(Which allegedly required no actual design) With references, courtesy Philip Cunningham:
The human eye consists of over two million working parts making it second only to the brain in complexity (1).
The retina covers less than a square inch, and contains 137 million light-sensitive receptor cells. The retina possesses 7 million cones, which provide color information and sharpness of images, and 120 million rods which are extremely sensitive detectors of white light (2).
There are between seven to ten-million shades of color the human eye can detect (3).
The rod can detect a single photon. Any man-made detector would need to be cooled and isolated from noise to behave the same way (4).
On average, about a quarter of a billion photons enter our eyes each second (5).
For visible light, the energy carried by a single photon would be around a tiny 4 x 10-19 Joules; this energy is just sufficient to excite a single molecule in a photoreceptor cell of an eye (6).
The eye is so sensitive that it can, under normal circumstances, detect a candle 1.6 miles away (7),
But if you’re sitting on a mountain top on a clear, moonless night you can see a match struck 50 miles away (8).
It only takes a few trillionths of a second, (picoseconds), for the retina to absorb a photon in the visible range of the spectrum (9).
The inverted retina, far from being badly designed, is a design feature, not a design constraint. Müller cells in the ‘backwards’ retina span the thickness of the retina and act as living fiber optic cables to shepherd photons through to separate receivers, much like coins through a change sorting machine (10).
The eye is infinitely more complex than any man-made camera (11).
The eye can handle between 500,000 and 1.5 million messages simultaneously, and gathers 80% of all the knowledge absorbed by the brain (12).
The brain receives millions of simultaneous reports from the eyes. When its designated wavelength of light is present, each rod or cone triggers an electrical response to the brain, which then absorbs a composite set of yes-or-no messages from all the rods and cones (13).
There is a biological computer in the retina which compresses, and enhances the edges, of the information from all those millions of light sensitive cells before sending it to the visual cortex where the complex stream of information is then decompressed (14).
This data compression process has been referred to as “the best compression algorithm around,” (15 & 15a).
While today’s digital hardware is extremely impressive, it is clear that the human retina’s real-time performance goes unchallenged. To actually simulate 10 milliseconds of the complete processing of even a single nerve cell from the retina would require the solution of about 500 simultaneous nonlinear differential equations 100 times and would take at least several minutes of processing time on a Cray supercomputer. Keeping in mind that there are 10 million or more such cells interacting with each other in complex ways, it would take a minimum of 100 years of Cray time to simulate what takes place in your eye many times every second (16). (of note: the preceding comparison was made in 1985 when Cray supercomputers ruled the supercomputing world).
In an average day, the eye moves about 100,000 times, and our mind seems to prepare for our eye movements before they occur (17).
In terms of strength and endurance, eyes muscles are simply amazing. You’d have to walk 50 miles to give your legs the same workout as the muscles in one of your eyes get in a day (18).
The brain exploits a feedback system which produces phenomenally precise eye movements (19).
The human is the only species known to shed tears when they are sad (20).
Tears are not just saline. Tears have a similar structure to saliva and contain enzymes, lipids, metabolites and electrolytes (21).
And, tears contain a potent microbe-killer (lysozyme) which guards the eyes against bacterial infection (22).
The average eye blinks one to two times each minute for infants and ten times faster for adults.
This blinking adds up to nearly 500 million blinks over an average lifetime (23).
References:
- – 20 Facts About the Amazing Eye – 2014
- An eye is composed of more than 2 million working parts…. 20: Eyes are the second most complex organ after the brain. – Susan DeRemer, CFRE – Discovery Eye Foundation
- Vision and Light-Induced Molecular Changes
Excerpt : “The retina is lined with many millions of photoreceptor cells that consist of two types: 7 million cones provide color information and sharpness of images, and 120 million rods (Figure 3) are extremely sensitive detectors of white light to provide night vision.” – Rachel Casiday and Regina Frey Department of Chemistry, Washington University
- – Number of Colors Distinguishable by the Human Eye – 2006 “Experts estimate that we can distinguish perhaps as many as 10 million colors.” – Wyszecki, Gunter. Color. Chicago: World Book Inc, 2006: 824…. “Our difference threshold for colors is so low that we can discriminate some 7 million different color variations (Geldard, 1972).” – Myers, David G. Psychology. Michigan: Worth Publishers, 1995: 165. From Number of Colors Distinguishable by the Human Eye
- Study suggests humans can detect even the smallest units of light – July 21, 2016
Excerpt: Research,, has shown that humans can detect the presence of a single photon, the smallest measurable unit of light. Previous studies had established that human subjects acclimated to the dark were capable only of reporting flashes of five to seven photons…
it is remarkable: a photon, the smallest physical entity with quantum properties of which light consists, is interacting with a biological system consisting of billions of cells, all in a warm and wet environment,” says Vaziri. “The response that the photon generates survives all the way to the level of our awareness despite the ubiquitous background noise. Any man-made detector would need to be cooled and isolated from noise to behave the same way.”…
The gathered data from more than 30,000 trials demonstrated that humans can indeed detect a single photon incident on their eye with a probability significantly above chance.
“What we want to know next is how does a biological system achieve such sensitivity? How does it achieve this in the presence of noise?
- How many photons get into your eyes? – 2016
Excerpt : About half a billion photons reach the cornea of the eye every second, of which about half are absorbed by the ocular medium. The radiant flux that reaches the retina is therefore approx. 2*10^8 photons/s.
- Photon Excerpt For visible light the energy carried by a single photon is around a tiny 4×10–19 joules; this energy is just sufficient to excite a single molecule in a photoreceptor cell of an eye, thus contributing to vision.[4]
- How Far Can We See and Why? Excerpt: “Detecting a candle flame: Researchers believe that without obstructions, a person with healthy but average vision could see a candle flame from as far as 1.6 miles.”
- An Eye for Exercise Your eye is a very active organ – December 28, 2001
(HealthDayNews) — The cells in the retina are so sensitive that if you’re sitting on a mountain top on a clear, moonless night you can see a match struck 50 miles away.
- Vision and Light-Induced Molecular Changes
Excerpt: “Thus, when 11-cis-retinal absorbs a photon in the visible range of the spectrum, free rotation about the bond between carbon atom 11 and carbon atom 12 can occur and the all-trans-retinal can form. This isomerization occurs in a few picoseconds (10-12 s) or less.” – Rachel Casiday and Regina Frey, Department of Chemistry, Washington University
- Fiber optic light pipes in the retina do much more than simple image transfer – Jul 21, 2014
Excerpt: Having the photoreceptors at the back of the retina is not a design constraint, it is a design feature. The idea that the vertebrate eye, like a traditional front-illuminated camera, might have been improved somehow if it had only been able to orient its wiring behind the photoreceptor layer, like a cephalopod, is folly. Indeed in simply engineered systems, like CMOS or CCD image sensors, a back-illuminated design manufactured by flipping the silicon wafer and thinning it so that light hits the photocathode without having to navigate the wiring layer can improve photon capture across a wide wavelength band. But real eyes are much more crafty than that.
A case in point are the Müller glia cells that span the thickness of the retina. These high refractive index cells spread an absorptive canopy across the retinal surface and then shepherd photons through a low-scattering cytoplasm to separate receivers, much like coins through a change sorting machine. A new paper in Nature Communications describes how these wavelength-dependent wave-guides can shuttle green-red light to cones while passing the blue-purples to adjacent rods. The idea that these Müller cells act as living fiber optic cables has been floated previously. It has even been convincingly demonstrated using a dual beam laser trap….
…In the retina, and indeed the larger light organ that is the eye, there is much more going on than just photons striking rhodopsin photopigments. As far as absorbers, there are all kinds of things going on in there—various carontenoids, lipofuscins and lipochromes, even cytochrome oxidases in mitochondria that get involved at the longer wavelegnths….
,,In considering not just the classical photoreceptors but the entire retina itself as a light-harvesting engine… that can completely refigure (its) fine structure within a few minutes to handle changing light levels, every synapse appears as an essential machine that percolates information as if at the Brownian scale, or even below….
- The Wonder of Sight – April 15, 2020
Excerpt: The eye processes approximately 80% of the information received from the outside world. In fact, the eyes can handle 500,000 messages simultaneously. It happens all the time, and you don’t even have to think about it. Your eyes just do it! The eye is infinitely more complex than any man-made camera or telescope.
- Walk By Faith – Now See Here, Touch & Smell to Discern Good & Evil – July 6, 2018
Excerpt: “I Am Joe’s Eye” (from the Reader’s Digest series) says “For concentrated complexities, no other organ in Joe’s body can equal me … I have tens of millions of electrical connections and can handle 1.5 million simultaneous messages. I gather 80 percent of all the knowledge Joe absorbs.”
- Fearfully and Wonderfully Made – Philip Yancey, Paul Brand
Excerpt: The brain receives millions of simultaneous reports from the eyes. When its designated wavelength of light is present, each rod or cone triggers an electrical response to the brain, which then absorbs a composite set of yes-or-no messages from all the rods and cones.
- Retina – Spatial encoding
Excerpt: When the retina sends neural impulses representing an image to the brain, it spatially encodes (compresses) those impulses to fit the limited capacity of the optic nerve. Compression is necessary because there are 100 times more photoreceptor cells than ganglion cells. This is done by “decorrelation”, which is carried out by the “centre–surround structures”, which are implemented by the bipolar and ganglion cells.
There are two types of centre–surround structures in the retina – on-centres and off-centres. On-centres have a positively weighted centre and a negatively weighted surround. Off-centres are just the opposite. Positive weighting is more commonly known as excitatory, and negative weighting as inhibitory.
These centre–surround structures are not physical apparent, in the sense that one cannot see them by staining samples of tissue and examining the retina’s anatomy. The centre–surround structures are logical (i.e., mathematically abstract) in the sense that they depend on the connection strengths between bipolar and ganglion cells. It is believed that the connection strength between cells is caused by the number and types of ion channels embedded in the synapses between the bipolar and ganglion cells.
The centre–surround structures are mathematically equivalent to the edge detection algorithms used by computer programmers to extract or enhance the edges in a digital photograph. Thus, the retina performs operations on the image-representing impulses to enhance the edges of objects within its visual field.
- JPEG for the mind: How the brain compresses visual information – February 11, 2011
Excerpt “Computers can beat us at math and chess,” said Connor, “but they can’t match our ability to distinguish, recognize, understand, remember, and manipulate the objects that make up our world.” This core human ability depends in part on condensing visual information to a tractable level. For now, at least, the brain format seems to be the best compression algorithm around.
15a. Optimised Hardware Compression, The Eyes Have It. – 2011
- Can Evolution Produce an Eye? Not a Chance! by Dr. David Menton on August 19, 2017
Excerpt: In an article in Byte magazine (April 1985), John Stevens compares the signal processing ability of the cells in the retina with that of the most sophisticated computer designed by man, the Cray supercomputer:
“While today’s digital hardware is extremely impressive, it is clear that the human retina’s real time performance goes unchallenged. Actually, to simulate 10 milliseconds (one hundredth of a second) of the complete processing of even a single nerve cell from the retina would require the solution of about 500 simultaneous nonlinear differential equations 100 times and would take at least several minutes of processing time on a Cray supercomputer. Keeping in mind that there are 10 million or more such cells interacting with each other in complex ways, it would take a minimum of 100 years of Cray time to simulate what takes place in your eye many times every second.”
- Looking At What The Eyes See – February 25, 2011
Excerpt: We move our eyes three times a second, over 100,000 times each day. Why isn’t life blurrier? Reporting in Nature Neuroscience, psychologist Martin Rolfs and colleagues found that our mind seems to prepare for our eye movements before they occur, helping us keep track of objects in the visual field.
- An Eye for Exercise Your eye is a very active organ – December 28, 2001 (HealthDayNews) — Did you know that you’d have to walk 50 miles to give your legs the same workout as the muscles in one of your eyes get in a day?
- How do our eyes move in perfect synchrony? By Benjamin Plackett – June 21, 2020
Excerpt: “You have a spare one in case you have an accident, and the second reason is depth perception, which we evolved to help us hunt,” said Dr. David Guyton, professor of ophthalmology at The Johns Hopkins University. But having two eyes would lead to double vision if they didn’t move together in perfect synchrony. So how does the body ensure our eyes always work together?
To prevent double vision, the brain exploits a feedback system, which it uses to finely tune the lengths of the muscles controlling the eyes. This produces phenomenally precise eye movements, Guyton said.
Each eye has six muscles regulating its movement in different directions, and each one of those muscles must be triggered simultaneously in both eyes for them to move in unison, according to a 2005 review in the Canadian Medical Association Journal. “It’s actually quite amazing when you think about it,” Guyton told Live Science. “The brain has a neurological system that is fantastically organized because the brain learns over time how much stimulation to send to each of the 12 muscles for every desired direction of gaze.”
- Why Only Humans Shed Emotional Tears – 2018
Abstract Producing emotional tears is a universal and uniquely human behavior…
- Facts About Tears – Dec. 21, 2018 Excerpt Tears Have Layers
Tears are not just saline. They have a similar structure to saliva and contain enzymes, lipids, metabolites and electrolytes. Each tear has three layers:
An inner mucus layer that keeps the whole tear fastened to the eye.
A watery middle layer (the thickest layer) to keep the eye hydrated, repel bacteria and protect the cornea.
An outer oily layer to keep the surface of the tear smooth for the eye to see through, and to prevent the other layers from evaporating.
Lacrimal glands above each eye produce your tears…
- How Tears Go ‘Pac-Man’ To Beat Bacteria – January 20, 2012
Excerpt: In 1922, a few years before he won the Nobel Prize for his discovery of penicillin, bacteriologist Alexander Fleming discovered in human tears a germ-fighting enzyme which he named lysozyme. He collected and crystallized lysozyme from his own tears, then wowed contemporaries at Britain’s Royal Society by demonstrating its miraculous power to dissolve bacteria before their very eyes.
“That’s a seriously bodacious experiment”…
- Eyelids—Intermittent Wipers – Dr. Don DeYoung – October 20, 2013
Excerpt: The blinking of our eyes is automatic and essential. Its saline washer fluid moistens and protects the outer cornea of the eye while removing dust. Other protective features include our eyebrow “umbrellas” and recessed eyeball sockets.
The average eye blinks one to two times each minute for infants and ten times faster for adults. This blinking adds up to nearly 500 million blinks over an average lifetime. The actual mechanism, however, is not well understood. It may involve a “blinking center” in the brain.
Today billions of windshield wipers duplicate the eye’s intermittent blinking. Yet none last as long or work as efficiently as our God-given eyelids.
Good, we haven’t had a discussion about the wonders of the human eye for a while.
No, we haven’t heard from scoffers like you riffing on the theme that the eye is poorly designed; that is what we haven’t had.
BTW – Shakespeare noticed, “How far that little candle throws his beams!”
The OP reminds me of this verse:
Moreover, besides allowing us to see “a match struck 50 miles away” from a mountaintop, our eyes also allow us to catch a glimpse of our soul.
As to this fact in particular: “The rod can detect a single photon. Any man-made detector would need to be cooled and isolated from noise to behave the same way”
That fact, along with many other facts, proves that the human body can not possibly be dominated by the ‘random thermodynamic jostling’ of atoms as Darwinists, from Harvard no less, tried to falsely portray to the public in a video they produced in 2013 entitled ‘Inner Life of the Cell: Protein Packing’,,,
,,, But instead that fact, along with many other facts, proves that biological systems must instead be based on quantum principles not ‘random thermodynamic jostling’ principles.
Darwinian biologists simply have not taken quantum principles into consideration at all in their understanding of biological systems.
As Jim Al-Khalili, who is an atheist himself, states in the following video, “To paraphrase, (Erwin Schrödinger in his book “What Is Life”), he says at the molecular level living organisms have a certain order. A structure to them that’s very different from the random thermodynamic jostling of atoms and molecules in inanimate matter of the same complexity. In fact, living matter seems to behave in its order and its structure just like inanimate cooled down to near absolute zero. Where quantum effects play a very important role. There is something special about the structure, about the order, inside a living cell. So Schrodinger speculated that maybe quantum mechanics plays a role in life”.
And indeed, Schrodinger’s ‘speculation that ‘quantum mechanics plays a role in life’ has now been confirmed.
Every important biological molecule in life is now found to be based on quantum principles, not on ‘random thermodynamic jostling’ principles as Darwinists have presupposed.
As the following 2015 paper entitled, “Quantum criticality in a wide range of important biomolecules” stated “Most of the molecules taking part actively in biochemical processes are tuned exactly to the transition point and are critical conductors,” and the researchers further commented that “finding even one (biomolecule) that is in the quantum critical state by accident is mind-bogglingly small and, to all intents and purposes, impossible.,, of the order of 10^-50 of possible small biomolecules and even less for proteins,”,,,
And as this follow up article stated, “There is no obvious evolutionary reason why a protein should evolve toward a quantum-critical state, and there is no chance at all that the state could occur randomly.,,,”
DNA itself does not belong to the world of classical mechanics, (as Darwinists have presupposed). but instead belongs to the world of quantum mechanics. In the following video, at the 22:20 minute mark, Dr Rieper shows why the high temperatures of biological systems do not prevent DNA from having quantum entanglement and then at 24:00 minute mark Dr Rieper goes on to remark that practically the whole DNA molecule can be viewed as quantum information with classical information embedded within it.
Finding quantum entanglement and/or quantum information to be pervasive in biology, in every important biomolecule, is simple devastating to the reductive materialistic presuppositions of Darwinists.
Namely, quantum coherence and/or quantum entanglement is a non-local, beyond space and time, effect that requires a beyond space and time cause in order to explain its existence. As the following paper entitled “Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory” stated, “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,”
Moreover, as the following study found, the greater the number of particles in a quantum hypergraph state, (which is exactly the type of quantum coherence that we have with protein and DNA molecules), the more strongly it violates local realism, with the strength increasing exponentially with the number of particles.
Thus the problem of quantum ‘non-locality’ is actually ‘exponentially’ worse for Darwinists than it originally was for physicists who were just trying to understand how single particles could possibly be instantaneously entangled.
Darwinists, with their reductive materialistic framework, simply have no beyond space and time cause that they can appeal so as to be able to explain the non-local quantum coherence and/or entanglement that is now found to be ubiquitous within biology. Whereas Christians readily do have a beyond space and time cause that they can appeal to so as to explain quantum entanglement. As Colossians 1:17 states, “He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.”
it is also important to realize that quantum information is conserved. As the following article states, In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed.
The implication of finding ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, and ‘conserved’, quantum information in molecular biology on such a massive scale, in every important biomolecule in our bodies, is fairly, and pleasantly, obvious.
That pleasant implication, of course, being the fact that we now have very strong empirical evidence suggesting that we do indeed have an eternal soul that is capable of living beyond the death of our material bodies. As Stuart Hameroff states in the following article, “the quantum information,,, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed.,,, it’s possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.”
Verse:
Of supplemental note, although all the trivia facts listed in the OP are certainly very interesting as to telling us how the eye converts photons into visual information for the brain, none of those facts tell us exactly what is actually doing the ‘seeing’ in the brain.
That is to say, the ‘hard problem of consciousness’, (i.e. qualia, i.e. the subjective experience of consciousness), is still just as mysterious for us as it was when it was first elucidated.
As Frank Jackson made clear in his philosophical argument ‘Mary’s Room’, no amount of scientific and physical examination on Mary’s part will ever reveal to Mary exactly what the inner subjective conscious experience, i.e. qualia, of the color blue actually is until Mary actually experiences what the color blue is for herself.
And although consciousness is, apparently, forever beyond any possible materialistic explanation, it is also very interesting to note that consciousness, (or more particularly, the conscious mind’s attributes of free will and ‘the experience of the now’), finds an extremely strong correlation with our ‘spooky’ experiments in quantum mechanics,
Thus in conclusion, Darwinists have no clue how even a single ‘quantum’ protein of the wondrous human eye can possible come about, nor do they have a clue what is actually doing the seeing in the brain, i.e. the hard problem of consciousness, but Christians, on the other hand, find a ready explanation for both.
The question becomes, “what is entanglement, how does it occur?” What does it mean to say something outside of space-time is causing this phenomenal simultaneously regardless of space time “locations” or apparent separation?
Things in “this world” occur not because of the way this world is, but because this world is entirely the effect of an immaterial world not regulated by space-time. Thus, it is the effect of something “beyond” space-time. Every physical world event is an effect and NOT a cause.
Gravity, electromagnetisim, strong and weak nuclear forces, entropy – these are models describing effects; they are not themselves the causes of these behaviors. We are describing immaterial rule-sets that cause the behavior of phenomena we mutually experience; those rule-set causes are not limited by space-time; they cause the very experience of space-time.
What good does it do to say those rule-sets are “instantiated” in a non-immaterial world, when we cannot even locate a non-immaterial world? Where is the “material” world? We can’t find it. All we find are abstract probabilities, rule sets, information, algorithms, etc. Yes, we experience “physicality,” but what is generating that experience? Where does that experience occur?
I don’t know how much more obvious all this can get. We are immaterial, eternal beings (information cannot be created or destroyed) in an immaterial situation having comprehensible, trans-personally coordinated and verifiable physical experiences generated by common (shared) immaterial rule sets and protocols acting on a set of common (shared) information.
HIts all the points, especially the filtering done by the ‘reverse’ lenses, which is usually missed.
Two little quibbles: (1) The rods and cones don’t produce binary signals. Unlike many neurons, they’re purely analog. So the rest of the system has an even harder job than it would if they were binary. (2) I doubt that the ocular muscle control is *more* complex than the muscles for legs or arms. For one thing, the limbs have an extra layer of feedback loops via the spine that never reaches the brain.
Evolution by means of blind and mindless processes can’t account for developmental biology, so forget about vision systems.
“Good, we haven’t had a discussion about the wonders of the human eye for a while.”
Sev,
I think this appears ungrateful. If you understood what your eye does for you, and what a wonderful gift it is, maybe you wouldn’t be so dismissive of it.
But you are just a meat bag, right?
Andrew
Asauber: I think this appears ungrateful. If you understood what your eye does for you, and what a wonderful gift it is, maybe you wouldn’t be so dismissive of it.
That’s not really the point though is it? Since the human eye is superseded on any standard by other eyes found in the animal kingdom the question is: why did the designer choose to give humans less than optimal eyes?
Perhaps that says something about when design was implemented? Perhaps it was all front loaded and then allowed to spin out as it would. But that tends to point to humans NOT being the ultimate goal of biological evolution and I don’t think that sits well with most ID proponents. So . . .
IF humans were the goal of biological evolution on Earth then we must have the less-than-optimal eyes we have for some reason. I wonder what that reason is? I’d love to have greater acuity or to be able to see into the ultraviolet range. Just being able to see better while swimming would be cool.
“That’s not really the point though is it?”
JVL,
Yes it is.
Andrew
JVL said:
“Optimal” can only be assessed by knowing the full purpose of the design.
