don't like.
"How would designed life differ from non designed life?"
"How do you test design, or predict what is designed and natural occuring?"
I think these are excellent questions, and defenders for either side would do well to think about them, me included. I hope you can do so objectively.
-
Nickolas
Tammy, if you want to make an eks on your keyboard, even when you don't have an eks key, all you need to do is hold down the Alt key, key in the numerical sequence "120" (without the quotes) then let go of the Alt key and you end up with x.
Good night.
-
thetrueone
Was there ever a designer or was there an open expression of human imagination fostered by human ignorance ?
-
tec
Nickolas, you're so awesome, thanks for trying to help... but it didn't work. Would it be different on a Mac? This is what I get: " ¡™º " OR " ⁄€‚ " without the quotes.
-
Hoffnung
"How would designed life differ from non designed life?"
"How do you test design, or predict what is designed and natural occuring?"
All very good questions. I have tried to make list of expectations to be set if the designer theory would be true. Definitely this list is not complete, and maybe some points are not valid. I invite you all to debate the merits of these, and add others if you like.
For life to be a product of design:
- There should be proof of trial and error. How bizar that may seem, I do not think a designer will have it spot on from the 1st time, so I would expect to see traces of try outs, and traces of removing and restarting.
- Every life form should have a purpose or a function in the system where it lives. No systems designer adds stuff to make it more beautiful.
- There should be sudden appearances in relatively great amounts of new inventions. Let us say, feathers were developed for the 1st time. I would expect to find the 1st traces of feathers from the same era in several places of the world.
- Ecosystems appear suddenly and remain relatively stable, and do not develop over millions of years.
- Balancing mechanisms should be introduced, which prevent one species to become so numerous that it destroys its ecosystem upon which it depends, thereby preventing its own extinction. Also these balancing mechanism should appear all in the same era.
- components that have proven to be reliable, will be found in other non-related life forms.
- There would be certain barriers between life forms that cannot be broken. e.g.: Plants live on carbondioxide and sunlight. animals need oxygen to live. There does not exist an animal that lives on carbon dioxide instead of oxygen, as far as I know.
- there should be repetitive processes in the development of life, a kind of design software if you like.
- there should exist unique building blocks which can be torn down, but which can never be replaced or rebuilt from scratch. E.G the ozone layer or the ionosphere.
Please add your comments. I am quite sure a few of these will be trashed with logical arguments.
-
sizemik
Please add your comments. I am quite sure a few of these will be trashed with logical arguments.
I like your attitude to the subject Hoffnug . . . and your sense of humour . . .
I'm not sure about the trial and error thing in a progressive change scenario. Poorly designed additions would quickly dissappear and are unlikely to leave evidence of their presence. Some of the most successful species still leave only a limited record of the full nature and scope of their existence . . .
I would expect to see traces of try outs, and traces of removing and restarting.
I'm not sure I would share that expectation . . . even faulty human design is often "removed without trace" . . . they no longer serve any purpose and are often completely erased.
Also . . . could not the many species which have become extinct be considered examples of faulty design? If they are perfectly designed for continued existence they should still be here right? If they have died out on account of a changing environment . . . then the environmental aspect has been poorly designed. The extinction of each species no longer here is inferentially critical of it's designer using the design model. The only way such an occurrance can be considered perfect design, is if progressive change (evolution) is a design feature in itself, as I mentioned earlier. If this is the case, then it throws up a whole host of new questions.
No systems designer adds stuff to make it more beautiful.
An assumption I would not make. It depends entirely on the purpose of the designer. If it is solely functionality . . . sure. But how do we know that? It's good to remember that the natural selection mechanism does rely on systemic functionality. You could say that this is as much an expectation for the absence of design.
As to progressive introduction of new features . . . this presents a more holistic problem regarding functionality. The progressive introduction of new features is not the hallmark of design IMO. A designer of the required intelligence for life on planet earth would have to have foreknowledge of the balance required for the final manifestation of the completed design to function effectively. Once again the expectation regarding the introduction of feathers, is as much an expectation of progressive change through natural selection. as it is of design. It doesn't constitute a distinctive feature of design.
