Scientifically irrelevant, as in science nothing is considered to be proven.
I would agree regarding the stone tools. And I’m not wedded to the term “complexity” for all cases. Behe, talking about Paley, says that what Paley got right (he doesn’t agree with all of Paley’s inferences) is an understanding of the purposeful arrangement of parts. One doesn’t have to turn that insight into a formal criterion of “irreducible complexity” or “specified complexity” in order to understand the notion. We can see that the parts of a clock work together, and it’s that working-together, more than any calculated mathematical measure of complexity, that convinces us that the clock is designed.
The parallel with organisms is obvious enough, and was noticed from ancient times. Paley noted it at the macroscopic level (skeletons and joints and so on); ID’s contribution to the discussion is to note the parallel at the microscopic level (factory-like operations inside a cell, for example). Of course, the inference in the case of the cell or of organisms can be disputed, and I bear no ill will to someone merely because he disputes it; but I’m not willing, with some here, to say that the similarities are not even worth thinking about. Even Dawkins admits that living things look designed, so he is aware that the parallel is not stupid or forced, even though he does not accept the inference.
Yes, because we know of no natural unguided process that produces large numbers of stones of uniform shape and piles them up into a pyramid, and we know human beings can do this.
That is the reasoning. That’s it. It is not because a pyramid is “irreducibly complex” or contains “complex specified information” or any of the other vapid buzzwords used by ID Creationists.
And the way we determine that is by determining whether it shows any features that are more likely produced by human activity than by unguided natural processes. Again, tthe ID’ers do not describe how we do this.
The only uncertainty is over the ultimate origin of DNA and the replication process. After that, all competent biologists know that the origin of every aspect of every living thing is accounted for by the unguided processes described in the textbooks on evolutionary biology. And those who refuse to accept this do so for reasons of religious prejudice, not for any rational reasons.
1 Like
It’s only obvious enough if you avoid looking closely; once you do, it falls apart. Scientists have designed many split proteins, some the result of noticing that proteolysis doesn’t kill activity. These split proteins are incredibly sensitive and are used as sensors, because unless both parts are there, there’s no activity (fluorescence or enzymatic).
Evolution simply can’t do that–there’s no path available, yet our puny human minds do it elegantly and often.
IOW, it doesn’t even look designed if you look carefully and with the most basic knowledge, both of which you avoid.
This is putting the cart before the horse. There needs to be some sort of empirical measure that moves “purposefully-arranged parts” beyond “it looks that way to me” (or Behe, or Axe, or @Eddie). Until then, it isn’t worth thinking about.
(Hmm… I suppose a discussion as to whether “purposefully-arranged parts” is worth thinking about is in fact thinking about it.)
3 Likes
Right. We also know of no natural unguided process that can produce life from non-life, and we know that if a disembodied powerful intelligence existed, it would be able to do this.
An uncertainty that makes it impossible, at the moment, to rule out the possibility of intelligent design.
A wild exaggeration of what we “know”, but even if it were true, there is still that nagging problem of the origin of life. Given your a priori metaphysical commitments, you can never rest until you slam that door firmly shut.
Wrong. We have no idea what such a thing could or could not do, because we have no evidence that such a thing has ever even existed, never mind being in a position to observe how it behaves.
I am not denying the abstract, theoretical possibility of it. I am pointing out that those who claim to have scientific evidence or logical reasons to believe it has actually been involved in the creation of a single thing in the universe, other than human artifacts, are just blowing hot air.
“God of the gaps” is a childishly stupid argument. But beggars can’t be choosers.
Not as childishly stupid as “chance of the gaps.” But atheists beggars can’t be choosers, either.
Surely you do not doubt that some things happen by chance.
Now, there’s a funny expression. I’ve been ready to condemn “chance of the gaps” for some years. If chance is invoked for some phenomenon where it cannot contribute to explanation, and if it is invoked like the “god of the gaps” as a discussion-stopper, an explanation par excellence which means the problem is done and dusted, well, I am prepared to come down on that big-time. It would, indeed, be a silly thing to do.
Yet, I carry around two clickers, one in my left pocket, and one in my right. The left pocket one is for the times I hear the god of the gaps invoked. Had to click that one just a bit ago, on message 788, above. I’ve worn quite a lot of these out. I think I’m on my 34th clicker, as the trigger mechanism is reset by a spring, and after enough cycles the buggers keep breaking.
But then there’s the one in my right pocket, for “chance of the gaps.” It’s lasting a really long time. Checking the counter dial I see that I am still at zero. It turns out that when people invoke randomness in connection with such things as evolution, they generally have some actual point, such as that a mutation which has only a small chance of occurring in a single replication has a substantially larger chance of occurring as a large population of organisms reproduces. That’s good old probability theory, and it works. It’s even empirically testable.
But the other thing that stops me from getting around to actuating the trigger on that clicker is that “chance” is never offered as an argument-stopper. It’s never “I don’t know how this happened, ergo, chance, ergo, there’s no point in further investigating how this happened; now, bend the knee and worship our Lord, Chance.”
So, I am happy to concur that “chance of the gaps” is ridiculous and contemptible, and I am ready, clicker in pocket, whenever it actually happens. I wonder why it never does. Just chance, you think?