For example, some furniture is not designed to be functionally optimal because the design is more artistic or aesthetic in nature. Or, the designer has built in functional failure to continuously sell more of the product to the consumer. Or, the design of a thing is meant to limit a capacity instead of providing as much capacity as possible. Etc.
William J Murray: “Optimal” can only be assessed by knowing the full purpose of the design.
Okay, why do you think humans don’t have the same visual acuity as other animals? Why can’t we see into the ultraviolet range like other animals? Why don’t we have four colour cones like other animals? Why do we have a blind spot where other animals do not?
Science, it’s about asking questions. What are your answers?
Asauber: Yes it is.
I guess I’m just more curious than you are about how our vision developed. I’m very happy to have eyes that work pretty well but . . . I’d love to have a greater visual range, greater acuity, no blind spot, etc. So, why don’t I? Don’t you ever ask yourself such questions?
“Don’t you ever ask yourself such questions?”
No. I don’t ever ask myself such questions. As for curiosity about how our vision developed, you probably love this OP because you have to know what the eye is and does first, before you back track. But I’m glad you have more an appreciation for the eye than your buddy Sev does.
Andrew
Asauber: No. I don’t ever ask myself such questions.
Okay!
PS: do you think ID should ask such questions?
“ID should ask such questions?”
JVL,
ID doesn’t exclude any question-asking as far as I know.
But I can tell you that some questions are worth spending more time on than others. Personally, I think the “why” questions you ask aren’t worth spending much time on. I don’t feel inadequate because I don’t have enhanced vision the way you seem to feel.
Andrew
PS In fact my vision is deteriorating with age. I don’t feel bad about it. I “see” it as a stage in the journey. I just put on some readers.
Optimal design is almost impossible to discern. Every species including humans live in an ecology. If one species was dominant in every possible way it would eliminate itself since it would probably destroy the ecology and thus, its ability to survive.
So when someone points to a so called sub-optimal design, they may be looking at exquisite design.
This has been discussed probably a hundred times before. The same irrelevant questions always seem to come up.
“The same irrelevant questions”
Precisely, Jerry.
Andrew
Asauber: ID doesn’t exclude any question-asking as far as I know.
That’s good!
But I can tell you that some questions are worth spending more time on than others. Personally, I think the “why” questions you ask aren’t worth spending much time on. I don’t feel inadequate because I don’t have enhanced vision the way you seem to feel.
Okay!
Jerry: Optimal design is almost impossible to discern. Every species including humans live in an ecology. If one species was dominant in every possible way it would eliminate itself since it would probably destroy the ecology and thus, its ability to survive.
Oooo, is that an ecological and evolutionary argument I see before me?
So when someone points to a so called sub-optimal design, they may be looking at exquisite design.
No idea what exquisite design means. But I do know some animals have better acuity that we do, some animals can see into the ultraviolet range, some animals have four colour detectors instead of three. I’d love to have those enhancements.
This has been discussed probably a hundred times before. The same irrelevant questions always seem to come up.
Again, aren’t you curious why we only have three colour detectors instead of four? Would that really give us such an advance that we would have destroyed our environment eons ago? I find all such questions really fascinating. So I’m prone to wonder why things are the way they are. Those may be irrelevant questions but science is about asking questions and looking for answers.
What questions do you think ID should be looking at and working on?
JVL asks:
How would I know? I’m just admitting I don’t know the entirety of the design goals, so the argument about whether or not the design of the eye is “optimal” is a groundless argument because what it refers to (all the design goals) are unknown.
William J Murray: How would I know? I’m just admitting I don’t know the entirety of the design goals, so the argument about whether or not the design of the eye is “optimal” is a groundless argument because what it refers to (all the design goals) are unknown.
Okay. Is it possible to know what the design goals are? Do you think ID should be asking questions like these? Can the answers be discovered?
“Again, aren’t you curious why we only have three colour detectors instead of four?”
JVL,
Doesn’t Evolution answer this question adequately? Evolution claims to make sense of biology, doesn’t it? Please go to your favorite Evolution Blog and get the answer for us, JVL. Thanks.
Andrew
Asauber: Doesn’t Evolution answer this question adequately?
I think it does, partially at any rate. But does ID answer that question? What do you think?
“I think it does, partially at any rate.”
JVL,
So what’s the answer?
Andrew
JVL, so what you are really trying to say is that “IF” you were God then you would have designed a human eye better than God did?
But that assumes that you know all God’s reasons for designing the human eye as amazingly as He did and that you could improve on it (Basically you are assuming you are omniscient))
And your argument also assumes that you have some basic knowledge on how to build eyeballs in the first place.
OK, I’ll wait, in your presupposed omniscient ability to build better eyeballs, whip us up a human eyeball that is better than the one God created. 🙂
Shoot, design a better photosynthesis system for plants while you are at it. 🙂
Without that empirical demonstration., your argument boils down to, basically, a philosophical, even a theological, argument and it has left the realm of empirical science.
Which is no surprise, Darwinists have been crucially dependent on faulty theological argumentation, (not empirical demonstration), ever since Darwin first published his book ‘Origin of Species”, since there simply is no evidence that mindless processes can create anything, much less the amazing human eye.
JVL @22 asks:
Short of asking the designer, this is more of a philosophical exercise. It doesn’t really have anything to do with science.
If we find a piece of alien technology, the proper question isn’t “what are the design goals.” The scientific question is: what does it actually do? Can we reverse-engineer it? Can we apply that technology? Is there entirely new technology, even new technological concepts we can learn from it?
Bornagain77: JVL, so what you are really trying to say is that “IF” you were God then you would have designed a human eye better than God did?
I’m just wondering why we don’t have four colour detecting cones? I can’t see why not if we were intelligently designed. Maybe the designer had a reason . . . what could it be? Ours is not to reason why?
But that assumes that you know all God’s reasons for designing the human eye as amazingly as He did and that you could improve on it (Basically you are assuming you are omniscient))
I’d love to know the reason, if there was one.
And your argument also assumes that you have some basic knowledge on how to build eyeballs in the first place.
I know some of the other ones that exist.
Shoot, design a better photosynthesis system for plants while you are at it. ?
I think someone has actually tried to look at that! I don’t know as much about photosynthesis unfortunately.
Without that empirical demonstration., your argument boils down to, basically, a philosophical, even a theological, argument and it has left the realm of empirical science.
I’d just like to know why, according to ID, we don’t have eyes with greater capacities since other animals do have ’em. It’s not a philosophical or theological argument unless you want it to be. For me it’s just blind, dumb evolution or an engineering choice.
William J Murray: Short of asking the designer, this is more of a philosophical exercise. It doesn’t really have anything to do with science.
It is a scientific question if one answer is: it’s down to blind, dumb science. Why do you think it comes down to philosophy? Even if the human eye was designed it could be a purely engineering decision. You’re showing your bias.
If we find a piece of alien technology, the proper question isn’t “what are the design goals.” The scientific question is: what does it actually do? Can we reverse-engineer it? Can we apply that technology? Is there entirely new technology, even new technological concepts we can learn from it?
Those are all good questions and I think it’s fair to ask all of them.
Remember: ID is contrasting itself with another paradigm which attempts to answer some of those questions. IF ID wants to be a ‘better’ answer then it must answer those questions more parsimoniously and, I think, answer some more questions.
Design means a designer, means intent, means a goal or target, means there should be a reason why some animals got some features and others didn’t. Yes?
Asauber: So what’s the answer?
Unguided evolution depends on using what your predecessors already have and passing on that which is good enough OR better. So, it seems, that the line leading to humans made do with three colour detecting cones and sometimes good enough wins the day. Perhaps, if there had been some environment pressure or clear advantage to having four cones instead of three the human line might have kept such a modification IF it ever occurred. If I’m remembering correctly, at least one line of new world monkeys got the four cones, lucky them! Was it an advantage or did it get fixed for another reason?
You can find discussions of this particular topic if you’re really interested. Unguided evolution explanations are not ‘answers’ in the usual sense; they are models that seem to address most of the data we have.
“Unguided evolution explanations are not ‘answers’ in the usual sense”
JVL,
That’s for sure.
Andrew
“good enough OR better.”
JVL,
So is three better than four to Evolution? Or Is four better than three and we’ll switch someday?
Andrew
Asauber: That’s for sure.
Welcome to science! Do we know what ’causes’ gravity? Not really. Can we model it? Yes! Pretty well now. With better measuring tools and data we may have to refine our model, again.
Anyway, this is what we expect: as our knowledge and experience and data get more and more comprehensive our models of the real world should get better and better. Will they every be ‘true’? I think we’re getting closer and closer. The laws of thermodynamics seem pretty rock solid. But, who knows . . . maybe next year, next month or tomorrow we’ll have to revise those as well.
That’s the way it goes with science. We’re running really fast just to keep up!!
So is three better than four to Evolution? Or Is four better than three and we’ll switch someday?
Who knows? IF I remember correctly: four cones arose and got fixed in one population but we’re not sure why.
Sometimes you just have to say: we don’t know. That’s honest, that’s true.
The thing about saying it all was designed is that that implies, to me at least, that there was a reason for all such decisions. Okay, maybe you can say the designer just figured they’d role the dice and not care that much. But that seems kind of callous. Not what most ID proponents want to believe.
Anyway, why aren’t ID proponents working on answering questions like that? What is the ID research agenda? What questions are first up for ID? All sciences have unanswered questions and issues that are prime for research. What are they for ID? IF I could grant y’all a few million dollars what research would you engage in?
“I’d love to have a greater visual range, greater acuity, no blind spot, etc. So, why don’t I?”
JVL,
The above was your initial question to me. Your subsequent appeal to Evolution didn’t answer it either. According to all the evidence, you could just as well be on your favorite Evolution blog asking these kind of questions. But I guess you just like UD better. 😉
Andrew
Asauber: The above was your initial question to me. Your subsequent appeal to Evolution didn’t answer it either.
I think I qualified the evolutionary answer. Any such response is always tentative. But you didn’t give any kind of answer. Why is that?
According to all the evidence, you could just as well be on your favorite Evolution blog asking these kind of questions. But I guess you just like UD better. ?
I know what unguided evolution supporters will say. I’m trying to figure out what ID’s view on such issues are so I ask here.
No guess on the ID research agenda? Any one? Hello?
I guess I was hoping for a more ‘scientific’ reply from JVL rather that just philosophical posturing on his part as to “IF” he were God he imagines that he could design a better eye than God did.
And note that JVL, in his theological argument, is assuming himself as a designer. He is not assuming mindless processes could design an eye.
His theological argument boils down to this
Nowhere in his theological argument does JVL assume that mindless processes are capable of designing anything. He imagines that he could have designed an eye better than God did. PERIOD!
I guess he just expects us to assume that mindless Darwinian processes can design an eye better than both he and God can design one without explicitly saying so? (much less does JVL ever provide any explicit empirical evidence for either he, or mindless processes, creating anything)
But, since JVL is into playing God, (instead of concentrating on the science at hand), and arrogantly imagines he can do a better job than God did at designing the eye, I have an old joke for him, “You go find your own dirt JVL!”
JVL, as smart as he may fancy himself to be, simply has no clue what he is talking about. The eye is exquisitely designed.
To quote Princeton physics professor William Bialek, “photoreceptor cells that carpet the retinal tissue of the eye and respond to light, are not just good or great or phabulous at their job. They are not merely exceptionally impressive by the standards of biology, with whatever slop and wiggle room the animate category implies. Photoreceptors operate at the outermost boundary allowed by the laws of physics, which means they are as good as they can be, period. Each one is designed to detect and respond to single photons of light — the smallest possible packages in which light comes wrapped. “Light is quantized, and you can’t count half a photon,”… “This is as far as it goes.” … In each instance, biophysicists have calculated, the system couldn’t get faster, more sensitive or more efficient without first relocating to an alternate universe with alternate physical constants.
And along that line of thought, here are a few notes strongly suggesting that JVL, besides getting his own dirt, should also ‘go find his own light’ as well.
In the preceding paper Dr. Bradley also lists four graphs. At the bottom of the four graphs he states: “The visible portion of the electromagnetic spectrum (~1 micron) is the most intense radiation from the sun (Figure 3.1); has the greatest biological utility (Figure 3.2); and passes through atmosphere of Earth (Figure 3.3) and water (Figure 3.4) with almost no absorption. It is uniquely this same wavelength of radiation that is idea to foster the chemistry of life. This is either a truly amazing series of coincidences or else the result of careful design.”,,,
It is remarkable that both the Earth’s atmosphere and water have “optical windows” that allow visible light (just the radiation necessary for life) to pass through with very little absorption, whereas shorter wavelength (destructive ultraviolet radiation) and longer wavelength (infrared) radiation are both highly absorbed, as seen in Figure 3.{23}
Also of note: the light coming from the CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background) is such that “the value of the photon to baryon ratio is such that it maximizes the CMB (as observed by typical observers)”
“I think I qualified the evolutionary answer. Any such response is always tentative. But you didn’t give any kind of answer. Why is that?”
JVL,
Because I think you already know there is nothing available you would consider a scientific answer, and you are just trolling.
“I know what unguided evolution supporters will say.”
So do I. A long-winded non-answer. But I suspect you don’t troll them with irrelevant questions.
“No guess on the ID research agenda? Any one? Hello?”
There is ID stuff linked all over this blog. Are you really reading any of it?
Andrew
Asauber: Because I think you already know there is nothing available you would consider a scientific answer, and you are just trolling.
I have no idea what is available, that’s why I ask. What’s the harm in spelling out a tentative ID research agenda? Even if I make fun of it, what’s the harm? And I’m not going to make fun of it because I’d like to see ID move forward and progress.
So do I. A long-winded non-answer. But I suspect you don’t troll them with irrelevant questions.
Because I know what evolutionary theory says and because I (mostly) feel that case is sound I don’t feel the need to troll them. And I’m not trying to troll ID, I’m trying to understand and solidify, in my mind, what it is really saying. I’m trying to understand what ramifications it has. I’m trying to test my own beliefs against the best that ID has to offer to see if my own beliefs can stand up.
There is ID stuff linked all over this blog. Are you really reading any of it?
Yup. Where is the research agenda? Tell me what questions ID researcher are or should be working on. Why is that so hard?
“using what your predecessors already have”
JVL,
All you’ve done here is kick the can backwards towards the past. This is an evasion. There is no answer to “why” with this.
Andrew
Bornagain77: His theological argument boils down to this
1. “IF” I were God I imagine I could design an eye better than God did.
2. Therefore I imagine that God did not design the eye.
3. Therefore I imagine that God does not exist.
That is just BS, pardon my French. I am trying to understand the ID position while at the same time admitting my own position and trying to explain it when asked. I, personally, don’t see any compelling evidence for God but, forgive me if I am wrong, I thought ID DID NOT propose God as the intelligent designer.
Nowhere in his theological argument does JVL assume that mindless processes are capable of designing anything. He imagines that he could have designed an eye better than God did. PERIOD!
That wasn’t my question at all! I asked: IF the eye was designed then why were certain capacities not granted to the human eye.
JVL, as smart as he may fancy himself to be, simply has no clue what he is talking about. The eye is exquisitely designed.
The human eye is fine. It works pretty well. BUT there are animal eyes that work even better. So WHY do humans have eyes that are functionally sub-par to other animal eyes? What reason is there that our eyes don’t have greater acuity? What reason is there that our eyes don’t have four colour detectors? What reason is there that our eyes can’t see into the ultraviolet range? I notice that NO ONE has even tried to answer those questions. Why is that? Does ID not have an answer to that question?
I’m not going to mock anyone for believing in God but I do think it’s fair to ask: why would God do it that way? Because we’re talking about science aren’t we?
Asauber: All you’ve done here is kick the can backwards towards the past. This is an evasion. There is no answer to “why” with this.
What’s your ‘why’ answer then? AND . . .
What’s a good, plausible ID research agenda? What questions should ID researchers be working on?
“What’s your ‘why’ answer then?”
JVL,
I already gave you my answer. You are just trolling.
Andrew
Asauber: I already gave you my answer. You are just trolling.
Okay!
Still nothing to contribute towards an ID research agenda? Pity. No one seems to have any idea.
You can’t make this stuff up.
You spell out a trolls argument for him, and he denies that he making that argument, and then precedes to reiterate the argument again.
A fitting quote for this thread,
“still nothing to contribute towards an ID research agenda?”
JVL,
I’m not a researcher. I don’t have inside access to other people’s research and/or agendas. I’m a commenter. I suggest you read the stuff on this blog and other ID sites that are available.
Andrew
Asauber: I’m not a researcher. I don’t have inside access to other people’s research and/or agendas. I’m a commenter. I suggest you read the stuff on this blog and other ID sites that are available.
I just thought that someone who clearly has an analytic mind and cares a lot would have some idea of where ID research should head. But thanks for being honest.
Bornagain77: You can’t make this stuff up. You spell out a trolls argument for him, and he denies that he making that argument, and then precedes to reiterate the argument again.
I'm sorry I have disappointed you. But . . .
Will you now consider having a conversation about where ID research should be heading?
“I just thought that someone who clearly has an analytic mind and cares a lot would have some idea of where ID research should head. But thanks for being honest.”
JVL,
And I think you should be honest and admit your trolling problem. Then get some help.
Andrew
Asauber: And I think you should be honest and admit your trolling problem. Then get some help.
How does answering a question about ID’s research agenda undermine your position? Why is that such a verboten question? I really don’t understand how people who want to be taken seriously as science supporters would not be able to come up with outstanding questions in their area they’d like to see addressed.
If you’ve really got nothing to say then that’s fine. I’ll just leave it.
Ma Fren the most valuable thing you are producing is when you go to toilet. Have you created at least a flea? Then why you talk about human eye? If you are not in the field of creation of complicated biological things why you open your mouth ? All amateurs commenting about things they have no idea just because they have internet .And a half neuron.
“Desperate and kind of pathetic,” is how Eric Metaxas delicately characterizes materialist attempts to explain away the three scientific discoveries that together call for an inference to a personal God.
https://evolutionnews.org/2021/03/metaxas-meyer-materialists-moves-are-desperate-and-kind-of-pathetic/
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer With His New Book: RETURN OF THE GOD HYPOTHESIS – Eric Metaxas radio show
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLHM_baV_sE&t=6s
JVL keeps asking,
I’m charitably supposing, (since JVL has only engaged in fallacious philosophical/theological arguments so far), that JVL is finally interested in talking about actual scientific research, and not just philosophical posturing, as he is now engaged in.
If so, It might surprise JVL to know all real scientific research is research into Intelligent Design.
You see JVL, you cannot even ‘do science’ in the first place unless you first presuppose Intelligent Design on some level.
As Paul Davies explained,
And as Paul Davies explained elsewhere
You see JVL, all of modern science itself is based on the presupposition that we live in a rational universe that was created by God, and that we do not live in a universe that has no real rhyme, or reason, for its existence as atheists presuppose in their worldview.
Atheists simply have no basis in their worldview for ‘doing science’ in the first place. As the following quote makes clear, “”Atheists may do science, but they cannot justify what they do.”,,,
A crucial linchpin in the founding of modern science was the Christian belief that any mathematics that might describe this universe were the ‘thoughts of God’,
As Paul Davies further explained,
And as Dr. Edward Feser explained,
In the minds of the Christian founders of modern science, mathematics, especially any mathematics that might describe the universe, were held to be contingent upon God’s thoughts.
Perhaps the best example that I can give for the fact that the Christian founders of modern science held mathematics, especially any mathematics that might describe the universe, to be God’s thoughts is the following quote by Kepler, (which he made shortly after discovering the laws of planetary motion),,
And this not just some relic of superstition that is left over from Medieval Christian Europe, but the belief that any mathematics that might describe this universe is ‘miraculous’ is still with us today.
In fact, both Albert Einstein and Eugene Wigner are on record as to regarding it as a ‘miracle’ that we can even describe the universe with mathematics in the first place. Einstein even went so far as to castigate ‘professional atheists’ in the process of calling it a miracle.
Atheists simply have no clue why mathematics should be applicable to the universe in the first place, and therefore atheists have no basis in their worldview for grounding modern science.
Whereas Christians do have a basis for grounding modern science. (Indeed, it is the basis that gave rise to modern science in the first place), Christians hold that there is a rational basis behind the universe since God created it. And that we, being made in the ‘image of God’, can dare understand that rationality.
Thus in conclusion, and to answer JVL’s question about the status of ID research. Since all scientific research necessarily presupposes Intelligent Design, and since scientific research in doing fairly well, (in spite some heavy interference from atheistic presuppositions, i.e. Darwinian evolution, multiverses etc.. etc..), then I hold that ID research is getting along quite nicely. Thank you for asking. 🙂
Verse and quote:
This has been hashed out above, but I figure I will throw in my 2 cents’ worth:
>If humans were the goal of biological evolution on Earth then we must have the less-than-optimal eyes we have for some reason. I wonder what that reason is?
That may or may not be accessible to us. We can ask and seek, but it may be beyond us, or just not available to us.
>I’d love to have greater acuity or to be able to see into the ultraviolet range.
Me too. But as a finite creature, I will always be able to find things I lack. Not much can be concluded from that I don’t think.
>Is it possible to know what the design goals are?
We don’t know that either. Wouldn’t that be a metaphysical question though?
>Do you think ID should be asking questions like these?
Ask all the questions you want. But if we are less intelligent/capable than the designer, please don’t reject the hypothesis just because we don’t have the answers today.
>Because we’re talking about science aren’t we?
ID’ers aren’t limiting the discussion to only material causes, so it may not be a purely scientific question.
JVL,
To reword what’s going on above: If you are assuming an epistimically superior position when we don’t actually occupy an epistemically superior position, then you can infer your way to an incorrect conclusion. For instance, if you use the fact that we don’t know why we don’t have 4-color sense ability instead of three to conclude that we don’t fulfill unknown design goals, that would be inferring too much.
Earth to JVL- The issue is allowing SCIENTIFIC research to reach a design inference when warranted. No one is doing any research guided by blind watchmaker evolution.
JVL:
That is your opinion that humans have less than optimal eyes. Major league baseball players are evidence against that.
Humans have the capability for technology. We can compensate for just about anything using technology.
Bornagain77: You see JVL, all of modern science itself is based on the presupposition that we live in a rational universe that was created by God, and that we do not live in a universe that has no real rhyme, or reason, for its existence as atheists presuppose in their worldview.
So, if God doesn’t exist (just supposing) could we not still think ‘he’ does and with that assumption still do science?
I think the universe has some structure and predictable forms because it’s built up by a finite number of basic building blocks. Kind of like using Lego.
Also I think humans have very good pattern recognition abilities and it seems to me that if a human being sees B always following after A that they might get curious about a cause and effect relationship without having to resort to the notion of a grand designer.