- Ecosystems appear suddenly and remain relatively stable, and do not develop over millions of years.
Agreed . . . although perfect design should provide for perfect stability within set parameters.
- Balancing mechanisms should be introduced, which prevent one species to become so numerous that it destroys its ecosystem upon which it depends, thereby preventing its own extinction. Also these balancing mechanism should appear all in the same era.
Agreed (as above)
-
components that have proven to be reliable, will be found in other non-related life forms.
depends entirely upon the definition of non-related. If we compare mammals with insects we find little in the way of shared components. But to be fair . . . this does not prove the absence of design either.
There would be certain barriers between life forms that cannot be broken. e.g.: Plants live on carbondioxide and sunlight. animals need oxygen to live. There does not exist an animal that lives on carbon dioxide instead of oxygen, as far as I know.
No argument there except to add the same footnote . . . is this feature exclusive to design?
- there should be repetitive processes in the development of life, a kind of design software if you like.
If the overall conditions for life are a "given" . . . then they provide the guiding parameters by default. The guiding parameters must be examined for evidence of design rather than the life that results. We must answer this question first before drawing any conclusion from the other.
- there should exist unique building blocks which can be torn down, but which can never be replaced or rebuilt from scratch. E.G the ozone layer or the ionosphere.
To be honest . . . atmospherics and the development thereof are a weak point for me . . . I would be happier to comment after further research. In the wider application, this question differs little from the previous question. Atmospheric conditions contributing to the conditions required for life are the domain of astrological evolution I suspect . . . something I know relatively little about I confess
Testing for design is not an easy exercise unless the features of design that we identify can be attributed exclusively to design . . . ie; there can be no other explanation. A design feature of this nature, is tremendously difficult to identify and isolate in itself. Hence the inconclusive nature of the whole debate
Good post however.
-
Hoffnung
Got to give it a try. I hope some others come up with more stuff.
1.- Is harder the further we go back in time. I think we would have to review how often life restarted from scratch or near scratch, and then evaluate how it ended and restarted, and what living organism made it through. Remembering that a lack of explanation for the restart in itself is not proof of a designer. I has much to do with: how often was there a restart, how did it happen, what life forms remained. Fossile research is of great help in this regard. I do not think the designer to be perfect though, but that again, is an assumption.
2. "No systems designer adds stuff to make it more beautiful." Maybe this does not deserve a place on this list.
The next 2 will be hard to prove, but are valid points if confirmed.
5. "non-related" in this context means: it could not be passed on in the process of natural selection. There should no connection in the "tree of evolution" if you wish.
6. "There would be certain barriers between life forms that cannot be broken. e.g.: Plants live on carbondioxide and sunlight. animals need oxygen to live. There does not exist an animal that lives on carbon dioxide instead of oxygen, as far as I know.".... " . . is this feature exclusive to design?"
I believe so, because natural selection does not have any of these barriers. Ultimately the species that survives, is the best adapted one, according to natural selection. In the example, there is no reason why an animal species should not use carbon dioxide, there always was enough of it available. A designer chooses options, thereby ruling out others. More research is needed to establish it though.
7. - there should be repetitive processes in the development of life, a kind of design software if you like.
"The guiding parameters must be examined for evidence of design rather than the life that results. We must answer this question first before drawing any conclusion from the other."
I fully agree with you on that one.
8. - there should exist unique building blocks which can be torn down, but which can never be replaced or rebuilt from scratch. E.G the ozone layer or the ionosphere.
The atmosphere in itself is not a valid argument for design. Many other planets also have an atmosphere. The question is rather, what parts are of our atmosphere are unique , and if so, how did it come in existance? Could it be designed or was it a lucky concidence (natural selection does not come into play for the atmosphere)
Testing for design is not an easy exercise unless the features of design that we identify can be attributed exclusively to design . . . ie; there can be no other explanation. A design feature of this nature, is tremendously difficult to identify and isolate in itself. Hence the inconclusive nature of the whole debate. I could not agree more. And it is a nice and big challenge.