Why should they… can evolutionary algorithms arise on their own with an intelligent creator?
I don’t see that happening in computer programming.
No. Even the prehumans in the scene understand that the monolith comes from a kind of higher intelligence.
Agree. But it is not at all what I said.
My take is not that if hypothesis A cannot explain some data D, then hypothesis B. Rather, it is that if A cannot explain D but B can, then B is a better explanation than A.
At some point some IDer might realise there’s a difference between Intelligent Design and Intelligent Manufacturing - but not today.
2 Likes
Every piece of evidence we have that minds can do X is supported by just as much evidence that for minds to carry out X in reality, they need arms to do so.
3 Likes
More to the point, every piece of evidence demonstrates that minds only arise from organisms that, in turn, require DNA to exist. So, by the reasoning that ID Creationists use, DNA cannot have been created by a mind, since DNA has to pre-exist minds.
This where the creationists start special pleading.
4 Likes
Almost every ID ‘argument’ that includes the phrase “only comes from intelligence” can be recast using “only comes from human intelligence” instead.
4 Likes
But merely saying 'Design!" doesn’t explain anything. It provides no mechanisms, no timeline, makes no predictions, is not falsifiable. It’s the worst sort of intellectual laziness.
If A explains most of the data and B explains none of the data, which is the better explanation?
2 Likes
Thanks, but you are asserting a hypothesis on one hand, and failing to deliver on the details. It is not that the structure of your hypothesis is weak, it is that you fail to show why you think it works. A mere assertion that hypothesis A cannot explain D (without actually showing how this is so) is lacking. Obviously B can… B is the alternative. A and B are the universe of options. So, while it may sound logical to explain it the way that you have done, it is a trick. You are failing to show that A cannot work and leaping to B, which is God. Ergo, this is a God of the Gaps argument.
here is a good one:
(image from This Insect Has The Only Mechanical Gears Ever Found in Nature | Science| Smithsonian Magazine)
2 Likes
Interesting, @scd!
I would also be interested in hearing your favorite argument for evolution!
2 Likes
However, It has impressed David Gelernter, a famed Yale computer science professor, to the point that he has left darwinism after reading it (as well as « The Deniable Darwin » by David Berlinski)
Very good pick As Allen said, it impressed laypersons. He may be a famed computer science professor, but as far as biology and paleontology go, he’s a layperson. Come to think of it, so is Meyer. Neither of them appears to know much about the subject; the blind misleading the blind.
3 Likes
Exactly. If Meyer’s book was based on facts, it would indeed make a very persuasive argument against evolution (though not one in favour of ID). However, his facts are wrong, so the argument relies on the ignorance of the reader in order to be convincing. Gelernter swallowed the bait.
2 Likes
…who is definitely a layperson w.r.t. natural science. Any doubts regarding that can be easily overcome by watching the first minute of his chat with Meyer and Berlinski.
2 Likes
Nice picture. Where is the evidence?
How rare are mechanical gears in objects we know to be designed? Is there only one known example?
You realize that those “prehumans” in the 2001: A Space Odyssey film are human actors in furry suits, right? Are you actually claiming that a fictional work somehow provides scientific evidence?
2 Likes
I don’t understand why a “mechanical gear” found in nature is evidence for intelligent design. There are “levers” in nature. Does that demonstrate intelligent design? There are light-generating structures in nature. Does that demonstrate ID? There are “storage tanks” in nature. There are jet propulsion systems in nature. There are wings which give creatures the ability to fly in nature. Are these all scientific evidence of intelligent design—simply because humans often make such structures—or is there something unique about gears that I’m missing?
Some structures have advantages which rely on what humans describe as the laws of physics. So why wouldn’t both intelligent designers and evolutionary processes “exploit” such physics?
1 Like
because any gear we know about was made by design. and indeed there are many other such interesting structures like wings, vision systems, light systems, motion systems etc. we also need to remember that human mimmic many structures from nature.
1 Like