F/N: I find it hard to take seriously the arguments by those who wish to find fault with our visual systems, which we all [save the regrettably blind or colour blind] experience as an awesomely effective and powerful system. Perhaps, we are unaware for example that, with suitable dark adaptation we can sense single photon flashes. I recall, long ago, going into a specially dark room and waiting with an instrument I was working on, to be able to do just that. And if you take for cynical granted the powerful beauty we access through colour vision, pause to see how colour blind people react to glasses that at last give them access to some colour distinctions we commonly take for granted. Where, any half decent instrument designer can tell you, there are always complex, subtle design trade-offs so the issue is not optimum on some arbitrary criterion of perfection but robust adequacy of instrument and system performance with hopefully graceful degradation and a limp home mode. KF
PS: Ask yourself why people putting on colour corrective glasses for the first time are often reduced to tears https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vS5vvuToj74 . . . another eye functionality. Oh, yes, how can I leave off Ms Foxy and how she uses her eyes to express what she as a dog cannot say in words? Eyes as windows on the soul . . . and think about the aesthetics involved.
JVL, the design inference, the core of ID is not about inferring designers much less grand ones. It is adequate, to identify on implication logic inductively applied to inference to best explanation, that design as causal process [another application of implication logic] often leaves highly reliable signs such as FSCO/I in the various forms, up to and including not only sophisticated, complex functional organisation but actual coded instructions in the cells involved. Language and goal directed stepwise process. It is ideologically stamped crooked yardsticks that give the purblindness that so consistently rejects such a powerful inference. KF
one remark in regards to human eye’s blind spot:
i debated lots of atheists… in my debates, sooner or later, they always come up with this blind-spot thing….
Then, it is always the same… these cowards are unwilling to admit, THAT THEY ACTUALLY CAN’T SEE ANY BLIND SPOT IN THEIR VISION… (unless they do that stupid R Dawkins trick)
So what is the matter? What is wrong? Of course, as always, nothing is wrong…. Apparently, only evolutionary biologists including R Dawkins think that there is something wrong … most laymen don’t even know that there is some blind spot in our vision.
This is crazy… biologists, archeologists, paleontologists, and other ‘-logists’ talk about bad design :))))) These guys never made anything… so please shut your mouths and listen carefully what engineers say …
Martin_r: Then, it is always the same… these cowards are unwilling to admit, THAT THEY ACTUALLY CAN’T SEE ANY BLIND SPOT IN THEIR VISION… (unless they do that stupid R Dawkins trick)
It’s not a stupid trick, and it’s not due to Dr Dawkins either. Our minds fill in the ‘blind’ spot by smearing the surrounding colours into that spot so we’re not aware of it unless a specific object of the right size is in that exact spot.
This is crazy… biologists, archeologists, paleontologists, and other ‘-logists’ talk about bad design :))))) These guys never made anything… so please shut your mouths and listen carefully what engineers say …
I didn’t say bad design; I did say I’d love to have eyes with some of the functionality that other animals have and I can’t see why a designer wouldn’t have given us that functionality. Have you got an answer to that specific question?
JVL, you did not say ‘bad design’…. Dawkins & co. did… Dawkins never made anything… there is even a book on human ‘errors’…. you see?now you deny that these guys used the term ‘bad design’…
so, the same question for you, have you ever noticed a blind spot in your vision – u nless you do that Dawkin’s stupid trick?
JVL, regarding your other question, what eye functionality did you mean in particulary?
You have been given an answer that makes perfect sense.
Easily answering JVL:
Humans have the capability for technology. We can compensate for just about anything using technology.
Lots of experts here….
Can someone explain to me, how brain figured out the correct RGB ratio, in other words, how to mix the colors? But please dont say, that to correcly mix 10,000,000 colors based on RGB input was a lucky accident
It may not be poor design, but for between 30 and 70% of people, depending on the stats you look at, it is not a particularly good application of the design.
And who’s bright idea was it to hang the testicles outside the body where they tend to get hit at a frequency that is much higher than I would like? I would like to lodge a complaint. Or appeal the decision to a higher court.
And another clueless post from Acartia’s sock- Today’s humans are not the designed humans. Today’s humans are the result of many generations of genetic accidents, errors and mistakes.
And I doubt that you have to worry about testicles…
ET ” Today’s humans are the result of many generations of genetic accidents, errors and mistakes.”
Yes, you are. 🙂
Martin_r: JVL, you did not say ‘bad design’…. Dawkins & co. did… Dawkins never made anything… there is even a book on human ‘errors’…. you see?now you deny that these guys used the term ‘bad design’…
I didn’t deny they said ‘bad design’; I only said I didn’t.
so, the same question for you, have you ever noticed a blind spot in your vision – u nless (sic) you do that Dawkin’s stupid trick?
Even when I was young, way before Dr Dawkins became famous, there were ways to show you where your blind spot is. I don’t know what ‘Dawkin’s stupid trick’ you are referring to but the existence of a blind/dead spot is well known and well documented.
JVL, regarding your other question, what eye functionality did you mean in particulary (sic)?
I’d love to have greater acuity. I’d love to be able to see into the ultraviolet. I’d love to have four colour cones instead of three. I’d love to be able to see underwater better. I’d love to have faster adjustment at night for better night vision.
Can someone explain to me, how brain figured out the correct RGB ratio, in other words, how to mix the colors? But please don’t (sic) say, that to correcly (sic) mix 10,000,000 colors based on RGB input was a lucky accident
What is ‘the correct RGB ratio’? What’s the standard? Human vision? Have you ever tried taking photographs under fluorescent lighting fixtures and noticed how the colour comes out different? The camera is using a different ‘ratio’; which one is correct?
ET: Today’s humans are not the designed humans. Today’s humans are the result of many generations of genetic accidents, errors and mistakes.
So, your version of ID is a front-loaded type where the designer is no longer intervening to keep things on track? Why do you think the designer has lost interest in humans?
In response to the fact that all of modern science itself is based upon, (indeed all modern science is vitally dependent upon), Judeo-Christian presuppositions, JVL asks, “So, if God doesn’t exist (just supposing) could we not still think ‘he’ does and with that assumption still do science?”
No we could not still ‘do science’.
Darwinian atheists have already worked out the consequences of ‘just supposing’ that God doesn’t exist for us. And the consequences of that erroneous presupposition of Darwinists is the catastrophic epistemological failure of science itself.
It does not surprise me to see JVL claim that we could get along just as well in science if we ‘just supposed’ God to be an illusion.
Without God being real, everything in the atheist’s materialistic worldview, (save for the atheist’s claim that material particles themselves are ‘real’), turns out to be illusory.
First off, if God does not really exist, but is merely an illusion, then we ourselves do not really exist, but are also merely ‘neuronal illusions’.
The reason why atheists are forced to, embarrassingly, claim that they do not really exist as real people, but that they are merely neuronal illusions, is because the entire concept of personhood is an abstract and immaterial concept that is simply not reducible to the ‘bottom up’ materialistic explanations of Darwinists.
The claim that our sense of self, that is to say, our subjective conscious experience, is just a neuronal illusion is simply insane. As David Bentley Hart states in the following article, “Simply enough, you cannot suffer the illusion that you are conscious because illusions are possible only for conscious minds. This is so incandescently obvious that it is almost embarrassing to have to state it.”
By definition, illusions are NOT reality but are a distortions that pervert our perception of reality. So why in blue blazes should anyone care what neuronal illusions have to say about reality, much less what these supposed neuronal illusions have to say about science?
As well, the Darwinian materialist, in his denial of his immaterial mind, (and besides being forced to claim that he himself is merely a neuronal illusion), is also forced to claim that he, (as a neuronal illusion), is also having an illusion of free will.
As neuroscientist Matthew D. Lieberman stated, “We have so much confidence in our materialist assumptions (which are assumptions, not facts) that something like free will is denied in principle. Maybe it doesn’t exist, but I don’t really know that. Either way, it doesn’t matter because if free will and consciousness are just an illusion, they are the most seamless illusions ever created. Film maker James Cameron wishes he had special effects that good.
Yet, although the Darwinists is forced to deny the reality of free will because of his materialistic presuppositions, the denial of free will is blatantly self-refuting nonsense.
And here is a shining example of just how blatantly self-refuting the denial of free will is.
The following statement by Jerry Coyne should literally be the number one example of a self-refuting argument that is given in philosophy 101 classes, “Free will is an illusion so convincing that people simply refuse to believe that we don’t have it.”
As the preceding statement by Coyne makes abundantly clear, the denial of the reality of free will by Darwinists undermines any ability that we have to make logically coherent arguments in the first place. As Martin Cothran explains, “By their own logic, it isn’t logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true.”
Besides undermining any ability we have to make logically coherent arguments in the first place, the denial of free will also denies what we know to be absolutely true from first hand experience, and is therefore completely insane.
As Paul Nelson explains, the denial of free will entails that “You didn’t write your email to me. Physics did, and informed (the illusion of) you of that event after the fact.
“That’s crazy,” you reply, “I certainly did write my email.”
And as George Ellis explained, “if Einstein did not have free will in some meaningful sense, then he could not have been responsible for the theory of relativity – it would have been a product of lower level processes but not of an intelligent mind choosing between possible options.”
In other words, Einstein didn’t discover the theory of Relativity, the laws of physics did and informed (the illusion of) Einstein of the event after the fact.
Again, the denial that we have free will in some real and meaningful sense is simply crazy. It denies what we know to be true from first hand experience.
As Michael Egnor noted, “Someday, I predict, there will be a considerable psychiatric literature on the denial of free will. It’s essentially a delusion dressed up as science. To insist that your neurotransmitters completely control your choices is no different than insisting that your television or your iphone control your thoughts. It’s crazy.”
As if the denial of our sense of self and free will were not bad enough for Darwinists, the Darwinian materialist is also forced to believe that his beliefs about reality are unreliable, that is to say he is forced to believe that any beliefs that he may have about reality may be illusory and not true, and that he has no way to differentiate between the two contradictory beliefs.
The belief that any beliefs we may have about reality may be illusory, and that we have no way to differentiate between the two beliefs, simply undercuts the entire scientific enterprise itself.
As Nancy Pearcey explains, “Applied consistently, Darwinism undercuts not only itself but also the entire scientific enterprise. Kenan Malik, a writer trained in neurobiology, writes, “If our cognitive capacities were simply evolved dispositions, there would be no way of knowing which of these capacities lead to true beliefs and which to false ones.” Thus “to view humans as little more than sophisticated animals …undermines confidence in the scientific method.”,,, Of course, the atheist pursuing his research has no choice but to rely on rationality, just as everyone else does. The point is that he has no philosophical basis for doing so. Only those who affirm a rational Creator have a basis for trusting human rationality.”
And as if that was not bad enough for Darwinian materialists, the Darwinist, because of his materialistic presuppositions, is forced to believe that ALL the perceptions that he is having of reality are illusory
Specifically, Donald Hoffman, a cognitive scientist, via extensive analysis of the mathematics of population genetics, has proven that, if Darwinian evolution is assumed as being true, then ALL of our perceptions of reality would be illusory
Since reliable observation is an indispensable part of the scientific method itself, in fact it is the first step in the scientific method,
Since reliable observation is an indispensable part of the scientific method itself, then the Darwinian claim that ALL our perceptions of reality are illusory undermines the scientific method itself.
Fortunately for us, science itself could care less if Darwinists are forced to believe that ALL their perceptions of reality are illusory.
Specifically, advances in Quantum Mechanics have now experimentally proven that our observations of reality far more integral to reality, and therefore reliable of reality, than Darwinists are forced to claim via the mathematics of population genetics.
As the following Wheeler Delayed Choice experiment that was conducted with atoms found, “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,”
And as the following violation of Leggett’s inequality found, “Leggett’s inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it.”
Thus, fortunately for us, science itself could care less if Darwinists are forced to believe that ALL their perceptions of reality are illusory.
As far as experimental science itself is concerned, the Darwinist’s materialistic belief that ALL our perceptions of reality must be illusory is experimentally falsified.
As if all that was not bad enough for the Darwinist, the Darwinian materialist, (since he has no real time experimental evidence substantiating any of his grandiose claims for Darwinian evolution), is also forced to make up illusory ‘just-so stories’ with the impotent ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection.
Moreover, the Darwinian materialist is forced to make up these illusory “just so stories” so as to ‘explain away’ the overwhelming appearance of design, which is to say, they are forced to make up these illusory ‘just so stories’ so as to ‘explain away’ the overwhelming illusion of design,
It would be hard to fathom a worldview that turns out to be more antagonistic towards modern science, indeed more antagonistic towards reality itself, than the presumption of Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism has turned out to be for the atheist.
Thus, directly contrary to the Darwinian, and JVL’s, claim of being able to ‘do science’ while ‘just supposing’ that God does not exist, the fact of the matter is that ‘just supposing’ that God does not exist leads to the catastrophic epistemological failure of science itself, and therefore for the Darwinian atheist to even ‘do science’ in the first place he is forced to, whether he honestly admits it or not, hold on to Theistic presuppositions about the rationality of the world and about the ability of our ‘made in the image of God’ mind to dare comprehend that rationality that God has imposed on the world.
Moreover, besides the Darwinian worldview leading to the catastrophic epistemological failure of science itself, the atheist’s own personal life also suffers dramatically with his adoption of the Darwinian worldview.
For example, the Darwinian materialist, since he believes his life has no real meaning or purpose, is forced make up illusory meaning and purposes for his life since it is simply impossible for anyone to live as if their life truly had no meaning and purpose.
The Darwinian materialist is also forced to hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God Who is the source for all real and objective moral truths,
In short, if God does not exist, then morality does not exist,
Yet, just like no one ever lives their life as if it had no real meaning and purpose, no one ever lives their life as if morality really did not exist.
Richard Dawkins himself admitted that it would be ‘intolerable’ for him to live his life as if he had no moral agency
In what should be needless to say, if it is impossible for you to live as if your worldview were actually true then your worldview cannot possibly reflect reality as it really is but your worldview must instead be based on a delusion.
And the final nail in the coffin for proving that the Darwinian worldview is a severely impoverished worldview for the atheist to have to hold on to, is the Darwinian belief that beauty itself is not real but is only illusory.
Charles Darwin himself denied the objective reality of beauty and even said that, “This doctrine, if true, would be absolutely fatal to my theory.”
And although the Darwinian materialist is, apparently, forced to believe that beauty itself is illusory, lest it be “absolutely fatal” to Darwin’s theory, the Darwinist himself, in his arguments, is forced to believe that beauty is objectively real.
You see, the Darwinist, in many of his arguments against God, will often point to some ‘ugly’ facet of this world and then argue that God would never allow such an ugly facet to exist, and therefore, in his simplistic reasoning, the atheist concludes that God must not exist.
Yet, like a lie is a departure from truth, and like evil is a departure from good, ugly itself is a departure from beauty.
That is to say, like lies could not exist unless truth was objectively real, and like evil could not exist unless good was objectively real, likewise ugly could not exist unless beauty was also itself objectively real.
Thus, in his ‘argument from imperfections’, the atheist is unwittingly conceding the objective existence of beauty, i.e. of the very thing his worldview denies the existence of, (lest it be “absolutely fatal” to Darwin’s theory).
And although the atheist may be overly focused on pointing out the ugliness of this world, might I suggest that we live in a world of overwhelming beauty and that the world as not nearly as ugly as the atheist seems predisposed to believe.
And indeed, the objective existence of beauty is a very powerful argument for the existence of God
Bottom line, without God nothing turns out to be truly real in the atheist’s worldview. Not even the atheist himself turns out to be real in his materialistic worldview. Much less are beauty, meaning, and purposes for his life to be considered real in his naturalistic worldview.
In what should be needless to say, any worldview that is devoid of any real meaning, beauty or purpose, for life is a severely impoverished, even severely depressing, worldview for anyone to have to hold.
How anyone can personally stand to be an atheist I have no idea. It is as if someone had the keys to a luxurious mansion with plenty of gourmet food to eat, but instead choose to live their life in the squalors of a garbage dump, eating nothing but whatever rotting food they could scavenge from the garbage.
Such an impoverished worldview, as the atheist is forced to hold onto, where everything that gives life any real meaning and purpose is illusory, goes a very long way towards explaining why Christians report being much happier than atheists are,
and also explains why Christians report having greater life satisfaction than atheists do,
and also explains why Christians having less mental and physical health issues than atheists do,
and also explains why Christians have significantly fewer suicide attempts than atheists do,
and also explains why Christians live significantly longer than atheists do.
Again, I simply can’t understand how anyone would willingly choose to live their life as an atheist. It is a severely impoverished, and depressing, worldview for anyone to willingly hold on to.
The good news is that you, as an atheist, don’t have to live your life in such squalor, but you can choose to accept God into your life anytime you wish.
Verse and Music:
JVL,
(i apologize for any grammar errors, English is not my first language)
ok, you did not say ‘bad design’. Could you comment on how are biologists qualified to review any design and call it ‘bad design’ ?
Blind spot – JVL, you see? the same with you… do you remember what i said about cowards? Scroll this page up… Why you guys can’t never give a straight answer ?
SO ONCE AGAIN:
IS THERE ANY BLIND SPOT IN YOUR EYES THAT HINDER YOUR VISION IN ANY WAY DURING YOUR USUAL DAY, WHEN YOU ARE RELAXING, READING, PLAYING, SPORTING, HUNTING? or DEBATING ID-FOLKS ? (that means you don’t do any tricks / experiments / exercises with your eyes to find the blind spot) YOU JUST USE YOUR EYES LIKE NORMAL PEOPLE … LIKE NORMAL PEOPLE….
Please give me a straight answer: YES/NO
Steve Alten2: “And who’s bright idea was it to hang the testicles outside the body where they tend to get hit at a frequency that is much higher than I would like?”
lets talk numbers… so what is the frequency you testicles get hit at?
Martin_r “ lets talk numbers… so what is the frequency you testicles get hit at?“
Personally, I think once is too many. But I am sure that any male here remembers numerous times when this happened, usually when we were younger. Given the incapacitation that occurs after we get hit in the testicles, I think a much better design would have been to retain them in the abdomen, where they started. It seems to work fine for other animals.
On another note, I hate it when the UD list of comments stops updating. It forces me and others to do a lot of scrolling to get past the overly-long serial posts that we have no interest in.
Steve Alten2: “Personally, I think once is too many.”
i knew you would say something like that…
Wouldn’t we all?
So your philosophical/theological argument is that you personally would have designed your testicles better, and therefore God does not exist?
Something tells me that the philosophical/theological arguments of college freshmen, that are floated at a keg party, may very well be more logically coherent than that argument is. Definitely could not be any worse than that argument is.
And something also tells me that young women at college probably very much like the fact that young, drunk, college men have a crippling weak point in their testicles. And consider such a feature to be a design feature, not a design constraint. 🙂
LOL, come to think of it, I think I’m beginning to like this philosophical posturing that atheists expect us to take seriously.
Bornagain1977 “ So your philosophical/theological argument is that you personally would have designed your testicles better, and therefore God does not exist?”
Who said anything about God existing or not? All we are talking about is whether the designer was particularly good at design. Surely ID does not exclude the possibility that the designer was a mediocre designer. Why does the designer have to be perfect?
Sub-optimal design isn’t an argument against design. It is only an argument against the claim of perfect design.
I asked, “So your philosophical/theological argument is that you personally would have designed your testicles better, and therefore God does not exist?”
And then SA2 proceeds to deny he was making a philosophical/theological argument against God, i.e. “Who said anything about God existing or not?”
And then SA2 proceeds to claim he was merely making philosophical/theological argument against a ‘perfect designer’.
Welcome to the completely insane and incoherent world of Darwinian apologetics.
Someone needs to step away from the beer keg and sober up. 🙂
Darwinists, with their vital dependence on faulty theological presuppositions, instead of on any real and compelling scientific evidence, in order to try to make their case for Darwinian evolution are, as Cornelius Van Til put it, like the child who must climb up onto his father’s lap into order to slap his face.
Steve Alten2: “Sub-optimal design isn’t an argument against design. It is only an argument against the claim of perfect design.”
So are you saying, we have only 2 options: a perfect design, or a bad design, right?
Most of you layman-Darwinists don’t realize how perfect and advanced the design is.
When will human engineers design a flying system which will self-replicate ?
When will human engineers design a miniature fully autonomous self-navigating flying system in a size of a fruit fly? This is even in 21st century an engineering SCI-FI
Or have a look at this octopus’s active camouflage … this is engineering SCI-FI as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8xJ13pAZNw
PS: of course, no Darwinist will show you (using scientific evidence) how insects wings / powered flight evolved… after 150 years, Darwinists have no clue…
and of course, no Darwinist will ever show you how octopus evolved its high advanced active camouflage
JVL,
Obviously, human brain is using RGB color space, and obviously, our brain interprets the color pretty accurate. So please try to explain to me, how do you imagine, how the brain is doing it, does it have some RGB table ? (don’t matter the source of ambient light)
Martin_r “ So are you saying, we have only 2 options: a perfect design, or a bad design, right?”
No. I would characterize it as a choice between a perfect design and an imperfect design. Keeping in mind that an imperfect design can still be quite functional.
“ Most of you layman-Darwinists don’t realize how perfect and advanced the design is.”
I will ask you the same thing that Bornagain77 chose to avoid by misrepresenting what I said. Does ID preclude the possibility that the designer was a mediocre designer? Again, keep in mind that mediocre design can still be quite functional.
If ID persists in asserting that the design is perfect, the more difficult it will be for it to shed itself of the “creationism in a cheap tuxedo” meme. After all, only God is perfect.
Archaeologists studying what they think might be a human made artifact never claim that the design of the artifact is perfect. Designs almost never are.
Steve, i will answer tomorrow
“mediocre designer?”
I imagine this will be difficult to scientifically isolate. You would have to know the intention of the designer, and whether or not the conception of the design was flawed or the execution or both or none of the above.
Andrew
Martin_r “ Steve, i will answer tomorrow”
Fair enough.
Andrew “ I imagine this will be difficult to scientifically isolate.”
I don’t doubt it.
“You would have to know the intention of the designer, and whether or not the conception of the design was flawed or the execution or both or none of the above.”
True. Someone who intends to design a piece of machinery that will only operate for a few hours has met his design goals if, once built, it only lasts a couple hours. But the arguments I repeatedly see, here and elsewhere, is that the biological “designs” we see are perfect. Maybe perfect is not the proper word. Perhaps “flawless” is more appropriate.
But, again, why does the designer have to be flawless?
So SA2, you are not against Intelligent Design per se, (which is a good thing since you have ZERO scientific evidence that mindless Darwinian processes can create even a single functional protein), but you are just against a designer who is flawless?
So, if not the Judeo-Christian God, then who is you preferred ‘flawed’ candidate to be the designer of the universe and all life in it?
And, since we have completely left the realm of science, and are now into the deep end of philosophy/theology, what do you say about Anlelm’s and Godel’s ontological argument and proof for God?
Interestingly, in this following video, entitled “The Ontological Argument for the Triune God”, refines the Ontological argument for a maximally great Being into a proof that, because of the characteristic of ‘maximally great love’, God must exist in more than one person:
i.e. without this distinction we are stuck with the logical contradiction of maximally great love being grounded in ones own self which is the very antithesis of maximally great love.