5 Likes
You are missing my point. We conclude that pyramids and machines on Mars are designed not because of how complex they are, but because we know that they cannot originate all by themselves. We know this because they don’t reproduce on their own but need external assembly. Whereas the rats clearly don’t need external assembly. So, the fact that we all agree that artefacts are designed doesn’t mean squat when it comes to reproducing non-artefacts. This whole line of argument is just a classic bait and switch, which is why it would be much more honest to drop it.
When Paley walked on the heath and found a watch he concluded that the watch was designed, whereas ID’ers walking on the heath and finding a watch conclude that the heath was designed! That is the bait and switch.
3 Likes
You are leaving out half of the argument: we also know that clocks don’t reproduce so there has to be an external agent to make them come into existence. Whereas equally complex living beings do reproduce, so that necessity isn’t there as long as we have a possible explanation for progressively increasing complexity (which we have). We would nomally not bother to mention this obvious fact, except for cases where dishonest ID’ers pretend that this is not an essential part of the argument. When that happens we feel compelled to set them straight.
2 Likes
No, we don’t know this, not in the slightest. We can posit it but that doesn’t equate to knowledge.
As I said earlier, nothing can rule out the possibility of intelligent design by an unspecified transcendent designer (I’m not sure you actually responded to that?), so this is a specious point that does not advance the discussion. Can you link to an example here of someone ruling out the possibility of intelligent design? If not, strawman alert.
1 Like
That’s just what you haven’t proved. The offspring of rats don’t need external assembly, but how do you know the first rat didn’t need external assembly? And as I already indicated, even if rats evolved from earlier creatures, eventually you get to the first living thing. How do you know that didn’t need external assembly? So you’re the one who missed my point. Or perhaps you didn’t miss it, but ducked it. I don’t know which, and would rather not impute motives.
You, however, impute motives (and bad ones) quite freely. You call my line of argument, which was sincerely offered in the spirit of intellectual discussion, “bait and switch” and said that I would be “more honest” to drop it, implying that I was not being honest. Then, in your next post, you write:
So you’re calling me dishonest again. And earlier someone here called me a “liar.” Why can’t you guys stick to the contents, without throwing in negative personal characterizations? Are you so filled with spite, rage, and pride that anyone who disagrees with you must be denounced as “dishonest” or “lying”?
I answered you calmly, politely, and in good faith, because your tone seemed neutral, unlike that of several others here. But now I see you’re cut from the same bolt of cloth. My attempt at non-aggressive exchange of ideas was thrown back in my face. This has happened several times lately with Paul King as well. You guys just can’t see yourselves as others see you.
In another discussion here, Marty has remarked on how this sort of aggression is regularly present in the writings of Mercer. I can confirm that, having dealt with Mercer for 10 years on these sites. Did it ever occur to you that are unlikely to win converts to your point of view if you keep calling the people you agree with dishonest, liars, etc.? Are you likely to build up trust in that way? I think not. All you will do is harden the other side and stiffen its resolve. You want others to listen, but you act in a way that will cause others to close their ears to your arguments.
Are all science-trained people this maladroit in human relations, that they don’t understand that this is a losing persuasive strategy? Or is it only the small minority of scientists who argue on sites like this that are so insensitive and verbally violent?
I trusted you once, but won’t again.
The irony, it burns!
And again
And again.
1 Like
“And again” you give the behavior a pass, when it comes from someone on your side. Double standard – apparently the default behavior of internet atheists.
That inability of his might be seen as a psychological defense mechanism.
The default behaviour of internet creationists seems to be falsely attributing their faults to others.
If anyone accuses me of “arrogantly dismissing” a point they never made, and refuses to explain when offered the chance - more than once - I will call them a liar, no matter which side they are on. Only one person here has done that.
2 Likes
When I mentioned ‘dishonest IDers’ I wasn’t automatically referring to you, Eddie. Part of the entire debate is that many people see dishonesty on the side of the ID advocates. How are we going to discuss that if we can’t mention it without you feeling personally attacked?
You are right that the design argument from complex life might simply be a regress to the first living thing, but if that is what it is, then why the talk about pyramids and machines on Mars? That is completely irrelevant to the first life argument. In other words, there seems to be a grab bag of ideas, some more valid than others, but the modus operandi is to throw everything at the wall to see what sticks. That is how politics is done, Eddy, not honest debates aimed to get to the bottom of things.
I would go further and say we have very powerful evidence that this cannot be true, from the simple and universal observation that the intelligence of our mind is unable to effect any physical changes in the world without the involvement of a body.
This points out the double standard between what counts as an explanation in terms of methodological naturalism, and what counts to those who believe immaterial, supernatural forces are at work in our world. None of these people are able to come up with something that even remotely resembles the explanations that are provided thru methodological naturalism. They can only produce meaningless drivel like “A disembodied powerful intelligence did it by doing something.” Actually, in practice, they don’t even go so far as saying “by doing something.”
This is not serious thinking.
…sez “Eddie” who keeps saying he doesn’t deny common descent. And I believe him when he says that. But he doesn’t seem to understand that acceptance of common descent, as the term is used in current scientific theory, entails denial of the very existence of a “first rat” that somehow needed to be assembled by a “disembodied powerful intelligence.”