Of note to God being the source of love and per the testimony of a Near Death Experience:
Verse:
Leibniz said this is the best of all possible worlds. The Christian God could do no less. But this fails to specify what it means to be best? Why all the apparent chaos as things get exponentially better?
We can look at a million things and say why isn’t this or that better. The world has become better in innumerable ways over the centuries and will get still better. But why wasn’t it this way always? We never ask this question.
A less than “perfect” eye may actually be the perfect eye for the best of all worlds. But why?
And yet someone wishes we had better vision. If we could get that vision by a genetic change or an operation or an app, would we be satisfied and or would we just want even better vision. After all some animals have better vision. Or maybe we could have eyes that pick up even more of the spectrum.
But if this in fact was possible would we have a better world? If not why not?
Maybe trade offs and limitations are necessary for the best world? Maybe the perfect world would be sub-optimal? Maybe the designer is extremely intelligent and knows this and what we think is sub-optimal is actually flawless design.
SA2, since you are apparently into philosophical/theological arguments for and against God, (instead of actual scientific evidence), I think you might like a run down of the philosophical arguments for each position.
Interestingly, when 50 elite scientists were asked their reasons for not believing in God, rather than mentioning any scientific evidence they might have had against God, they instead listed two, fairly flimsy, philosophical arguments. i.e. the ‘God of the gaps argument’, and the ‘argument from evil’.
Whereas, on the other hand, Christianity has a very rich, and robust, list of philosophical arguments for the existence of God, many of which have stood the test of time..
And here is a 4 hour lecture on over 100 arguments for the existence of God:
Jerry “ Maybe the designer is extremely intelligent and knows this and what we think is sub-optimal is actually flawless design.”
But that is not what I am asking. What I am asking is, does ID preclude the possibility of a mediocre designer? Given the massive number of sub-optimal designs that we see in nature, isn’t it a reasonable explanation that the designer is just passable as a designer? As I mentioned previously, the presence of sub-optimal/flawed design is not an argument against design. Why do ID proponents never raise this when opponents point out flawed design? It’s almost as if they take it personally whenever someone points out the limitations of the designer.
I’m always late, but here goes:
>Why do you think the designer has lost interest in humans?
Just leaving somethings in a less-than-ideal-from-our-perspective state does not imply that the designer has lost interest in humans. Because we are not privy to his/its full plan, we have no way of concluding that he/it has lost interest in us. The plan may be unfolding as intended for all we know. Can anyone make the case that the creator should have given us UV vision for instance? (Fun? Yes…wish I had it myself. If you find vision boring, check this out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haidinger%27s_brush)
>Sub-optimal design isn’t an argument against design. It is only an argument against the claim of perfect design….But the arguments I repeatedly see,…is that the biological “designs” we see are perfect. Maybe perfect is not the proper word. Perhaps “flawless” is more appropriate.
I know some argue that our design is perfect, but I would caution everyone that we have no rigorous definition of “perfect”. Anyone who works with physical systems of any sort knows that they are all limited. A machine can be strong to resist breakage, but then weighs more and takes more energy to run. Make it very light, and it breaks more easily. Software can be compact, elegant, easy-to-understand, or fast–but never all at the same time. And so on. No matter how a physical system is designed, a critic can always find some axis along which a “better” state can be imagined, by simply choosing how to define “perfect” (or “flawless”) at that moment.
If we agree that we cannot know all the intentions of a superior intellect (the designer), then we have to admit that we cannot know all the design parameters, and hence whether we do or do not meet them.
Thus all the arguments against a designer or his capabilities from less-than-ideal designs fail. They just can’t drive home their conclusion because a key premise cannot be fulfilled.
SA2 @ 97,
> isn’t it a reasonable explanation that the designer is just passable as a designer?
That is possible, but again, without knowing the design goals (which we cannot possibly have full access to), we cannot conclude that the designer is just passable either. We would have to know what the goals were in order to know that they were missed.
SA2 & Jerry, optimality is a matter of attaining goals under constraint to achieve a maximal benefit or a least cost. It is easy to identify some feature or parameter that, taken out of context, seems to be a poor choice. But then, when robustness and adaptability against a wider context of possibilities emerges, we find a different picture. God design is a matter of striking tradeoffs, and it is highly relevant that the suggested, cobbled together human being is the dominant species all across this planet, now at threshold of solar system colonisation. That makes a very different context. And meanwhile, SA2, the context in which we ponder God as root of reality is one in which we plausibly need a finitely remote necessary being root able to account for rational, responsible, morally governed freedom. Were there ever utter non being, such would forever obtain, so as a world is, something always was. This extends, as traversal of an infinite succession of actual past finite, causal-temporal stages to now is infeasible on logic of the transfinite. Where, root of moral being capable of love and virtue, reason, warrant and credible knowledge [thus requiring freedom] points to a serious candidate necessary being, the inherently good, utterly wise creator God. Such is either impossible of being [as a square circle is] or else is actual; your studious side stepping and rhetoric of projective tainting in other threads is unable to distract from inability to resolve this from the usual evolutionary materialistic or fellow traveler viewpoint. In this context, a cosmos fine tuned for cell based, C chem, aqueous medium, privileged planet life, use of language and algorithms in that coded DNA language in cells simply further points. KF
EDTA and KairosFocus, but that doesn’t explain why ID proponents respond to the poor design argument in the way that they do. If ID was truly science driven and not fundamentally a religious stance, the most logical response would be that poor design is still design. However, the response always tends to be that you can’t prove that it is poor design.
Surely ID as a science doesn’t care about how effective a design is, just that there is design.
We would be happy to all just conclude design, and go home. With you on our side too, by the way.
Yes, poor design is still design. But our points above are that we cannot logically conclude poor design. Why should we concede something that cannot be rigorously argued for?
But if it makes us all feel better, let’s agree on _design_ of any sort, and move on to the next thread.
I would suggest that it is being just a touch disingenuous to pretend that ID proponents are not looking towards the Christian God as the original designer.
Of course, there is no inherent problem with the proposal that some form of highly-advanced extraterrestrial intelligence either created or just shaped the course of life on Earth. In fact, if we were ever to find compelling evidence of such alien handiwork it would undoubtedly be one of the greatest scientific discoveries of all time. But I somehow doubt it would satisfy the theistic crowd as I suspect they are looking for rather more than the mysterious monolith-makers of 2001
Neither would it help with the ultimate origins question. All it would do would be to set it back a stage since the next question would be who designed the designers? This leads, as it always does, to the equally unsatisfactory infinite regress of designers or, at some point, an entirely arbitrary un-designed designer. You take your pick.
Bornagain77/96
I see a list of arguments for God. I don’t see a similar list of arguments against God.
Is there one particular argument for God that strikes you as the strongest case? Perhaps you could set it out in more detail and we could then see how it stands up to close scrutiny.
Seversky, if you have a comparable list of arguments for atheism, please list it. In the following recent post, I addressed the only philosophical arguments for atheism that I have ever seen presented by atheists here on UD.
As to which theistic argument is my favorite, I like Aquinas’s arguments, as laid out by Dr. Egnor, but in response to SA2’s claim that the designer of life, (and apparently the universe?) was less than perfect, I mentioned the Ontological argument here in post 94
https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/from-philip-cunningham-the-human-eye-like-the-human-brain-is-a-wonder/#comment-727374
Seversky @102,
That what we are experiencing requires design is about as obvious as it gets. What is not so obvious is what is doing the designing. I don’t think the Christian God concept can hold up to scrutiny in any argument defending it.
I think the best argument for “God” is the ontological argument for “God” as the necessary ground of being/existence. However, to make that the Christian God, you have to include in that some formation of intrinsic “good” (objective morality) and “conscience” as being necessary aspects of sentient existence. Cue KF’s “First Duties” argument. However, IMO that argument has been thoroughly dismantled.
That isn’t to say that the Christian “God” doesn’t exist; it just can’t be the “ontologically necessary God.” It carries too much unnecessary ontological baggage, so to speak.
But, the ontologically necessary God cannot be the one doing the “designing,” for various reasons. The fundamental question is, what is actually being designed? Science is still in the process of figuring that out. You can’t really go any farther until you can answer that question.
Design is so obvious that there is no need to defend it. My point is that what appears to some as flawed design or sub optimal design is not necessarily either flawed or sub optimal.
Flawed design or sub optimal design is always brought up for a reason. Namely, to question the intelligence or ability of the designer. I’m just pointing out that it is an invalid argument. Since we have no idea if anything is an instance of flawed or sub optimal design. ~
Sub-optimal design is still design.
Yes, but how does one know what’s sub optimal?
It is interesting to note how JVL’s and SA2’s argument from imperfection plays out in regards to the Ontological argument.
In post 36, in response to JVL’s argument that the eye was an imperfect design, I pointed out that, in so far as we can tell from physics, the eye is to be considered a perfect design.
As William Bialek, (a professor of physics and integrative genomics at Princeton University), stated in an article entitled “More Perfect Than We Imagined”, “photoreceptor cells that carpet the retinal tissue of the eye and respond to light, are not just good or great or phabulous at their job. They are not merely exceptionally impressive by the standards of biology, with whatever slop and wiggle room the animate category implies. Photoreceptors operate at the outermost boundary allowed by the laws of physics, which means they are as good as they can be, period. Each one is designed to detect and respond to single photons of light — the smallest possible packages in which light comes wrapped. “Light is quantized, and you can’t count half a photon,”,,, “This is as far as it goes.”,,, Scientists have identified and mathematically anatomized an array of cases where optimization has left its fastidious mark,,,, In each instance, biophysicists have calculated, the system couldn’t get faster, more sensitive or more efficient without first relocating to an alternate universe with alternate physical constants.
And indeed, in regards to the the human eye being able to detect a single photon, it borders on being science fiction for us, as the following article states, “Any man-made detector would need to be cooled and isolated from noise to behave the same way.”
In regards to the amazing fact that, as far as we can tell from physics, the eye is to be considered a ‘perfect’ design, the response from the atheists here on UD has been to, basically, ask, as JVL asked in post 40, ‘WHY do humans have eyes that are functionally sub-par to other animal eyes?”
But notice how JVL’s and SA2’s argument plays into the Ontological argument for a ‘maximally great Being’, i.e. for God.
Even if our eyes had greater acuity, four colour detectors and could see into the ultraviolet range, there is nothing to prevent JVL and SA2 from then asking, “but why is our vision not even better than that?”
Essentially, JVL’s and SA2’s argument from imperfection actually assumes the ‘maximally great’, all-seeing, perfection of God’s vision as the threshold of perfection that needs to be met in order for the argument to ever have a chance to be realistically satisfied.
In short, JVL’s and SA2’s argument from imperfection fails, in a rather dramatic fashion, since their argument, (besides inadvertently assuming the reality of God in its premises), assumes the perfection that only God can possess to be present in every being that God has created.
That is to say, JVL’s and SA2’s argument will never be satisfied unless every finite being that God has created has the infinite and perfect abilities that only God himself can possess.
As should be needless to say, that is an extremely unreasonable threshold of perfection that needs to be met in order for their argument from imperfection to ever be realistically satisfied.
And again, their argument does play into the ontological argument in that they are presupposing the perfection of a ‘maximally great being’, i.e. of God, as the threshold that needs to be met in order for their argument to ever be realistically satisfied.
In short, JVL and SA2 have, unwittingly, conceded the validity of the Ontological argument as being a robust argument for the reality of God since they have, inadvertently conceded the necessary premise to the Ontological argument in order for the Ontological argument to be considered successful.
As William Lane Craig explains, in order for the atheist to defeat the ontological argument, “The atheist has to maintain that it’s impossible that God exists. He has to say that the concept of God is incoherent, like the concept of a married bachelor or a round square.”
But as JVL and SA2 themselves have proven, the concept of God is simply not incoherent to them. In fact, they themselves have presupposed the existence of God. Specifically they have presupposed the perfection of God, in their argument from imperfection.
As C.S. Lewis once asked, “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?”
And as Van Til noted, atheists need the Christian God to even have the ability to argue against Him in the first place.
Verse:
This particular defense against the argument from evil is rooted a unintentional switch of perspective. The argument is not that the atheist’s concept of evil exists, so God is not good; the argument is that the Theist’s concept of evil exists, which internally undermines the premise of a good God.
The atheist’s concept of evil is subjective/relative. It’s not the “evil” that is being pointed at when they make their argument. To say that the atheist is being irrational in identifying a thing and also denying that which is necessary for the thing is to not understand what the atheist is pointing at when he uses the term “evil.”
IOW, he’s not pointing at his evil; he’s pointing at the theist’s evil.
I have yet to see a logically sound defense of the argument from evil, and that includes KF’s “privation of the good” theory, which makes zero sense. The “greater good” and the “free will” arguments are more like Rube Goldberg contraptions than sound structures of logic.
Acartia sock:
ID doesn’t say anything about the Designer. ID is about the DESIGN.
JVL:
There isn’t any evidence for a designer that keeps intervening to keep things on track. That would defeat the purpose of an impetus to research
seversky:
So what? ID does not require God. ID does not require the supernatural. And science doesn’t care if the Designer was God or supernatural.
The infinite regress gambit is that of a weak mind. We have to focus on what we have to observe and study. And AGAIN, thanks to Newton’s four rules of scientific reasoning, the anti-ID mob has all of the power to falsify ID just by demonstrating the mechanisms they posit can produce what ID says they cannot. Yet instead they choose to flail away at ID with their desperate and willful ignorance. And that is very telling.
SA2, why do I react correctively to poor design rhetorical appeals as have been championed in recent years by the New Atheists? Because, first, they fundamentally misrepresent design, where design is critical to the progress of civilisation. You should see how I react to distorted understandings of economics, for much the same reason. Specifically, designs do not usually pivot on optimisation, because balanced trade-off to give robustly satisfactory performance is at the pivot of successful design. There is a reason why the Swiss Army Knife, the Multitool, the smart phone, the hex head screwdriver, the socket wrench set and the pc have triumphed as flexible technologies, and why a species not particularly strong or fast or well armed with teeth and claws has become the dominant species on our planet. For the success of our civilisation we need to get our understanding of design right, a valuable result in and of itself never mind what hyperskeptical, ideologically poisoned, suspicious and hostile minds trying to resolve cognitive dissonance by projecting blame to strawman caricatures of the despised other may want to think and say. Get design right. Then we can talk about other things. KF
BA77, the unresponsiveness to facts about the success and capability of the eye speaks volumes on what is really going on. KF
So WJM, there are two concepts of evil? One for atheists, and another one for Christians? If you believe that this is rigidly true across the board, with absolutely no cross over between the two concepts, then you are missing Lewis’s entire point. For us to even be able to grasp the concept of evil in the first place, we ALL, atheists and Christians alike, must first have, at the very least, some idea what good might be like. As C.S. Lewis stated, “A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line.”
Where exactly is the idea of a straight line, that atheists themselves are using to judge the world as less than perfect, coming from?
And that is precisely Lewis’s point!
And please note that C.S. Lewis was an atheist himself before he converted to Christianity!
ET: There isn’t any evidence for a designer that keeps intervening to keep things on track. That would defeat the purpose of an impetus to research
I’m not sure Dr Behe or some of the other ID proponents on this forum would agree with you but I’ll let them make their own case.
Anyway, I guess I understand your view, at least partially.
Martin_r: Obviously, human brain is using RGB color space, and obviously, our brain interprets the color pretty accurate.
How do you know it’s interpretation is accurate? What’s your standard?
JVL, I don’t care who disagrees with me. I care about what they can demonstrate.
Bornagain77: Essentially, JVL’s and SA2’s argument from imperfection actually assumes the ‘maximally great’, all-seeing, perfection of God’s vision as the threshold of perfection that needs to be met in order for the argument to ever have a chance to be realistically satisfied.
No, I compared human eyes and their capacities with other existing eyes in the animal kingdom. I did NOT assume or allude to a threshold of perfection.
It seems to me that you are the one considering ultimate and perfect vision, not me. Since you believe in God that makes sense that you would have that kind of least upper bound to visual performance.
I don’t believe in a god or gods and so I do not have some standard of perfection to compare with. Which is why it’s not part of my questions. Which is why I only ask why human eyes don’t have the same ‘abilities’ as eyes we know to exist. I only compare and contrast things known to be able to be within the capacity of the creating process.
ET: JVL, I don’t care who disagrees with me. I care about what they can demonstrate.
Fair enough.
Not trying to get at you or your opinion/view but how does the paper you frequently cite (Waiting for two . . . mutations? You know the one.) match up with your front-loaded hypothesis? If you’ve got a link to a previous discussion or explanation (on your own blog perhaps) that’s fine; no need to reiterate something you’ve already said.
We have the technology to enhance our vision to be similar to other organisms who have different vision systems. I don’t understand why that is so difficult to understand.
“Waiting for TWO Mutations” pertains to evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. It has nothing to do with evolution by means of intelligent design.
JVL, as I noted, and as you ignored, in your argument, and even if we had all the attributes of vision that you listed, there is nothing within your argument that prevents you from then asking, ‘Why is our vision not even greater, i.e. more perfect’, yet?” The only ‘natural’ stopping point for your argument from imperfection is once we have reached the infinitely perfect, i.e. all seeing, vision of God.
And, as I further pointed out, it is precisely that unreasonable threshold, that needs to be met for perfection in your argument, that defeats your entire argument and, to boot, it is precisely that unreasonable threshold that concedes the necessary premise to the Ontological argument in order for the Ontological argument to be successful.
ET: “Waiting for TWO Mutations” pertains to evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. It has nothing to do with evolution by means of intelligent design.
But it’s based on observed mutation rates. So, from your perspective, that things were designed to evolve, aren’t the observed mutation rates part of your system?
Bornagain77: JVL, as I noted, and as you ignored, in your argument, and even if we had all the attributes of vision that you listed, there is nothing within your argument that prevents you from then asking, ‘Why is our vision not even greater, i.e. more perfect’, yet?”
But I’m not asking that because it doesn’t make sense to ask for something I don’t know is possible. That’s exactly why I limited my questions to known eyes not speculative ones.
You can’t ‘defeat’ my argument by attacking a position I MIGHT take. Especially when I have explicitly said I’m not going there.
BA said:
You and Lewis err in the same way I pointed out. You’re transferring your perspective onto the atheist. The atheist argument “it’s not a perfect world” doesn’t relate to their views; it’s an argument from the internal logic of the theist. To the atheist, the world isn’t perfect or imperfect; it is what it is and they try to make it more like how they want it. It’s not matter of comparing it to a “straight line” or a “perfect world.”
So, the atheist is not referring to their own concept of a straight line or a perfect world when they make their challenge; they are referring to the theist’s perspective of “perfect world” or “straight line.”
That is why that particular rebuttal fails.
So only known existing vision systems here on earth count in your argument? How convenient, you can freely speculate about why we can’t have the vision of other animals here on earth, but it is, according to you, unfair to further freely speculate as to having even greater vision than the animals on earth?
This clearly seems to be an entirely arbitrary stopping point that you are just making up in order for you to avoid having to deal with the clear Theistic implications that follow from your argument.
But anyways, playing by your rules, why are not all the best attributes of all the creatures on earth not combined in just one creature, and why is that speculative creature not us?
Again, your argument from imperfection fails for it demands an unreasonable threshold of perfection to be met in order for us to say that anything not meeting that threshold is perfectly designed.
Using physics, I can easily find perfectly designed attributes in molecular machines of bacteria, but under your philosophical definition of perfection, you can never say anything is perfectly designed unless it possessed all attributes of all creatures on earth in a, apparently arbitrarily chosen, perfect degree.
This is clearly a VERY unreasonable threshold for perfection that has to met under your arbitrarily chosen definition of perfection.
Bornagain77 “ It is interesting to note how JVL’s and SA2’s argument from imperfection…”
As I am not arguing from imperfection I will simply assume that the rest of your comment is not relevant to my question.
In case you are serious about responding to questions instead of blindly repeating the same word salad, here is my question, for the third (or fourth) time. Why do ID proponents respond the way they do when people argue about poor design. A Lada is inarguably a poorly designed car. But I never hear anyone arguing that this means that it is not designed. Rather than argue with people who say that the eye or any other biological structure is poorly designed why don’t you just accept the fact that they are acknowledging that it is designed? As far as I know, ID does not make any claim about the quality of the design.
If I am to take up the position of the atheist, my rebuttal is this;
“I’m not the one claiming evil exists, you are. I’m not the one claiming God is all good; you are. I’m not the one saying that your all-good God is reconcilable with what you assert as “evil,” you are. So, make that case.”
You don’t get to throw it back on the atheist as if they are implicitly agreeing that what you define as straight-line good and crooked-line evil exist.
Bornagain77: So only known existing vision systems here on earth count in your argument? How convenient, you can speculate about why we con’t have the vision of other animals here on earth, but it unfair to further speculate as having even greater vision than the animals on earth?
It’s not a matter of convenience; it’s a matter of being sensible. Sure we could all speculate about things that MIGHT be possible but I was NOT doing that. My whole point was: if eyes are designed and the designer created eyes that have greater acuity than ours and detection into the ultraviolet and four colour cones then CLEARLY such things could have been granted to human beings. Why weren’t they?
This clearly seems to be an entirely arbitrary stopping point that you are just making up.
If I argue for something that we don’t know is possible in our physical system then it’s not really a sensible argument is it?
But anyways, playing by your rules, why are not all the best attributes of all the creatures on earth not combined in just one creature, and why is that speculative creature not us?
My answer: because evolution makes do with good enough a lot of the time. What’s your answer from a design point of view? Are you going to say: we don’t know the purpose of our design so we can’t say? ‘Cause that just shuts down asking those kinds of questions. And science is about asking questions.
Again, you (sic) argument from imperfection fails for it demands an unreasonable threshold of perfection to be met in order for us to say that anything not meeting that threshold is perfectly designed.
But I didn’t argue or ask for something perfect. You seem to have a false version of my line of reasoning stuck in your head and you are going to insist that’s what I meant when I clearly did not intend to go down that road. You can’t argue against something I didn’t say!! Well, you can but it’s misguided.
Using physics, I can easily find perfectly designed attributes in molecular machines of bacteria, but under your philosophical definition of perfection, you can never say anything is perfectly designed unless is possessed (sic) all attributes of all creatures on earth.
I never used the word ‘perfect’ or ‘perfection’. I don’t think such a notion makes sense in the real world of biology.
This is clearly a VERY unreasonable threshold for perfection that has to met (sic) under your arbitrarily chosen definition of perfection.
I never used the term ‘perfection’ so how can you suppose to know what my definition of it is?
Whatever SA2, you claim the eye is poorly designed, I say it is exquisitely designed.
We disagree. Fine. Go build a better eye and prove me, (and physics), wrong.
to repeat,
Whatever, JVL, I am more than satisfied that I have made my case. It is clear that you have no argument, (much less do you have ANY scientific evidence that evolution can create ANYTHING), to support your position, and that you are now just throwing stuff at the wall to see if it sticks.
I will gladly let unbiased readers judge for themselves who has the better argument.
Have a nice day.
Does evil exist? A word for which there is no definition.
Probably should be forgotten on this OP. But it has been discussed in detail elsewhere.
Maybe comment here
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-argument-from-evil-is-absurd/#comment-725262
Again WJM, you are missing Lewis’s entire point.
Bornagain77: Whatever, JVL, I am more than satisfied that I have made my case. It is clear that you have no argument, (much less do you have ANY scientific evidence that evolution can create ANYTHING), to support your position, and that you are now just throwing stuff at the wall to see if it sticks.
Let’s just clear up one thing: I did not use the terms ‘perfect’ or ‘perfection’ in my arguments/questions about eyes except when responding to your use of those terms. Agreed?
Bornagain77 “ Whatever SA2, you claim the eye is poorly designed, I say it is exquisitely designed.“
But I am wondering why you, as an ID proponent, care one way or the other. They both involve design. ID wins. End of story. But your response is not unique. ID proponents are never happy with the idea that poor design is still proof of design. A true ID scientist would be ecstatic over the demonstration of design, even if the design is shoddy. The fact that they are not raises some serious questions about what the ID movement is really all about.
We are repeatedly told that ID is not just a repackaging of scientific creationism. Yet ID proponents get all defensive when it is suggested that the design is less than perfect. Why would ID proponents be concerned one way or the other about the competence of the designer?
Who says they are shoddy? You?
I don’t see any shoddy design with the universe, life, or evolution.
ID is about showing that the universe, life, and most if not all of evolution is intelligence driven. Either directly or indirectly.
Your comment is full of non-sequiturs.
You seem to be looking for a weakness in ID. There have been thousands before you trying the same. All failed.
Jerry “ You seem to be looking for a weakness in ID.”
No. I am just trying to rationalize the behaviour of ID supporters. I simply don’t understand why they get so defensive whenever anyone says that the design is flawed. Why would they care if there were some flaws in the design?
WJM @ 130,
Look at atheists’ arguments against God and/or his goodness from the existence of evil, here, for instance:
https://infidels.org/library/modern/ryan_stringer/logical-evil.html
They use the existence of evil as a premise, implying that they take it to be the case for their side. They consider it so obvious to both sides that they don’t even bother defending it, presuming it’s the same for both sides. He’s not just taking the theist’s side and showing a problem with theistic thinking. He’s saying a good God doesn’t exist from _his_ perspective.
In a sense they don’t. But the flawed/sub optimal argument has been used against ID hundreds of times if not thousands.
My guess is that the real target is the Judeo/Christian God and undermining ID is a way to do this. But in reality ID says nothing about the creator of the universe except that the creator of the universe has a massive intelligence.
And it is a flawed argument because no one can show flawed or sub optimal design. People show things they personally don’t like and then claim flawed or sub optimal design but not something actually wrong with the design. We have no idea what the specifics of the design are about from an obviously extremely intelligent designer.
JVL @ 131,
>…ultraviolet and four colour cones then CLEARLY such things could have been granted to human beings. Why weren’t they?
Why would/should we know this?
To extend BA77’s line of reasoning, would you have a problem if some _other_ creature only had 3-color vision while we had four? Would you say that was unfair, or evidence against design? We’re concerned that your argument can never be satisfied, even when design is still obvious.
SA @ 129,
>Why do ID proponents respond the way they do when people argue about poor design… Rather than argue with people who say that the eye or any other biological structure is poorly designed why don’t you just accept the fact that they are acknowledging that it is designed?
If I may be allowed to attempt to being some clarity to the discussion…it seems there are two things going on here:
1) The argument over whether biological structures are perfect or not. Some are arguing that the eye is physically perfect in some regards. So there’s this disagreement over physical facts.
2) The second argument is whether we can even know whether something is flawed or perfect, if we don’t know what the designer was intending in the first place. It’s always possible to find a way in which any physical thing could be better. Just pick an aspect that another creature/object has in greater abundance. I think we are agreeing that such creative thinking on our part does not mean the thing was not designed. Settled?
We’re just trying to put these two points forth. Maybe they get mixed up sometimes.
I’m agreeing that in general, imperfect design (by whatever type of lacking we decide to cherry-pick) is still evidence of design. Cool?
BA77 @ 109,
Very well articulated! 🙂
EDTA: Why would/should we know this?
ID is science, science asks questions. Maybe we’ll never know (from the ID perspective) but it’s okay to ask surely.
To extend BA77’s line of reasoning, would you have a problem if some _other_ creature only had 3-color vision while we had four? Would you say that was unfair, or evidence against design? We’re concerned that your argument can never be satisfied, even when design is still obvious.
If you think life was designed then it’s fair to ask why certain creatures were given certain abilities and others were not. I’m not saying it’s evidence against design; I’m wondering why certain design decisions were made. And I figured that it’s fair to ask.
It’s not a question of me being ‘satisfied’; it’s a matter of trying to answer questions. Do you think some questions are ‘unfair’ or inappropriate? Why would that be?
Jerry: And it is a flawed argument because no one can show flawed or sub optimal design. People show things they personally don’t like and then claim flawed or sub optimal design but not something actually wrong with the design. We have no idea what the specifics of the design are about from an obviously extremely intelligent designer.
Okay. But do you think it’s fair to ask why certain design decisions were made? For example: since other animals have much greater visual acuity can we ask why humans were not chosen to have the same? Clearly it’s possible so why weren’t humans granted that same level of function?
A completely disingenuous comment since it has been given an extremely plausible answer.
But what else is new.
Jerry: A completely disingenuous comment since it has been given an extremely plausible answer.
I shall look back over the thread and try and find the answer you are referring to.
Did you mean this:
And it is a flawed argument because no one can show flawed or sub optimal design. People show things they personally don’t like and then claim flawed or sub optimal design but not something actually wrong with the design. We have no idea what the specifics of the design are about from an obviously extremely intelligent designer.
Not having an idea of what the design specifications are/were . . . does that mean it’s not fair to ask?
Look, if your view is: we can’t know that, we can never know that . . . well, that’s your view. But I thought a science should be open to all questions.
EDTA @140, said:
Stringer is either deliberately (arguendo) or unwittingly accepting the theistic concept of objective good and evil in making his argument. When a theist says “evil exists,” it is an entirely different thing than when an atheist says “evil exists.” Lewis’ and BA77’s rebuttal to the argument fallaciously capitalizes on this.
JVL, you keep asking if it’s “fair to ask” these questions, or asserting that it is.
What does “fair” mean? Do you mean relevant? It’s not relevant wrt determining design.
William J Murray: What does “fair” mean? Do you mean relevant? It’s not relevant wrt determining design.
Clearly it doesn’t mean relevant. Can you think of a good reason I should help you with a concept I think is very easy to grasp? And why should I be subject to what you ‘think’? And, while we’re at it: does what you think have any meaning at all? Does it matter at all? Why should I answer you?
WJM keeps claiming, “When a theist says “evil exists,” it is an entirely different thing than when an atheist says “evil exists.””
First off, to the extent that evil can even be said to objectively exist, it is merely a departure from some objectively good thing that ought to be.
Although this is a fictitious account of Einstein as a boy, it still gets this point across very clearly:
Secondly, although an atheist may deny that good and evil objectively exist,
although an atheist may deny that good and evil objectively exist, he does actually live his life as if good and evil did not objectively exist.
Richard Dawkins himself admitted that it would be ‘intolerable’ for him to live his life as if he had no moral agency
In what should be needless to say, if it is impossible for you to live as if your worldview were actually true then your worldview cannot possibly reflect reality as it really is but your worldview must instead be based on a delusion.
Thus although an atheist may say one thing, his actions betray him and testify to an objective morality that he himself intuitively knows to objectively exists.
So WJM contrary to whatever an atheist may have told you in the past about him just using the Theist’s position on evil to try to argue against him, when we are talking about good and evil, there is in fact a very strong common bond in what we, (atheists and theists), are talking about. They may deny it, but they are in fact referring to things that we all intuitively know to objectively exist i.e. to things we all intuitively know to be be a departure from a good thing that ought to be. The way they live their very own lives testify to this fact.
And indeed, if we did not share this very deep, intuitive, grasp of what good and evil is, then I can guarantee you the argument from evil would not be one of the.most powerful, emotionally charged, arguments that atheists have constantly tried to use against Theists. It would certainly lose a lot of its ’emotional’ punch if morality really were merely illusory as the atheist holds.
Evil in our world just means very bad things that happen to people either through nature or through the intentional acts of other people. There are all sorts of permutations of this. For example, how wide speed the bad things are, the context surrounding the bad things such as war, people doing bad things to animals or animals doing horrific things to other animals. It might be worthwhile to look at past OP’s to see what has been discussed.
What is very bad also varies by person. Often depending on how squeamish they are.
I doubt you will find any atheist that doesn’t use the term “evil.” And if you asked them what was evil, the specific events would not differ much from a theist. I’m sure some of them are aware of the theological implications of the term and will use or not use it accordingly.
It has been used by atheists to argue against ID but more specifically to argue against the Judeo/Christian God whom they assume ID supporters believe is the intelligence in ID.
Jerry, well said.
A different tack on all this.
The supposed non-optimality of the human eye design is really all about the inevitable tradeoffs necessitated by the scientific principles of optics and detectors that result from the laws of physics, combined with the design functional performance requirements. Just a little on these tradeoffs the designer, any designer, is faced with. These have resulted in what I think is probably an optimal eye design for human beings considering that they are semi-nocturnal in addition to being active in the daytime under high light conditions, additionally need very high visual acuity, and probably don’t need ultraviolet or other color detection outside the bandwidth of the present design.
The following is an analysis of some of these tradeoffs in the example case of the design of the hawkmoth’s eye and associated neural visual processing. Of course the researchers assumed that undirected RM + NS (a semi-random walk) designed the hawkmoth’s eye system, but the tradeoffs still had to be made whatever the process.
From the research paper, “Resolving the Trade-off Between Visual Sensitivity and Spatial Acuity—Lessons from Hawkmoths” at https://academic.oup.com/icb/article/57/5/1093/4004722 :
Let’s try this again:
Bornagain77: Whatever, JVL, I am more than satisfied that I have made my case. It is clear that you have no argument, (much less do you have ANY scientific evidence that evolution can create ANYTHING), to support your position, and that you are now just throwing stuff at the wall to see if it sticks.
Let’s just clear up one thing: I did not use the terms ‘perfect’ or ‘perfection’ in my arguments/questions about eyes except when responding to your use of those terms. Agreed?
JVL,
The Munsell/Ostwald type colour spindle or similar colour cylinder models allow us to identify and create reference frameworks for hue, saturation, value [~ luminance or brightness/darkness]. These are related to the CIE tongue of colour, pantone and now de facto Adobe models. The practical import of such is in the ubiquitous presence of colour screens and sensor array based cameras [e.g. in the smart phone that has now taken over from pocket cameras and home movie cameras alike].
These are in turn tied to experimental investigations of human vision.
It turns out that practical colour gamuts based on pigments or lights are unable to capture the full gamut of what we can see, indeed, there are models that use artificial colours to span the gamut. As a glance at discussions of say the Enchroma system will tell us, part of the reason is the eye exploits the differences in responses of its various cones to detect colours. When certain cones have response curves that are too close or are missing, various colour deficiencies emerge.
In that context, we can obviously see that our colour vision system is on the whole adequate, functionally and aesthetically. Indeed, it even enables us to turn eyes into ears via the invention of text and of reading. Robust adequacy is what we should recognise as the pivot of design. (For top-of-the-head example, the visual system uses a good part of our brains, and there is a trade-off of brain/head size and feasibility of birth. Systems are subject to the facet phenomenon: each part depends on the others and contributes to the others, to attain overall function.)
BA77 has a valid point on the import of the complaint against mere adequacy.
For, a perfection ratchet applied in the face of obvious adequacy points to a demand for ultimate perfection and the implicit issue, why aren’t we just like God in powers. Where, one does not have to explicitly demand ultimate perfection to imply a ratchet, it is present in the implied demand for more, more, more, regardless of manifest adequacy. The mere fact of human dominance speaks to adequacy, and the further fact that we are makers able to collectively use culture to augment our capabilities as needed through invention and manufacture rooted in sci-tech, points to a broader capability than is directly present in our eyes. Overall balance counts, per the facet phenomenon.
KF
PS: Note, Wiki testifying against interest:
There are obvious trade-offs here within and beyond the brain and across the lifespan including issues of reproduction and birth.
As a sci fi scenario we could see a tech society that uses uterine replicators and removes constraints as noted to create higher performance levels, in effect using our other capabilities to re-engineer vision. But that would beg the question, why not patch in a camera system instead, which would be more flexible?
KF
Jerry, bad is a synonym for evil. There are reasons for the understanding that evils are privations of what is good in itself out of line with purpose or ends; which may be naturally evident to the eye of reason. KF
BA77,
I agree that atheists are bad at making their argument. That doesn’t change the fact that you and Lewis are taking advantage of switching concepts in making your rebuttals. That atheists and theists have a “common bond” in what they identify as evil, or in how they feel about things they agree on are evil, is irrelevant; you’re talking about two entirely different things.
Saying that the atheist is necessarily referring to an objective good when they point out what is to them a subjective evil (at its conceptual root) is a failure of logic. It doesn’t matter if atheists fail to point that out or fail to recognize it; that is what is going on.
Define “evil.” If you are going to use the term, then define it.
I maintain there is no definition for the word that people commonly use.
The most common usage can best be explained by calling “evil,” unwanted unpleasant events. Stubbing your toe then becomes evil under this most frequently used understanding of the word.
The “lack of the good” definition is essentially a useless definition. Everything in the universe fits that description.
I used the word “bad” in the first sense above and Kf immediately took “bad” to mean the second sense.
All this is are word games.
Most definitely not an aside: why would nearly everyone object to calling stubbing your toe evil? It fits the definition most people have. So why is it absurd?
So let me redefine evil from my comment above.
To some stubbing the toe would fit the “very,” to others it wouldn’t.
The interesting thing is I have found no one wants to discuss the meaning of this word which shall not be named but which they use all the time. Why?
The atheists here on UD, without knowing God’s exact intentions for creating the eye as he did, are arguing that the eye’s design is flawed and/or sub-optimal and, in SA2’s case, could therefore be the work of a ‘mediocre designer’, and not the work of the Judeo-Christian God, and in JVL’s case, since he does not “believe in a god or gods”, I’m assuming, JVL is holding that ‘sub-optimal’ design must be the result of the mindless processes of Darwinian evolution.
And please note that JVL does not have any scientific evidence that mindless Darwinian processes can create even a single functional protein,
Thus JVL’s argument is, first off, an argument from ignorance, in that he is ignorant of God’s exact intentions for creating the eye as he did, and, secondly, his argument is a non sequitur in that it does not automatically follow, (just because something may be sub-optimal in JVL’s subjective opinion), that that perceived sub-optimal design must be the result of mindless Darwinian processes.
It is a huge unwarranted leap to go from JVL’s subjectively perceived sub-optimal design to mindless Darwinian processes which have never been observed to create even a single functional protein.
It would be far more rational for JVL to admit, as SA2 has apparently done, that his subjectively perceived sub-optimal design, is still evidence of design.
Now in regards to SA2’s claim, (because of such a poor design as he claims the eye is), that the designer must be a ‘flawed’ and/or ‘mediocre’ designer and therefore can not possibly be the Judeo-Christian God.
First off, and to repeat, SA2 is simply wrong in his claim that the eye is poorly designed and is therefore the work of a ‘mediocre designer’. In fact, as far a physics itself can tell us, and to repeat, the eye is to be considered a ‘perfect design’. As physic professor of Princeton, William Bialek, commented, “the system couldn’t get faster, more sensitive or more efficient without first relocating to an alternate universe with alternate physical constants.”
Therefore, as far as science itself can tell us, and regardless of anyone’s personal subjective opinion as to what would constitute perfect design for the eye, the eye is to be considered a perfect design. Period!
And unlike JVL and SA2, this is not my subjective opinion as to what constitutes perfect design, this ‘perfect design’ of the eye is what the science itself is telling us.
And I will choose science over subjective opinions any day.
And since it is Easter, and since the argument from imperfection is a subset of the atheist’s argument from evil, I will now look at the atheist’s argument from evil.
The atheist’s argument from evil goes like this,
And yet this is, once again, a self defeating position for the atheist to be in.
Specifically on the one hand, Atheistic materialists hold that morality is subjective and illusory.
And yet on the other hand, as David Wood puts it in the following article, “By declaring that suffering is evil, atheists have admitted that there is an objective moral standard by which we distinguish good and evil.”
In fact, as I pointed out in 152, “although an atheist may deny that good and evil objectively exist, he does actually live his life as if good and evil did not objectively exist.”
Thus, the argument from evil, regardless of whatever emotional baggage that may be associated with it, is simply a self-defeating argument for the atheist to make since the atheist, whether he wants to or not, is forced to admit the existence of an objective moral standard to judge by.
As Dr. Michael Egnor noted, “Even to raise the problem of evil is to tacitly acknowledge transcendent standards, and thus to acknowledge God’s existence. From that starting point, theodicy begins. Theists have explored it profoundly. Atheists lack the standing even to ask the question.,,,”
Specifically, The moral argument for God is summed up at the 4:36 minute mark of the video and can be stated as such:
And in regards to theodicy, i.e. reconciling an all good God with the existence of evil, that is indeed what the cross is all about.
Christian theodicy in particular, out of all the mono-Theistic religions, takes the problem of evil head on, and certainly does not shy away from the problem of reconciling an all good God with the existence of evil!
As the following article states, “given the drastic nature of this solution, (i.e. the Cross), we begin to recognize that God takes the problem of evil more seriously than we could ever have taken it ourselves. ,,,”
Happy Easter everyone. He is Risen!
Happy Easter everyone! For most of you this is the most important day of the year and I hope you get some time for reflection and gain some inspiration.
Subjective words like evil, beauty, goodness are only understood by feeling them. Subjective words can only be used by choice, so there is always an alternative subjective word available. It provides an invalid opinion if a subjective word is not chosen, like to be forced to say a painting is beautiful, provides an invalid opinion.
Subjective words are in reference to the spirit that decides.
So it means when you choose the opinion someone is evil, then because you arrived at the opinion by choice, then in turn someone can express the opinion you are evil for saying that person is evil.
Things like objective goodness are a total lie.
WJM, you are still completely missing Lewis’s point.
I could care less what atheists say. I care about what is actually true. And as the atheist’s own life testifies, the existence of morality is, pretty much, just as objectively real for them as it is for anyone else.
This is my last response to you on this matter since I know that empirical evidence counts for nought in your mental model of reality.
The atheists here on UD, without knowing God’s exact intentions for creating the eye as he did, are arguing that the eye’s design is flawed and/or sub-optimal and, in SA2’s case, could therefore be the work of a ‘mediocre, ‘flawed’, designer’, and not the work of the ‘flawless’ Judeo-Christian God, and in JVL’s case, since he does not “believe in a god or gods”, I’m assuming, JVL is holding that ‘sub-optimal’ design must be the result of the mindless processes of Darwinian evolution.
And please note that JVL does not have any scientific evidence that mindless Darwinian processes can create even a single functional protein,
Thus, JVL does not have ANY scientific evidence that mindless processes can create anything, much less create the supposed ‘sub-optimal’ eye.
Thus JVL’s argument is, first off, an argument from ignorance, in that he is ignorant of God’s exact intentions for creating the eye as he did, and, secondly, his argument is a non sequitur in that it does not automatically follow, (just because something may be sub-optimal in JVL’s subjective opinion), that that perceived sub-optimal design must be the result of mindless Darwinian processes.
It is a huge unwarranted leap to go from JVL’s subjectively perceived sub-optimal design to mindless Darwinian processes which have never been observed to create even a single functional protein.
It would be far more rational for JVL to admit, as SA2 has apparently done, that his subjectively perceived sub-optimal design, is still evidence of design, not for mindless Darwinian processes.
Now in regards to SA2’s claim, (because of such a poor design as he claims the eye is), that the designer must be a ‘flawed’ and/or ‘mediocre’ designer and therefore can not possibly be the Judeo-Christian God.
First off, and to repeat, SA2 is simply wrong in his claim that the eye is poorly designed and is therefore the work of a ‘mediocre designer’. In fact, as far a physics itself can tell us, and to repeat, the eye is to be considered a ‘perfect design’. As physic professor of Princeton, William Bialek, commented, “the system couldn’t get faster, more sensitive or more efficient without first relocating to an alternate universe with alternate physical constants.”
Therefore, as far as science itself can tell us, and regardless of anyone’s personal subjective opinion as to what would constitute perfect design for the eye, the eye is to be considered a perfect design. Period!
And unlike JVL and SA2, this is not my subjective opinion as to what constitutes perfect design, this ‘perfect design’ of the eye is what the science itself is telling us.
And I will choose science over subjective opinions any day.
And since it is Easter, and since the argument from imperfection is a subset of the atheist’s argument from evil, I will now look at the atheist’s argument from evil.
The atheist’s argument from evil goes like this,
And yet this is, once again, a self defeating position for the atheist to be in.
Specifically on the one hand, Atheistic materialists hold that morality is subjective and illusory.
And yet on the other hand, as David Wood puts it in the following article, “By declaring that suffering is evil, atheists have admitted that there is an objective moral standard by which we distinguish good and evil.”
In fact, as I pointed out in 152, “although an atheist may deny that good and evil objectively exist, he does actually live his life as if good and evil did not objectively exist.” (but lives and acts as if morality is objectively real)
Thus, the argument from evil, regardless of whatever emotional baggage that may be associated with it, is simply a self-defeating argument for the atheist to make since the atheist, whether he wants to or not, is forced, (via the way he himself lives his life), to admit to the objective existence of a moral standard to judge by.
As Dr. Michael Egnor noted, “Even to raise the problem of evil is to tacitly acknowledge transcendent standards, and thus to acknowledge God’s existence. From that starting point, theodicy begins. Theists have explored it profoundly. Atheists lack the standing even to ask the question.,,,”
also see: “Evil as it exists in the world is exactly what theism, understood classically, predicts. Atheism has a problem of evil, and the existence of genuine evil is fatal to atheism.”
Specifically, The moral argument for God is summed up at the 4:36 minute mark of the video and can be stated as such:
And in regards to theodicy, i.e. reconciling an all good God with the existence of evil, that is indeed what the cross is all about.
Christian theodicy in particular, out of all the mono-Theistic religions, takes the problem of evil head on, and certainly does not shy away from the problem of reconciling an all good God with the existence of evil!
As the following article states, “given the drastic nature of this solution, (i.e. the Cross), we begin to recognize that God takes the problem of evil more seriously than we could ever have taken it ourselves. ,,,”
Happy Easter everyone. He is Risen!
Evil, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
To most people, the Holocaust was unmitigated evil on an unprecedented scale. To dedicated Nazis, who attributed the perceived ills of their society to the influence of Jews, it was purging society of that evil and was, therefore, a good thing.
Either way, the Universe did not recoil in horror at such an act, there was just Dawkins’s blind, pitiless indifference. Neither did the Christian God rain down fire and brimstone to obliterate Nazi Germany for displeasing him as He is supposed to have done with Sodom and Gomorrah. Apparently, homosexuality offends Him much more than genocide.
It’s useless to discuss in contradictory terms with atheists. Mind have a lot of mental viruses ,logic and discussion not help. it’s about atheists free choice to keep vanity or return to humility. Just respect their free choice(God does) and hope for the best. 🙂
Seversky, you do realize that the holocaust was the fruit of Darwinian ideology do you not?
Indeed, the entire edifice of Marxism rests on Darwinian ideology:
also of note: The unmitigated horror visited upon man, by state sponsored atheism, would be hard to exaggerate,,, Here’s what happens when these Godless atheists took control of their Governments:
This is, in reality, probably just a drop in the bucket. Who knows how many undocumented murders there were. It also doesn’t count all the untold millions of abortions from around the world.
Bornagain77/167
As so often, Egnor has it backwards. The very existence of theodicy as a thriving discipline in Christian theology is a standing admission that the faith has a profound problem reconciling the existence of evil with the attributes assigned to its God.
As for transcendent moral standards, Egnor is not arguing that they could be Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist which makes this claim a blatantly Christian bid to annex the moral high ground. And besides being a tacit acknowledgement that he would not know good from evil unless his God told him which was which, they appear to be most notable by their absence. Throughout recorded history, human beings have apparently had no trouble blithely ignoring these alleged transcendent moral standards whenever it suited them and that includes Christians.
Bornagain77/170
You do realize that Weikart’s work is the product of an anti-Darwinian agenda based in his religious views? You do realize that, by emphasizing the tenuous links between Darwin’s work and the Nazi project while failing to give due weight to the long history of anti-Semitism in Christian Europe, as exemplified by Martin Luther’s On The Jews And Their Lies, the quality of his scholarship in this issue is called into question?
Seversky states, “As so often, Egnor has it backwards. The very existence of theodicy as a thriving discipline in Christian theology is a standing admission that the faith has a profound problem reconciling the existence of evil with the attributes assigned to its God.”
🙂
LOL, and defeating sin and death on the cross is supposedly not reconciling an infinitely holy and just God with finite sinful man in your book?
If not that, one wonders what could possibly ever bridge that infinite moral gap in Seversky’s mind.
Despite what is commonly believed, of someone being ‘good enough’ to go to heaven, in reality both Mother Teresa and Hitler fall inherently short of the moral perfection required to meet the perfection of God’s infinitely just and holy moral code
Thus, humans find themselves in quite a moral dilemma. People intuitively know that objective morality exists, (as atheists on this very thread give witness to by the way they live their own lives, and even when they try to make moral arguments against the existence of God), and yet we have no way, by our own finite efforts, of reaching the infinite moral perfection that is required to meet God’s infinite standard of moral perfection.
The only way we can possibly be morally perfect in God’s eyes is if God himself somehow imparts that moral perfection onto, and into, us. And that is exactly what God has done through Jesus Christ:
Verse:
Seversky claims the links of Darwinian Ideology and Hitler are ‘tenuous’.
The ‘neuronal illusion’ that we call Seversky lives in a fantasy world of his own making! 🙂
From both horses mouths
I see that ID proponents are still trying to argue against flawed design when they should be responding with “who cares? ID is about the detection of design, not the detection of perfect design.”
And with regard to evil, I would have to disagree with Jerry. The way I have always looked at evil is that it requires two things. It must cause harm and it must be through the intentional act of a human with a selfish motive, knowing that it would cause harm.
I don’t think that earthquakes or floods are evil, but they undoubtedly cause harm. A pilot who crashed his plane through pilot error is not evil. However, a pilot who crashes his plane for ideological reasons is evil.
“they should be responding with “who cares?”
Okie Dokie
“Who cares” what SA2 thinks?
🙂
There all better.
Is it evil not to accept homosexuals as equal members of society?
“Who cares”
Bornagain77 “ “Who cares”“
Do you have a response that doesn’t make you look like a petulant child?
“Do you have a response that doesn’t make you look like a petulant child?”
Huh? I lifted the term “Who cares” from you in your own non-response to my arguments against your position.
In fact you assiduously avoid and ignore my posts, on my own thread I might add, to go off on you own tangents.
I consider that to be blatantly trollish behavior. And, unlike KF, I have my limits for tolerating trollish behavior.
Moreover, ‘who cares’ is exactly what is to be expected on Darwinian morality.
Only on the altruism of Christian Morality does it even make sense for someone to ask ‘who cares’ if homosexuals are treated fairly or not.
As Jordan Peterson noted,
Atheism, as a worldview, is simply completely incoherent through and through, and certainly cannot serve as a basis for deriving any sort of coherent moral code.
Of supplemental note to Seversky’s claim that Christian morality is not superior to other systems of morality.
Ancient historian, Tom Holland, finds that the narrative that the ‘enlightenment’ reasoning saved western civilization from the ‘dark ages’ of Medieval Christianity to be a false revisionist whig history. The truth is that Christianity saved western civilization from the ‘dark ages’ of Greek and the Roman morality.
He is risen indeed!
Now, on to less important matters.
SA2,
>Is it evil not to accept homosexuals as equal members of society?
That depends entirely on whether homosexual behaviors are acceptable to God, which we have already debated endlessly. (Christians are frustratingly consistent, aren’t they?)
But I think you are correct that evil is properly defined as harm. That leads immediately to the problem of what harm is. Which, tellingly, leads right back to the same type of philosophical problem we have been discussing: How do we recognize harm? Is it defined by nature /evolution, and what it does or does not do? If so, then death is not harm, because death is a purely “natural” thing; evolution “intends” it (i.e., operates by it), so that other more fit organisms can come along and take their place. This doesn’t prove such a definition is wrong, but damn, it must be depressing to live in that realm of pitiless indifference and harm and evil with no end!
Is it just the presence of pain, or by extension, displeasure? Whose? We are constantly putting ourselves in situations where our gain is someone else’s harm. We need some rational way to decide whether harm is happening, who is being harmed, and thus what constitutes harm. A human-centric definition leaves us with the same relativistic problem we had before. Again, this doesn’t mean it is wrong, but it isn’t very workable.
Harm needs a transcendent definition, so that’s not relative to the whims of one person or group. Otherwise there can be no getting along. And this brings the debate right back to where it belongs: God, the standard-setter.
But that is not how the arguments go. The ones trying to distance the Judeo/Christian God from the senseless death or disease by natural causes have their sights on those who accuse God for allowing these things to happen. These accusers say the Judeo/Christian God is the author of this harm so is therefore responsible. Their target is not a god per se but the Judeo/Christian God.
This has a long history but mainly goes back to November 1, 1755 or the Lisbon earthquake. Or the day that changed the world. Why did so many innocent people die that day. Especially the ones in church?
http://befreeandtravel.com/wp-.....912sml.jpg
To get around this, these religious people say that God is not involved in any natural events so as to distance God from these type of events. They are called theistic evolutionists and espouse natural mechanisms for evolution so support Darwin’s methods.
They also support Darwin’s ideas since they want personal acceptance by the mainstream scientific community.
This has been cover numerous times on this site so this not something new here.
EDTA “ That depends entirely on whether homosexual behaviors are acceptable to God, which we have already debated endlessly. (Christians are frustratingly consistent, aren’t they?)“
Actually Christians are not very consistent. But that is a subject for another day.
I agree, harm is very difficult to define. And it definitely lives on a sliding scale.
But I qualified evil as something that causes harm and is caused with intent and selfish motivation. However, I realized that I should have added another qualifier, knowledge that it would cause harm.
An earthquake could collapse a dam that kills thousands of people. But nobody would call the earthquake evil. However, a contractor who cuts corners to maximize profit in the construction of the dam that collapsed during the earthquake might be considered evil. But he would probably be considered to be less evil than someone who intentionally sabotages the dam.
Jerry@182, I understand the arguments that God not preventing disasters or disease is an act of evil but I don’t accept those arguments. Given that he is supposed to be all-knowing, it could simply be that he knows that preventing these might actually to more harm to humanity in the long term. The charge of being callous might apply, but not evil.
Few would see the difference between being callous and letting people suffer and die unnecessarily. I for one fail to see any difference.
Of course I don’t see any problem.
This I agree with and gets at what might explain it all.
I believe this is the best of all possible worlds. But what must be necessary for it to be best?
The “bad/ inferior design” argument was dispensed with back in 1992: Intelligent Design is not Optimal Design. It is just another in a long list of PRATTs. ID’s opponents aren’t very bright.
Earthquakes are a necessary part of the design of the planets. They not only give us a means of understanding the earth’s interior, they are also part of the necessary carbon recycling process. It’s up to us to understand earthquakes and respond accordingly.
All of these alleged imperfections give us an impetus to figure out what is going on and understand it. Which is what you want from a universe that was intelligently designed for scientific discovery (that is the point of “The Privileged Planet”)
I don’t understand seversky’s objection in 172. Every rational person should have an anti-Darwinian agenda. 😛
Jerry “ Few would see the difference between being callous and letting people suffer and die unnecessarily. I for one fail to see any difference.“
I think an example would explain how I see the difference.
At one time many ports would have a quarantine island where the people on any ship were forced to be quarantined if there was some illness on board such as TB. Given the medical knowledge of the day, this was the most appropriate course of action. It would be callous if you didn’t think about the possibility that those who were not infected when they arrived may become infected as the result of the quarantine. But it would not be evil.
That’s up to society, as you keep telling us. 😛 And, as far as I can tell, society has been treating most everyone equally for quite some time.
As to the comment on earthquakes, etc.., and people losing their faith because of seemingly senseless suffering in this world,,,
The best philosophical response I’ve seen thus far has been this one, i.e. “the Beatific Vision”
And the best testimony that I’ve seen from a Near Death Experiencer, in regards to this issue of why God allows evil in the world, has been this one,,
The problem of pain/evil, and how we react to tragedy in our lives, was almost central to Dr. Mary Neal’s following talk on her near death experience.
At around the 15:00 – 17:00 minute mark of the following video, Dr. Mary Neal spoke about how she, when in the presence of God, and from being able to see things from that much higher “omniscient’ perspective of God, finally understood why God allows evil in the world (i.e. she finally ‘got it’) and understood how our limited perspective on ‘evil’ severely clouds our judgments and our reactions to tragedies in our lives. (The take home message from her talk is to trust in God no matter what happens)
And as neurosurgeon Eben Alexander stated following his Near Death Experience, “,,He (God) is right here with each of us right now, seeing what we see, suffering what we suffer… and hoping desperately that we will keep our hope and faith in Him. Because that hope and faith will be triumphant.”
Verse:
SA2, your picking up the muddied strawman you knocked over before and repeating the stunt does not answer the issue and continues the same problem of perpetuating a fundamental and dangerous misunderstanding of design. FYI, overly specialised — narrowly “optimal” — designs give up adapatability or robustness and become brittle. The art of design is to find adequate or good performance that is sufficiently robust through judicious tradeoffs. I have already highlighted for you that our vision system already takes up a good chunk of our brains [we are strongly visual creatures], and that this ties to things like the birth process. What we have is a highly successful design for a highly adaptive creature with other individual and collective systems that then augment as required, e.g. telescopes, microscopes. We have corrective instruments [including now for many types of colour blindness]. The posing of a perfection ratchet with no limit but the all-seeing eye of God, fails. And BA77 is right that in failing it points to the possibility of maximally great being, which further sets up a solid answer to the understanding of evil and to the late, unlamented problem of evil that fell to Plantinga’s free will defence 50 years ago. KF
PS: Meanwhile, a happy Resurrection Day, where
ET: And, as far as I can tell, society has been treating most everyone equally for quite some time.
You mean like letting same-sex couples marry?
Bornagain77: According to Feser, there is no reason to believe that the Christian God, being all-good and all-powerful, would prevent suffering on this earth if out of suffering he could bring about a good that is far greater than any that would have existed otherwise.
Great. Perhaps that scheme could be explained to us so that we would understand and stay fast.
Jerry, if the definition of philosophy itself is a difficult problem — the best I have found is to define in those terms as the discipline of posing and discussing hard, core problems — it is unsurprising that there will be views all over the map on what evil is. The challenge then is comparative difficulties and key cases are often instructive. Hence, my reference to moral yardstick 1, the case of an unfortunate child pounced on by a murderous predator. From this we can make a lot of sense through seeing evil as a destructive parasite on the good, often via perverse use of freedom that frustrates or wrenches things away from their proper ends. Ends that are often sufficiently manifest. A child is not properly a target for sexual gratification, especially at expense of life. Similarly, people unjustly kidnapped by Nazis in countries seized by force or fraud were not properly reduced to guinea pigs for murderous medical experiments; that is a sort of gruesome cannibalism of dark science, itself being perverted. Perversion, being a key concept, twisting out of the due course to naturally evident ends . . . something those busily trying to redefine and restructure human society to suit their proclivities would do well to heed. Never mind, that doctors were right to then use the knowledge bought so horrifically to save lives of others, more than were lost to the holocaust. Then, they took efforts to rebuild the knowledge on an ethically clean basis, over decades and costing many millions, but their judgement was they had to set a fresh precedent to stop the progressive taint. We can go on and on. KF
JVL:
No one said it was an intelligent and reasonable society.
Kf,
All you are doing is listing some extremely distasteful examples which would be classified as moral evil if that concept was used. The issue with the existence of the Judeo/Christian God is with natural evil not moral evil.
I purposefully defined evil as very unwanted unpleasant situations. Defining evil as the frustration of true ends or something similar like the absence of good ends up in a morass that is not necessary.
The modifier “unwanted” is probably not necessary but added because someone in the past thought unwanted made it worse. Nobody wants to die suddenly in great pain so using the modifier “unwanted” may be superfluous.
I want to set up a continuum of unpleasant situations because it helps understand the relative nature of such unpleasant situations. Some are more unpleasant than others. Stubbing one’s toe is a very minor unpleasant event while a very prolonged dying from a cancerous tumor that is extremely painful is a major unpleasant event.
Once one understands there is a continuum of these unpleasant events it’s easier to understand that the most horrific one a person could think of is relatively small in comparison to what is being offered by the Christian God. Somebody above brought up the beatific vision. This is eternal. Also the eternal separation from God makes all your examples trivial no matter how horrific they are even when God is not the instigator.
Thus, natural evil in all the horrors one can dream up becomes trivial in comparison to the rewards being offered.
This argument will not appeal to an atheist but then the atheist in turn can not use this argument against the existence of the Christian God. Nor should any Christian use this argument as justification for naturalized evolution to exempt the Christian God from the so called evil released by the forces of the natural world.
This is all about making the argument from evil disappear as a consideration. I believe it is a meaningless argument.
Bornagain77/190
I accept that Dr Neal is giving as accurate an account as she can of what she experienced but it is what she doesn’t say that is so frustrating. Why didn’t she ask the questions that you would have thought anyone would have wanted to ask under those circumstances? What is happening? Where am I? Who are you? It sounds as if her critical faculties were suspended as they might be in a drug-induced hallucination. She just went with the flow and enjoyed the cool ride. She felt she was in the presence of God. Why didn’t she at least try to ask Him what was happening? Okay, she was able to see things from a higher “omniscient” perspective. Is it too much to ask that it be explained to us lesser mortals rather than being brushed off with vague generalizations that imply we’re too stupid to understand? If you’re God then make us understand. You must have that power.
Exactly. This is the appeal of religion and why it will be with us for the foreseeable future. It is not that it is necessarily true but it offers comfort, support and hope in a way that nothing else can in the face of what is otherwise a very bleak prospect.
Seversky tries to insinuate that Dr. Mary Neal’s NDE was some type drug induced hallucination,
I’ve seen Dr. Mary Neal debate other medical doctors, who were atheists, and who tried to insinuate the same thing.
Yet, IMHO, she tore them apart in the debate. She is a very knowledgable Doctor and she easily shot down all their medical opinions as to how the experience could have happened ‘naturalistically’.
As well, Neurosurgeon Dr. Eben Alexander, of Harvard, comments here on the atheistic claim that NDEs are just hallucinations.
Along that same line of thought, here is an article that deconstructs the atheistic claim that NDEs are merely drug induced hallucinations
And again, I remind Seversky that we have far more observational evidence testifying to validity of Near Death Experiences, than we have observational evidence corroborating the grandiose claims of Neo-Darwinists, who hold that all life, in all its unfathomable complexity, is the result of completely mindless processes.
Moreover, the transcendent nature of ‘immaterial’ information, (specifically ‘non-local’ quantum information), which is the one thing that, (as every ID advocate intimately knows), unguided material processes cannot possibly explain the origin of, directly supports the transcendent nature, as well as the physical reality, of the soul:
As Dr. Stuart Hameroff states: “ the quantum information, ,, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed.,,,
it’s possible that this (conserved) quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.”
Verse:
Jerry, the principle of measurement or scale of comparison [recall here the NOIR framework], is, first, to identify yardstick cases that allow us to then compare. There is no reasonable doubt that what I identified are living memory cases of evil, and I here pivot on the Reidian common sense principle, that our basic senses and perceptual systems may err in detail but not on the whole on pain of collapse into grand delusion. That is, I take sound conscience and duty to it seriously. We can then proceed much as Munsell did with colour, we establish a light/darkness axis and hue-saturation axes as necessary to fill in a world of colours. If one cannot acknowledge the yardstick cases as evils that give near to moral dark point, then allow contrast as free of such, then that does not imply that such hyperskeptical dismissal seizes the default. It only, pardon, points to a breakdown likely conditioned by a civilisation in mutiny and heading for noreaster trouble. With the darkness/light axis — actually a common metaphor — we can address degree of tainting, variety of colours [we identify ever so many things with theme colours] and degree to which there is presence of what defines the yardstick cases. Where, I find the concept of perversion out of alignment with proper end and/or willful frustration of the same is a pretty effective core concept. A child on the way home from school is not a sexual toy to be played with then broken and discarded. A Jew from Hungary or Cracow or Minsk is not a guinea pig writ large for destructive medical experiments. Aborting and selling baby parts to make shampoos is dubious. I have said we are all nazis now locally, when I contemplate some of the issues around certain medical treatments and associated debates, and the like. From these, I think we may be able to reawaken consciences and see what is going on behind things being glamourised with pastel tinting. And yes, Hollywood, I am looking straight at you. KF
PS: An advantage of a colour spindle/tree approach is we can see how when sufficiently tainted by evil allegedly opposite theme colour systems all approach the same basic lawless, destructive, demonic oligarchy.
Kairosfocus “ SA2, your picking up the muddied strawman you knocked over before…”
I really have no idea what you are referring to. A strawman is setting up a misrepresented idea so that it can be refuted. How am I misrepresenting ID? And, more importantly, how am I knocking it down?
I have repeatedly said that the argument of flawed design is not an argument against ID, which even the DI agrees with.
I am getting the feeling that because you and I disagree on a few things that you find it impossible to agree with me even when I am defending ID.
In further rebuttal to Seversky’s claim that Near Death Experiences are hallucinatory, I refer to the following study.
In the following study, materialistic researchers who had a bias against Near Death Experiences being real, set out to prove that they were merely ‘false memories’ by setting up a clever questionnaire that could differentiate which memories a person had were real and which memories a person had were merely imaginary.
Simply put, they did not expect the results they got: To quote the headline ‘Afterlife’ feels ‘even more real than real”
My question to atheistic materialists is this, how in blue blazes is it possible for something to become even ‘more real than real’ for us unless first, as Planck himself pointed out, ‘consciousness is fundamental’, and secondly, as Planck himself also pointed out, the Mind of God is the ‘matrix of all matter’
Seeing as how atheists, via the ‘hard problem of consciousness’, cannot even account for qualia, i.e. the subjective experience of conscious, in the first place, I simply don’t see how atheists can hope to ever possibly explain how something could become even ‘more real than real’ for us during Near Death Experiences.
Also of related interest,
BA77 and WJM are essentially on the same side.
Cool.
Hehehe. Hehehehehe.
SA2 keeps imploring us to just accept that things are sub-optimally designed, and that they are, therefore, the work of a ‘flawed’ designer, and not the work of the Judeo-Christian God.
He says that we can still say that they are designed and that it would be no skin off our nose.
Funny how SA2 usually defends evolution tooth and nail, but now that he thinks that he has a avenue in which he can attack Christianity, he is, for the moment at least, all in for design so long as he can attack Christianity in the process.
Call me skeptical of his motives for, seemingly, embracing design (for the moment at least).
As they say, “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark”.
Somewhere in this thread, SA2 claimed that there were numerous examples of sub-optimal design. Yet he provided no examples. The eye certainly is not an example.
Atheists have been attacking Christianity with this line of argument for a very long time. And it never turns out well for the atheist.
For example, atheists use to claim there were 180 vestigial organs in the human body. But alas for atheists, that list of 180, as our knowledge has grown, has dwindled significantly, practically to zero.
And let’s not forget the false claim from Darwinists that the vast majority of our genome is junk:
Shoot, Seversky, in the face of a vast amount of empirical evidence to the contrary, still claims that the vast majority of DNA is junk,
Interestingly, the Darwinian website “Panda’s Thumb” is itself named after the supposed sub-optimal design of the Panda’s Thumb. I imagine that it was more than a little embarrassing for them when this following study came out showing that the Panda’s thumb is not nearly has badly designed as they had falsely portrayed it as being:
Also of interest, PZ Myers website in named “Pharyngula”, yet the “Pharyngula” embryonic stage also failed to live up to its evolutionary billing:
And so it is with atheists, they keep making false claims by mere assertion. And after evidence comes in refuting their position, they never really honestly admit that they were wrong, but they just move on to some other area where they think they can still be deceptive..
It truly is sad!
BA77: Atheists have been attacking Christianity with this line of argument for a very long time. And it never turns out well for the atheist.
I have no dog in the fight but, it’s not like you’ve ever met Jesus face to face, or anything, right?
You and the Creator are on face to face terms? (Coff coff.) I’ll bet not.
You are operating on theory. Everyone’s brain is different. So, cool it. You’re not that smart.
Really.
Maybe some humility is in order.
CC, and how do you get from the fact that “Atheists have been attacking Christianity with this line of argument for a very long time. And it never turns out well for the atheist”, to “you’ve ever met Jesus face to face, or anything, right?”.
When I stated that “Atheists have been attacking Christianity with this line of argument for a very long time. And it never turns out well for the atheist”, I am not appealing to some mystical knowledge that requires meeting God face to face, I am appealing to historical knowledge that is already known to be true by many other humans other than myself.
It simply makes no sense for you to go from what I actually said, to your insinuation that I was claiming only knowledge that can be attained via personal revelation from Christ.
Moreover, in regards to you saying WJM and I are, basically, on the same page, I quoted Max Planck in my post in regards to consciousness being fundamental to reality. Planck was a devout Christian and one of the greatest empirical scientists of the early 20th century. Indeed, many fundamental constants are named after him. Therefore, I quoted him with pride.
And while I am sympathetic to WJM’s MRT, I have deep reservations as to how far afield he has taken it away from empirical science.
In my few discussions with him about his theory, empirical evidence, as far as I can tell, is simply not given nearly as much weight in his theory as should be given for any theory that hopes to be considered rigorously scientific.
In my honest opinion, he still has quite a bit of work to do on his theory in order to make it more acceptable to others as a scientific theory.
Bornagain77/201
Thank you for directing our attention to that report but you should have read further as it also goes on to say,
So, no, this report does not say what you seem to think it says. NDE’s are a fascinating topic for study but, for the present, they are far from being observational evidence for an afterlife.
Planck was an eminent theoretical physicist not a psychologist or neurophysiologist. His authority in the former field does not necessarily transfer to a similar authority in the latter fields.
Seversky, I honestly admitted that the researchers were biased against NDEs being real. I merely reported that their very own findings directly contradicted what they had expected to find in their study.
If anything, his denial of his own scientific findings, rather than casting any doubt on his findings, shows how adept people are at ‘explaining away’, with 25 cent words I might add, scientific findings that they themselves personally don’t want to believe.
I deal with such unreasonable bias all the time with Darwinists such as yourself.
And again, there is plenty of evidence of people having a conscious experience away from their brain.
as Dr. Egnor reported, “about 20 percent of NDE’s are corroborated, which means that there are independent ways of checking about the veracity of the experience. The patients knew of things that they could not have known except by extraordinary perception — such as describing details of surgery that they watched while their heart was stopped, etc.”
And yet, there in no evidence of mindless Darwinian processes creating even a single protein
So tell me who is being scientific and who is being dogmatic Seversky?
SA2 [attn BA77],
With all reasonable fair view allowance, you have so often, so incorrigibly misrepresented the design inference at the core of ID that it is clear that you are using a crooked ideologically driven yardstick to judge a plumb line and reject it. I suggest, you reassess how you are reasoning on the matter.
Further to this, specification one: you have misrepresented the framework of design by arguing as though optimality is a primary goal/criterion, even in the face of being counselled that adequate [= good enough] performance with flexibility and robustness is a better frame, given the brittleness of optimisation. That is a very important issue for design, and for design for sustainability/robustness.
For historical instance, the De Havillands saw that wood was a common material, wood workers were not going to be a scarce resource, and that the Merlin Engine was going to be there as a key power platform. Engine power was a major constraint c 1930-45 for vehicle designs without excessive weight penalty. This included octane rating issues for fuels and led to v-12, supercharged designs for aircraft. The radial was another solution, but remained troubled as the case of the engine fire prone B29 showed.
They designed an apparent throwback, a wooden aircraft (in many ways similar to wooden fast patrol boats that also emerged) powered by two Merlins, the Mosquito. It was a struggle to get the UK air ministry to support it, but it turned out to be an outstanding, fast, highly flexible design; arguably the best solution to the destroyer-type fighter-bomber/ ground attack aircraft also suitable as a night fighter and reconnaissance aircraft of WW2. Some credit it as a key war winner.
Similarly, right now I ponder how the eye detects single photon events without supercooling and without exotic chemistry. Heavy metals, rare earths etc do not strike me as a good zone for biochemistry, and that in turn points to stellar nucleosynthesis and fine tuning of the cosmos. Ponder here the false start of arsenic bronzes that seem to have been prior to tin bronzes and how much technological advance was needed to go to Al bronzes. [Contrast how our technologies for ICs are looking to rare earths and how the Sidewinder sensors went for supercooling by the turn of the 80’s . . . the secret to winning the air fight over the Falklands with a marginal performance aircraft, the Harrier.]
The use of algebra on signals from the LMS cone channels to construct RGB and luminance channels is likely a key factor, and notice, the constraint of brain size and birth process. Likewise, avoiding the IR and UV bands looks a lot like getting out of heat-noise problems and actinic radiation problems [damaging chemically and eventually nuclear], which ties in with atmosphere issues. A pretty good octave in the EM spectrum was used here, one fitted to chemistry and to other constraints. One that has been highly successful, as we are the dominant creature on a global basis, and we are visual-dominant creatures.
Moreover, we have obviously been able to create sensors to access the broader spectrum using other abilities, once that becomes necessary. Telescopes, microscopes and cameras then photographs, printed illustrations [with underlying CMYK and halftone screen techniques] and display technologies come to mind.
The overall system seems to give robustly good flexible performance to me.
In that context, I again highlight that BA77 has correctly identified the perfection ratchet fallacy. No reasonably limited, tradeoff based design will be satisfactory in the face of such an inquisition, only a ratchet to imagined perfection. This strikes me as highly similar to the destructive ideological game currently being played by the red guards. But more relevantly, it highlights the point that maximal greatness is conceivable and plausibly possible.
Stir in, possible worlds speak and logic of being informed by this. We then look at serious candidate, finitely remote necessary being as root of reality. Recall, infinite past, causal temporal succession of causally cumulative finite stages becomes manifestly infeasible once we open up our structure-quantity vision enough to see R* embracing R and the infinitesimals. That is, we can readily see why traversal of the implicitly transfinite claimed actual past is not feasible due to what happens with successions of finite stage steps. So, we need a different order of being from contingency, to account for any actual world. Necessary being as root of reality.
Surely, you recall, that nothing — properly understood, pace Krauss, Dawkins and co — is non-being. Utter non being has no causal powers and were there ever utter non being such would forever obtain. As a world is, something always was, root of reality, of necessary being character. Which of course includes eternality. At the root of reality we need necessary, eternal being capable of creating contingent worlds.
Where, with moral government of responsibly rational, significantly free creatures being on the table for this contingent world, we also need such to be ground of the good. That points to inherent goodness and utter wisdom, i.e. maximal greatness. We have here a vision, yes in vague philosophical form [it is better to be roughly right than precisely wrong], of God as core being of ethical theism.
Such is obviously tied to design thinking but is not an empirical, scientific hypothesis, it is a worldview inference.
Further to this, logic of being puts on the table that a serious candidate necessary being either is impossible of being [as a square circle is] or is possible thus actual in any instantiated world. Necessary beings are present in all worlds as they are part of the fabric for a world to be feasible of existence. Core mathematical structures are for example part of the logic of a distinct world. Root reality is constrained to be there by need for adequate causal root; once we are willing to see the challenge of infinite stepwise traverse of causally successive stages. Namely, infinite traverse cannot be compassed so we cannot responsibly posit that at any particular past point p finitely removed from now n, the transfinite onward past t was already traversed: t –> p –> n is infeasible as t is infeasible. instead we need the eternal: e –> p –> n is feasible.
Ground of goodness then becomes an issue once we have morally governed creatures. This leads to maximal greatness.
So, BA77 is in fact right to raise the perfection issue.
Coming back, it should be plain that design is not about brittle optimality but robust good enough performance i/l/o a world of tradeoffs.
Where, BTW, when we see the radical secularisation eating away at the moral fabric of our civilisation, we should take pause to ponder what is the opportunity cost of a rising tide of amorality, perversity, egotism and nihilism.
KF
I leave that effort in the hands of those far more qualified than I. There are a handful of such people pursuing that effort. I’m just exploring the logic and practical uses of the theory.
Kairosfocus and Bornagain77, you guys simply can’t take yes for an answer. Rather than accept the fact that ID does not preclude flawed design, as the Discover Institute states, and that arguments against ID using supposed flawed design are fallacious, you continue to attack me for saying this. Maybe your argument should be with the DI.
Is there any evidence of flawed design? In the design of the universe, life or the earth? I don’t see any evidence for it.
Why keep bringing up something for which there is no evidence?
I agree that there has been tons of flawed design by humans but most did not do so intentionally.
Maybe we should define the term, “flawed.”
SA2, strawman again. No one has objected that flawed designs (esp. human designs) are not designs. What has been pointed out is that optimisation is not a good design goal save in rather special circumstances as it leads to brittle designs. The focus of the design inference on sign is that certain features point to designs, not to quality of designs. Further to this, a perfection ratchet fallacy implies acknowledgement of possibility of greatness to a maximum, i.e. perferction. That is itself interesting. KF
Kairosfocus “Strawman. “
You really should invest in a dictionary.
“ The focus of the design inference on sign is that certain features point to designs, not to quality of designs.“
I am fully aware that this is what the design inference is purported to be about. But if this is the case, and it is not fundamentally an ideological exercise, why do ID proponents never respond to arguments for flawed design in biology by pointing this out. They always argue that the designs are not flawed. This reaction by ID proponents gives every interested reader the impression that ID is ideological, not scientific.
SA2, again, the perfection ratchet is a flawed yardstick. Methinks, you are projecting the problem, especially given that above I specifically discussed the eye in context of a sounder criterion, robust effectiveness i/l/o relevant tradeoffs. Notice, chemistry, light quanta vs noise or actinic effects, signal processing, brain use and potential birth issues [notice, earlier responses here], even nucleosynthesis. Notice the Mosquito as a strong example, and more; all not addressed in haste to go on to projections of fault. KF
PS: Strawman fallacy, AmHD:
As in, I did fetch a dictionary, and you made an ad hom, failed. The perfection ratchet stunt is a clear strawman fallacy. You have been pointed to a sounder heuristic yardstick for good design several times, with explanation, but have side stepped it in classic Wilsonian style. Then you have come back to strawman after strawman. The agenda by repetition shows something is amiss.
F/N: The Mosquito. KF
Kairosfocus “ SA2, again, the perfection ratchet is a flawed yardstick.“
As ET would say “Do you have a reading comprehension problem?”
I am not arguing for or against perfection in biological design. I am pointing out that doing so is a fallacy with regard to the design inference. Why is it that you are having such a hard time comprehending this?
SA2, and the projection of an argument from perfection, like its twin, argument from claimed imperfection (made by Dawkins et al) is a fallacy. The relevant argument is first that there are empirically reliable signs of design which can be shown to exist in the living cell etc. Second, that good designs seldom seek optimality as that tends to make for brittle, non robust designs. Instead, good designs seek adequate, flexible performance i/l/o tradeoffs, with an eye to robustness. Given that point which you again studiously ignore in haste to use another ad hom, we can safely conclude that your gambits have failed. KF
Kairosfocus, what about, “people who argue against ID claiming flawed design is a fallacious argument”, don’t you get?
SA2, there you go again on an irrelevancy. KF
Kairosfocus, “SA2, there you go again on an irrelevancy. KF”
How is the fact that ID opponents are using logical fallacies irrelevant? And how is the fact that ID proponents are taking the bait irrelevant?
Why is it so important to you that the designs in biology be un-flawed? I think I know but I don’t want to put words in your mouth. I will leave that tactic to you.
SA2
It’s simple enough to say that ID opponents don’t hesitate to use logical fallacies in the hopes that nobody will notice and in order to score whatever points they think they can. So, they like to deliberately confuse the concepts of ID-science with theology in the hopes of humiliating and embarrassing ID-promoters for their religious beliefs. Mockery of religion is pretty much a standard template from which many anti-ID positions (logical or not) emerge.
So, observing yet another logical fallacy in the name of anti-IDism is irrelevant to the deeper issues.
Does the Design-denier really want to explore the truth about these matters – and then go even to arguments on the existence of God? Or is the whole opposition just some game of oppositional rhetoric used to try to humiliate one’s enemies?
When IDists repeatedly prove that ID is a scientific paradigm that cannot evaluate the nature of the Designer, the anti-IDists ignore this and ask irrelevant questions about the Designer. By this, they think they’ve refuted ID.
But this is absurd and illogical, even if the IDist “takes the bait” and begins defending Theism, for example. ID remains unscathed in that exchange.
Actually, the very fact that the anti-IDist attacks religion instead of trying to refute ID is strong evidence that the ID proposal is quite strong on its own merits.
.
SA, check.
EDIT: If there is an ID critic on this board who wants to set aside their ideological bias and debate the actual scientific merits of the design inference in earnest, I am happy to oblige, as are others.
SA@222, thank you for the response. But that still doesn’t address why ID proponents respond to an obvious fallacy with trying to counter the points made rather than stating that ID does not infer perfect design.
ID is just the inference that what is observed is best explained by design. But nowhere does it say anything about the quality of the design. A Lada is best explained by design. Do you want to spend good money for one?
There has been a long history of people trying to disprove ID by invoking flawed design in life. Implying that what appears as design is really not design. This so called flawed design is then used as proof that life was not designed. Richard Dawkins is one such person.
Two examples are junk DNA and the appendix. There are others.
I’m not sure what you are trying to show. Yes, designs by humans does not have to be perfect to be deigned. There are enough designs that have failed to meet objectives but rarely does anyone design anything that will knowingly fail.
Jerry, the point is to distract, caricature and taint. It is clear that design seeks robust performance, and that attempted perfection too often runs into embrittlement. It is also obvious that Pareto often rules the roost, first 20% of effort gains 80% of performance, and then one fights a diminishing returns battle to get the last 20%. That is yet another tradeoff right there. Having noted that, we can point out that codes, language, algorithms have just one reliably known source, and such are in the heart of the cell. Beyond, on the eye, I cannot but notice the ongoing studious side-stepping. KF
Sev @ 197,
> If you’re God then make us understand. You must have that power.
Can you make the case that God could, and then should, make us understand? How do you figure he could fully explain himself without giving us his full mental capabilities in the process? Why would he be required to do that? Can you make the case that those capabilities would fit into our minds?
This was already addressed by someone else above here; not sure the point of repeating the question. But in any case, we’re not tired of responding. In fact, this thread has been excellent practice for debating people face-to-face! Thanks everybody! 😎
Jerry “ There has been a long history of people trying to disprove ID by invoking flawed design in life. Implying that what appears as design is really not design. This so called flawed design is then used as proof that life was not designed. Richard Dawkins is one such person.”
I realize this. But I still don’t understand why ID proponents rise to the bait of such an obvious fallacy. It only plays into the hands of the ID opponents.
“I’m not sure what you are trying to show.”
It’s really quite simple. I will use Kairosfocusspeak to explain it.
1) The argument of flawed design is irrelevant with regard to the ID inference in biology. It’s a fallacy.
2) Why do ID proponents persistently argue against an irrelevant fallacious argument?
Kairosfocus “ Jerry, the point is to distract, caricature and taint.”
I guess pointing out what others see as painfully obvious can be interpreted as a type of caricature.
Umm, we respond to it because losers keep bringing it up. It is still a common argument. We don’t mind continually proving that our opponents are mindless drones. 😛
SA2
It seems that you accepted my explanation for why anti-IDists use (and reuse again and again) this logical fallacy even after being corrected about the nature of ID. They are not only trying to switch the topic away from ID-as-science, but there’s an underlying motive of opposition to God and religion, that comes out in a (not that) subtle ridicule and insult.
It shouldn’t be surprising that an attempt to ridicule religion and insult God will be met with a defense of the same, even if it’s taking the bait of a non-sequitur.
For most Christians, for example (among other religious believers, but I’ll just refer to them), God is highly beloved in a personal way, is honored and held to be the most sacred aspect of life. So, because of that, the theological aspect carries a very high sensitivity and meaning.
A person saying that God’s design is flawed is using an emotional argument in the hopes of offending people. It’s stirring the pot with contemptuous ideas. It’s disrespectful towards those who believe in God at the very least. Many theists believe that God has rights also and that He deserves to be defended for the gift of life He has given and for the magnificence of His Design. Defending God in this way, by opposing the “flawed design” argument, says nothing about ID (as you know and have affirmed, I’m just repeating).
UPB 223
I hope one or more ID-critics will take up your gracious invitation and set aside biases – and engage the topic from that starting point.
Silver Asiatic “ It seems that you accepted my explanation for why anti-IDists use (and reuse again and again) this logical fallacy even after being corrected about the nature of ID. ”
I agree that ID opponents repeatedly use this logical fallacy. Where I disagree is your claim that they are being corrected. I simply have not seen any ID proponent confront an ID opponent over this fallacy. For some reason, they prefer to take the bait and argue that the design is not flawed. Just read many of the comments above in this thread.
SA2, you unfortunately continue on a side track, led away to strawmen soaked in ad homs and sparked to trigger choking, confusing toxic clouds that frustrate finding our way back to sound, balanced thinking. . That side tracking has significant danger in an era where progress is technologically driven. Profound, widespread misunderstanding of the nature and workings of design leads to bad policy in a democratic age where technology is pivotal. That in turn points to further flaws, the fallacies of relativism and rejection of self-evident first duties of reason. Unresponsiveness to truth, right reason, prudence, fairness etc are bad signs for our civilisation. Signs, we unfortunately see all about us. Speaking of seeing, it tells us something that many can look at a marvel of highly effective, powerfully successful design, the eye and spend huge effort in trying to distract from and taint its appreciation, to discredit the significance of such a marvel; too often because they are obviously deeply resentful and rebellious towards their Creator. The bitter sourness of heart behind that, driving education, opinion, key institutions and policy is a further bad sign for our civilisation. Indeed, it is an obvious material contribution to the US theatre of operations in the 4th generation civilisational civil war that warps our ability to stand soundly in the face of mounting geostrategic threats at both ends of Asia. Strategic misjudgement, quite evident, is a consequence and such misjudgement is often fatal. The price we as a civilisation are liable to pay for our willful mutiny and voyage of folly on the ship of state is horrific. KF
Perhaps rather than arguing ad infinitum about “bad design fallacy”, it will be more beneficial for everyone to provide an example where the proponent of ID engaging their critics on this fallacy without mentioning that “bad design is not equivalent to no design”.
Just my 2c
UB, 223, you have highlighted a pivotal issue. First duties of reason (which are actually inescapable, true, self-evident) lie at the crux of the divergence in approach seen above. Or rather, refusal to heed duties to truth, right reason, warrant and broader prudence, fairness and more. Such patterns of evasion of the merits and duties to think, communicate and act aright have sobering consequences. Notwithstanding, above, there is abundant laying out of relevant facts, especially on how the eye is actually a marvel of sophisticated, effective, highly efficient design — contrast energy usage and compactness with a comparably advanced camera. As I look at the LMS cones and how exotic, heavy/rare earth metal chemistry is avoided, just that speaks volumes. The evident use of weighted sum, subtractive techniques to isolate channels and generate a stereo, 3-d, real time world imaging is astonishing, especially when we note how roboticists struggle with a similar challenge.The ability to detect down to the single photon level without need for exotic, toxic chemistry and supercooling, etc, is yet another striking achievement. These and many other marvels point to how we are visual-dominant creatures and how the eye and the hand, with the responsible, rational mind, have led us to become the globally dominant species, through the creation of civilisation. KF
RT, part of the correction of the perfection ratchet fallacy behind bad design arguments is to point out that designs almost always involve tradeoffs. Indeed, for the more cynical critics, it is that knowledge that gives them confidence that they can always find some real or imagined defect or limitation of performance to focus distractively on. Instead, above, it has been highlighted that good designs very rarely seek optimal performance on any one dimension, as that is liable to result in brittle, inflexible designs. Instead, the target is to find robust, adequate or good performance, preferably with graceful degradation rather than catastrophic collapse. This often reflects the Pareto principle, the first 80% of effect comes from the first 20% of effort and after that one is fighting diminishing returns tradeoffs. Down this road lies the philosophy of TRIZ, seeking innovations that find robust balances. KF
PS: Do you notice, an outline analysis of what design involves, which also addresses the notion that ID is a one-trick pony?
Acartia sock:
Your willful ignorance is not an argument. And all you have is your willful ignorance.
Why would they and more importantly why should they?
There is no evidence that there is bad or flawed design with the design of the universe or life. Why admit to the possibility of something for which there is no evidence. Who ever designed life had billions of years to get it right. Or maybe was such a massive intelligence that this intelligence got it right the first time.
It’s a bait and switch technique. Say ID admits there’s a possibility of flawed design in life but it’s still design. then the next step will be that ID admits life is flawed because why admit it. Then the next step will be that there could not have been a designer but was natural because there wouldn’t have been flawed design with God or a massive intelligence who had billions of years as the director.
This is another form of the theistic evolution acquisition to the anti ID people.
ID will quite willingly admit that much of what humans design can be flawed. They only have limited time and resources. But even with humans with limited intelligence the designs keep getting better as they experiment.
Just imagine if humans were designed with much higher intelligence that these designs might have happened sooner. But then again with their superior intelligence and maybe better and more advanced physical characteristics such as super eyes they might have destroyed all their competitors in nature and then destroyed the ecology on which their lives depended. And thus, perish.
SA2
Aside from what I said before, and good reasons given by others – here’s another reason:
Pro-IDists see the “flawed design” argument very frequently. Not only is that argument a logical fallacy within the debate about ID, but it’s confused and incorrect on its own terms.
So, from the ID side, we keep working to kill off this argument just to get rid of it finally. ID opponents simply ignore the fact that the argument is a logical fallacy. So, we try to convince them that it’s a bad argument on its own terms, trying to help them gain a better understanding of what they’re talking about. They usually don’t even know what they mean by “flawed” and they don’t explain why they keep repeating this argument and why they are so fond of it.
The scientific data argues against evolutionary claims. They can’t win on that point. So instead, supposedly, the idea that “there are flaws”, means that evolution actually created the results.
I think IDists are surprised at how incredibly weak that argument is. It takes us back to 19th century science. “That organ looks useless so it must have evolved”. Even having been embarrassed by the claim of Junk DNA, anti-IDists persist with this losing strategy.
So, I think we’re just trying to put an end to it – even though, as you rightly say, it’s unnecessary even to engage in that discussion since its a non-scientific claim.
Doesn’t that tell us something though?
ID opponents have to resort to a non-scientific claim (flawed design) to defend their theory of evolution.
I think we just take advantage of that. It’s yet another death-strike against the Darwinian narrative (which people swallow down unthinkingly).
But aside from all of this, it seems you are probing for some kind of inner motive at work among ID supporters. You stated earlier that you have your idea on why this tendency (to take the bait) occurs and you do not like the ideas given – so it will be helpful to know what you think. Why do you think ID supporters do this sort of thing?
Jerry
Right – this is the classic “God would not have done it that way” argument. So evolutionists rely on this theological argument to support their claims, whereas ID is just talking about the science.
“I simply have not seen any ID proponent confront an ID opponent over this fallacy.”
It’s been done on UD many, many times over the years.
Andrew
Highly recommend Matt Ridley’s book on innovation. I also have “TRIZ for Dummies” but have not started it yet. Thanks to a previous comment on TRIZ by Kf.
The Ridley book goes over the evolution of innovation in various technical areas. It’s never neat or obvious but progresses to incredible improvements. My son put me on to the Ridley book. He’s an IT consultant who has witnessed the amazing changes in computer softwares over the years. To the point they are not referred to as software anymore but apps.
Highly recommend Human Progress as a site. Here’s a recent article on human innovation and where we are headed.
https://www.humanprogress.org/the-six-laws-of-zero-that-will-shape-our-future/
Despite all this progress the elites are telling another story to our children. We are doomed if we don’t abandon all this. Here is another book, this one on how to be happy with personal progress. In it the author tells one how to form good habits that will make us happy but also describes how she escaped the doom and gloom of academia.
Habits of a happy brain.
https://www.amazon.com/Habits-Happy-Brain-Serotonin-Endorphin-ebook/dp/B0178M3LNA/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1617713678&sr=8-2
We often hear of the malevolent ideas that young people are subjected to in college. Here is a book by a woman who managed to escape this nonsense after accommodating her life to it for several years.
KF,
I myself convinced that the best we can tell about life is it is designed by mind.
The notion that we should stop at this statement will actually makes ID fall into the other part of the critic that “ID doesn’t contribute anything from its theory”.
The next step should be trying to infer the “mind” characteristic through the quality of its creation, which at best I can tell is very good.
The critics of poor design is like (paraphrasing what someone have mentioned) “judging War and Peace is not a good literature through its grammar mistake, instead through its story”
Helpful recommendation – thank you.
Silver asiatic “ But aside from all of this, it seems you are probing for some kind of inner motive at work among ID supporters. You stated earlier that you have your idea on why this tendency (to take the bait) occurs and you do not like the ideas given – so it will be helpful to know what you think. Why do you think ID supporters do this sort of thing?”
I think they take the bait and argue for the extremely high quality (perfection is the wrong word) of the design because most ID proponents believe in a personal God. As such, this personal God is the designer and their personal God is infallible. I think this is supported by the over-the-top, and often cognitively dissonant reaction to my claim that ID does not preclude poor quality design.
RT
That’s an attempt to distract and switch focus. If they’re admitting “yes, ID is true” – we’ll take every criticism that comes after that about the need for follow up. But if ID is not true, then why attack it for what it supposedly does not contribute? This reveals the strength of ID. Yes, it’s limited. But it’s a truth which is otherwise widely denied in our culture. That’s a huge contribution in itself.
That’s one approach that could work. But I also think that’s where the flawed design and arguments about the evils in nature come in though. I prefer moving from ID towards the origin of immaterial mind, and this to first causal arguments, etc.
RT, the design inference on evidence is in itself revolutionary and liberating; the confirmed yes that we can reliably infer from signs such as FSCO/I to design as cause is a breakthrough. It does not deliver everything but what it does deliver is epochal. Beyond, as I noted from TRIZ, there is a whole theory of inventive problem solving that explores how design works, with promising results. On the empirical side, genetic modification is intelligent design research, though many doing that may not acknowledge such. So, too, are applications in cryptanalysis, design detection on hidden patterns. That is about as grittily practical as you get, and it speaks to statistics and to communication theory. The myth that ID is a scientific dead end has long since exploded. KF
SA2
Biomimetics is proof that the design really is of an extremely high quality.
This book is mentioned on another thread — entire book about the marvels and qualities of the human hand:
https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Hand.html?id=7VgOAAAAQAAJ
If a person can look at the beauty, diversity and symmetry of nature and never be moved by a spirit of awe and wonder, there’s something wrong with the spiritual development of that person. There’s something wrong in the intellect and soul – a serious deficiency. But it seems, more and more, people are dead to such wonders and they can only find flaws and evils and never the unity in diversity, the harmony amid light and dark.
Silver Asiatic “ Biomimetics is proof that the design really is of an extremely high quality.”
Is it? Or is it just an easy way to develop designs that are functional?
SA2, biomimetics is imitation, the sincerest form of flattery. Here, we are reverse engineering effective and adequately robust design. KF
Silver Asiatic: But if ID is not true, then why attack it for what it supposedly does not contribute?
If unguided evolution is not true then why attack it for what it supposedly does not contribute?
JVL:
Because it is the reigning paradigm for no apparent scientific reason. It is very important to attack paradigms that do not deserve their status, duh.
Acartia’s sock:
That is NOT “your” claim. That has been part of ID for decades, if not longer.
JVL
Because there’s an enormous academic and professional enterprise built on the claim that it contributes immensely and that criticism of or opposition to the theory will hurt the human race.
SA2
It’s hard to respond here – not sure if you’re asking or telling, and not sure what kind of scope or range you place on the claim that “the design is poor”. Is that a universal claim? And what degree do you assign to it? The counter point is that the design is of very high quality, in general.
So, you’re saying that nothing we have developed, in imitation of the functional designs in nature, reveals a sophisticated, high-quality design? It all just looks like the output of a random process?
Even Dawkins would disagree with that, I think. He says that it does not look like what a natural process would produce but instead looks like it was designed.
I look at something like Velcro. Imitated from a natural design and has been used without much modification or change for 80 years. Nature did not provide a high-quality design template here?
Moving to that which is far more sophisticated: All AI systems are biomimetic – imitating what is found in “nature” (intelligence). You’re saying that our intelligence is not of a high-quality and can easily be produced by unintelligent forces?
The fact that our human design processes themselves make use of directed, intelligent and rational methods (creating a design, testing, improving, aiming at goals and targets) rather than Darwinian processes tells us a lot about the supposed “flaws” in the design also. That’s not a good argument in favor of evolution.
ET: It is very important to attack paradigms that do not deserve their status, duh.
So, if someone doesn’t think ID deserves its status it’s okay to attack it?
Silver Asiatic: Because there’s an enormous academic and professional enterprise built on the claim that it contributes immensely and that criticism of or opposition to the theory will hurt the human race.
Okay.
That strategy doesn’t seem to be working. What other stratagems should be considered?
JVL
I think the strategy is working well. Every year more and more people respond with disgust and embarrassment when they realize the lies that have been told in the name of atheism/materialism in science. Meyer’s new book will sell well. Behe’s titles are best-sellers (his first is noted as a classic).
The ID community promotes open-dialogue on the science. If someone (like yourself) thinks they have a refutation or falsification of ID theory, we want to hear it and engage with it.
But we don’t see these refutations or even attempts at dialogue. So, what kind of strategy is required to support a theory that has not been falsified?
Just telling the truth as it is discovered and patiently working to get more people to recognize this truth (and leave behind their false notions) seems to be the most efficient approach. Strategic thinking using politics, advertising, various manipulations, packaging – can have some effect, but don’t add to the truth that has been discovered. Paradigm changes take a long time.
Silver Asiatic: I think the strategy is working well. Every year more and more people respond with disgust and embarrassment when they realize the lies that have been told in the name of atheism/materialism in science.
I’m not sure that’s true in Europe but . . . okay.
The ID community promotes open-dialogue on the science. If someone (like yourself) thinks they have a refutation or falsification of ID theory, we want to hear it and engage with it. But we don’t see these refutations or even attempts at dialogue. So, what kind of strategy is required to support a theory that has not been falsified?
There are a lot of people who feel that they have falsified ID theory only to be shouted down on ID supportive sites. So . . . . my question is: how should the disagreement be moderated? That is, is there a way to set up a structure wherein there’s a clear standard as to whether or not ID has been falsified?
Just telling the truth as it is discovered and patiently working to get more people to recognize this truth (and leave behind their false notions) seems to be the most efficient approach. Strategic thinking using politics, advertising, various manipulations, packaging – can have some effect, but don’t add to the truth that has been discovered. Paradigm changes take a long time.
Which is what you would expect. If something has ‘worked’ then you’d expect that it would take extra effort to overthrow it.
JVL
Agreed – there is not much acceptance of ID in Europe, but at the same time, there’s not much of an ID strategy in place either, so it’s difficult to measure the effect. What is your opinion on why it is different in Europe?
If the person is truly being shouted-down and not being corrected for bad behavior, then that’s not a good thing. UD has had to ban several individuals and some of these people complain about unfair treatment or having discussion shut down. But I observe someone like Seversky who is fully atheist, materialist evolutionist, and he has been here for 10 years (I think) without having been banned. I think people who have been banned here have shown zero respect for the hosts or participants. But again, if ID supporters are not open to honest debate and exchange of ideas, then that’s a major problem.
I’ll borrow a note from your previous responses: Is there a way to set up a clear standard as to whether or not evolutionary theory has been falsified?
But aside from that, for ID, I agree that the debate needs unbiased moderation and that is very difficult to find.
Perhaps one way to do it, from the ID perspective:
1. Set up the challenge
2. Indicate the ID proposal clearly.
3. Give exact specifications on what constitutes a falsification
Darwin tried that in his text, making some bold, clear statements about what would supposedly falsify his theory. But what he said is not really taken seriously (which seems strange since he originated the theory).
Ok, but also – people can be convinced by something that does not work, just because other people think the idea must be preserved.
Silver Asiatic: Agreed – there is not much acceptance of ID in Europe, but at the same time, there’s not much of an ID strategy in place either, so it’s difficult to measure the effect. What is your opinion on why it is different in Europe?
I shall relate the case of a good Christian friend of mine who said: faith has to reflect the science. I think that attitude is much greater in Europe.
If the person is truly being shouted-down and not being corrected for bad behavior, then that’s not a good thing. UD has had to ban several individuals and some of these people complain about unfair treatment or having discussion shut down. But I observe someone like Seversky who is fully atheist, materialist evolutionist, and he has been here for 10 years (I think) without having been banned. I think people who have been banned here have shown zero respect for the hosts or participants. But again, if ID supporters are not open to honest debate and exchange of ideas, then that’s a major problem.
We can agree on that last bit for sure. I do think that, in the past, on this forum, sincere disagreement has been equated with an inability to accept a doctrine.
I’ll borrow a note from your previous responses: Is there a way to set up a clear standard as to whether or not evolutionary theory has been falsified?
But aside from that, for ID, I agree that the debate needs unbiased moderation and that is very difficult to find.
Perhaps one way to do it, from the ID perspective:
1. Set up the challenge
2. Indicate the ID proposal clearly.
3. Give exact specifications on what constitutes a falsification
Seems quite reasonable. Whose up first?
Darwin tried that in his text, making some bold, clear statements about what would supposedly falsify his theory. But what he said is not really taken seriously (which seems strange since he originated the theory).
Why is that do you think?
Ok, but also – people can be convinced by something that does not work, just because other people think the idea must be preserved.
Cuts both ways don’t you think?
JVL
Sounds like you’re saying that ID has more support in America because the religious faith of Americans causes them to accept the false notion of ID (and not reflect the science). So, American ID supporters are more gullible and less scientifically accomplished. So, European origin-of-life researchers have stronger evidence than ID researchers have presented? They have better explanations for the origin of the universe and the fine-tuning found therein? I’m interested to see them, if so.
ID Proposal: Intelligence can define, map and create functional code in software that models the functions of DNA in a cell.
Therefore, it is proposed – the first cellular DNA was produced by intelligence.
Falsification criteria: Demonstrate via lab work or in the wild non-intelligent sources (or simulation of one using the diverse elements that would be found on earth at the time of first life, along with variables randomized for environmental conditions – variations in heat, wetness, stability, radiation) creating functional DNA code.
Failing that, the ID proposal stands unfalsified.
Not only did he say and write many things that are embarrassing by today’s standards – scientifically and socially, his ideas are primitive and have been significantly revised and in many cases replaced with new ideas. So, even the die-hard Darwinists do not take his falsification criteria seriously on that basis.
This is one of many instances:
http://www.weloennig.de/PlantGalls.pdf
So, ID scientist, W.E. Loenning (German, by the way) uses Darwin’s criterion and easily falsifies Darwin’s theory. But nobody cares or pays attention (except IDists) because they don’t take Darwin seriously.
A theme that runs through this equivalency that you offer is that “ID is false”. So, you do not see any evidence of intelligence in the design present in nature. It has the appearance of design but it was all created by blind, unintelligent forces?
JVL:
The fact there is a paper like “Waiting for TWO Mutations” proves they are lying.
An actual demonstration that is peer-reviewed. Another great example would be someone claiming the origin of in formation prize.
As long as they have the science and evidence, yes. Flailing away doesn’t cut it. The best way to falsify ID, the ONLT way to falsify ID, is to step up and demonstrate that blind and mindless processes can produce a coded information processing system that is similar to the one involved in the genetic code. So, yeah, do that of piss off.
How to falsify ID and make yourself rich in the process, (and also go down in history as the greatest scientist who has ever lived)
(fair warning, you winning the mega lotto has a much better chance of you succeeding than anyone ever falsifying ID).
And here is the ‘simple’ reason why ID will never be falsified
On the other hand, In 1967 Stanford Professor Paul Ehrlich stated that the Theory of Evolution ‘cannot be refuted by any possible observations’ and is thus “outside empirical science.”
Perhaps JVL would like to specify the exact falsification criteria of Darwinism?
I would add that Darwinists simply refuse to accept falsification of their theory even though it has been falsified from numerous different angles, thus Darwinism, in all its various forms, is presently unfalsifiable and therefore ‘outside of empirical science’,
Verse:
JVL,
I noticed this phrasing:
Instantly, that rings false. One does not merely “feel” that one has a refutation, one shows that one has a refutation. In this case, a demonstration of FSCO/I coming about by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity will do.
As someone who spent IIRC three years actively soliciting something like such a refutation here and which is still technically open, I immediately give you the challenge to produce an up to 6,000 word summary of such a refutation, It can contain links elsewhere but must present the core evidence summarised. [Recall, I recently put up yet again, a random document attempt summary, one of the most embarrassing pages at Wikipedia. For years, they have lingered at about 10^100 factor short of the lower end of the FSCO/I 500 – 1,000 bits threshold.]
Next, you claim shouting down.
To my certain knowledge from over a decade here, that is false and misleading. There are people who may have been banned here and/or have been in heated exchanges who may have a legitimate concern, but on the whole those banned have been banned for cause. Manifest cause. Worse, the experience has been that far too often objectors to ID feel that abusive commentary, doxxing and the like are legitimate tactics within their right to freedom of expression. So much so that I identified a pattern, termed the trifecta fallacy.
Namely, red herring distractors, led away to ad hominem laced strawman caricatures set alight rhetorically to cloud, confuse, poison and polarise the atmosphere, frustrating discussion on actual merits. Those are agit prop tactics of contempt-laced hostility or even hate.
Given the tangential, loaded nature of this sub point, that may even be a factor in your point I am responding to.
Further, there is another pair of patterns, selective hyperskepticism and the demand to conform to crooked yardsticks set up as gold standards of reference, authority and verity. The first, is exertion of double standards of warrant that demand arbitrarily high proof of what one is inclined to reject, that are not exerted on what one wishes to be so. If one is selectively hyperskeptical regarding X, it is because one has credulously accepted crooked yardstick Y, and is using it to discriminate against X. It is the double-standard that is diagnostic. A Nobel Prize winner, Crick, posed a classic case in point in his self referentially incoherent projection of irrational control on thought, failing to see what it did to his own thinking, Crick:
The late Philip Johnson has aptly replied that Sir Francis should have therefore been willing to preface his works thusly: “I, Francis Crick, my opinions and my science, and even the thoughts expressed in this book, consist of nothing more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.” Johnson then acidly commented: “[t]he plausibility of materialistic determinism requires that an implicit exception be made for the theorist.” [Reason in the Balance, 1995.]
A classic expression is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Of course, the double standard comes through in what is deemed extraordinary, tied to conformity to frankly ideologically motivated crooked yardsticks. The Lewontin demons review essay is a classic inadvertent admission on the point.
Just yesterday, I came across a 2016 NEJM article, relating to how placebo trials have been turned into another gold standard fallacy, on the ongoing pandemic. I recall the hyperskeptical dismissiveness I faced last year, when I pointed out that cumulatively adequate empirical evidence can arise from any number of sources so setting up placebos as a gold standard was fallacious. It turns out, this has been on the table in the professional literature and in law or regulation all along but has been conveniently sidelined:
ref: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29733448/
Health records, of course, includes case files and is relevant to a pattern of successful off-label use as has clearly happened with HCQ and/or Ivermectin based cocktails. The former was hounded out last year and the latter is going through much the same this year though the degree of censorship has now hit 11 so things are much more quiet. Worse, it seems that experimental [quasi-]vaccines pushed forward before Phase IV long term consequences/side effects trials, on emergency approvals and widely trumpeted, depend on there being no acceptable alternative treatment to obtain such emergency approval. That smells of bureaucratic, dirty power games being played in the face of a pandemic. But then, the corruption of our power elite and media culture should be patent to any reasonably objective person.
That is the intellectual climate of our benighted times.
In that context, pardon my doubts on your claims as cited.
You have implied a claim, now the ball is in your court to back it up.
I am going to bet, your claim is a bluff.
Prove me wrong, if you can.
KF
Silver Asiatic: Sounds like you’re saying that ID has more support in America because the religious faith of Americans causes them to accept the false notion of ID (and not reflect the science). So, American ID supporters are more gullible and less scientifically accomplished. So, European origin-of-life researchers have stronger evidence than ID researchers have presented? They have better explanations for the origin of the universe and the fine-tuning found therein? I’m interested to see them, if so.
I merely related a comment made to me; I cast no aspersions on anyone. Surveys consistently suggest that evolutionary theory is more supported in Europe than in America and I know my friend agrees with the former Archbishop of Canterbury that it is correct. Make of that what you will.
So, you do not see any evidence of intelligence in the design present in nature. It has the appearance of design but it was all created by blind, unintelligent forces?
Correct, that is my view.
Bornagain77: I would add that Darwinists simply refuse to accept falsification of their theory even though it has been falsified from numerous different angles, thus Darwinism, in all its various forms, is presently unfalsifiable and therefore ‘outside of empirical science’,
If you replace ‘Darwinists’ and ‘Darwinism’ with ‘ID supporters’ and ‘ID’ you would have a statement that many evolutionary theory supporters would agree with. Thus the impasse between the sides.
Kairosfocus: Instantly, that rings false. One does not merely “feel” that one has a refutation, one shows that one has a refutation. In this case, a demonstration of FSCO/I coming about by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity will do.
That’s what evolutionary theory says has been demonstrated because of multiple threads of historical and biological evidence. Thus the impasse.
To my certain knowledge from over a decade here, that is false and misleading. There are people who may have been banned here and/or have been in heated exchanges who may have a legitimate concern, but on the whole those banned have been banned for cause. Manifest cause. Worse, the experience has been that far too often objectors to ID feel that abusive commentary, doxxing and the like are legitimate tactics within their right to freedom of expression. So much so that I identified a pattern, termed the trifecta fallacy.
(I probably have some of the names wrong) Why was Dave Scott banned? Why was Gil banned? Why was Mapou banned? Why was JoeG banned? Why was Elizabeth banned?
Further, there is another pair of patterns, selective hyperskepticism and the demand to conform to crooked yardsticks set up as gold standards of reference, authority and verity. The first, is exertion of double standards of warrant that demand arbitrarily high proof of what one is inclined to reject, that are not exerted on what one wishes to be so. If one is selectively hyperskeptical regarding X, it is because one has credulously accepted crooked yardstick Y, and is using it to discriminate against X. It is the double-standard that is diagnostic.
You always say that when someone disagrees with you. I get it that many things seem crystal clear to you but they appear completely different to others. That’s not ‘hyperskepticism’, that’s having a different opinion or view.
Prove me wrong, if you can.
I don’t think there’s any possible way to get you to change your mind about certain things.
You can’t “demonstrate” fairytales. You just tell a story about what happened …bilions, and …ons years ago.
@JVL:
A more interesting case might be the “quisling” stcordova, who “gave aid and comfort to the enemies of truth”:
http://theskepticalzone.com/wp.....-bullying/
JVL states, “If you replace ‘Darwinists’ and ‘Darwinism’ with ‘ID supporters’ and ‘ID’ you would have a statement that many evolutionary theory supporters would agree with. Thus the impasse between the sides.”
It is interesting that JVL appeals merely to the opinions of ‘evolutionary theory supporters’ instead of presenting any actual scientific evidence that ID has been falsified, i.e. that “a digital communication system to emerge or self-evolve without “cheating”, and thus collecting Perry Marshall’s 10 million dollar prize in the process. (and, I might add, going down in history as the greatest scientist who has ever lived)
Why didn’t JVL present any evidence that this falsification criteria has been met? And why did he only appeal to the opinions of ‘evolution theory supporters’?
Is 10 million dollars not enough incentive for Darwinists to clearly demonstrate how mindless material processes can create a ‘primitive’ encoding/decoding system?
Of course not. Besides the monetary incentive, the incentive in prestige is also immense. I remind JVL that anyone who falsified ID and collected the prize, would also go down in history as the greatest scientist to have ever lived, bar none!
Thus, the incentive for atheists to rigorously falsify ID is definitely there and is definitely immense.
The real reason why no Darwinists has collected the 10 million dollar prize, (or ever will collect the 10 million dollar prize), is simply because they have no experimental evidence whatsoever that mindless material processes can ever create what only intelligent minds have ever been observed creating. Namely, information.
And there is a very good, easy to understand, reason why Darwinists will NEVER be able to demonstrate that mindless material processes can create information.
Simply put, information is profoundly immaterial in its foundational essence, and thus it is impossible, in principle, for mindless material processes to ever be capable of explaining its origin.
As evolutionary biologist George Williams explains, “Evolutionary biologists have failed to realize that they work with two more or less incommensurable domains: that of information and that of matter… These two domains will never be brought together in any kind of the sense usually implied by the term ‘reductionism.’… Information doesn’t have mass or charge or length in millimeters. Likewise, matter doesn’t have bytes… This dearth of shared descriptors makes matter and information two separate domains of existence, which have to be discussed separately, in their own terms.”
And as Dr. Stephen Meyer further explains,
Thus, there is a very good reason why Darwinists will never be able to falsify ID and collect the 10 million dollar prize. Darwinists, with their ‘bottom up’ materialistic explanations, simply are not even in the correct theoretical ballpark to even be able to play the game in the first place.
Quote and Verse
If anyone believes ID has been falsified, explain why in 250 words or less.
On the other side:
Prove me wrong: there is no evidence that there is a mechanism to build/that built proteins or complex structures in life forms.
Again: 250 words or less.
If someone balks at the word limit, start with this limit and build a framework. For example, I know of research that claims how proteins were built and believes they can prove it. But I believe it is essentially bogus research.
Speculations don’t count!
My prediction: this challenge like all before it and there have been many will be ignored.
Proof of ID is then assured by failure to accept this or any previous challenge. So either accept the challenge or admit by ignoring it that ID is valid.
JVL:
There isn’t any scientific theory of evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. And peer-review is devoid of such demonstrations. You are lying.
“That’s what evolutionary theory says has been demonstrated because of multiple threads of historical and biological evidence. Thus the impasse.”
This is an Uber-Troll. The same empty claim repeated mindlessly for the 8 billionth time with Built-In Impasse to make serious conversation impossible.
Andrew
A comment from an ex liberal
Or my assessment (Prove me wrong)
JVL
ID is found in more places than evolution. Origin of Life. Your belief is that the existence of life shows no evidence of intelligent design. ID disagrees. Failing a materialistic demonstration (which nobody has), you’d be rejecting the most logical inference we can make.
Yes, but I was looking for your opinion on why that is the case.
Silver Asiatic: Failing a materialistic demonstration (which nobody has), you’d be rejecting the most logical inference we can make.
I disagree; I find the evidence, data and arguments in favour of unguided evolution more compelling than the evidence, data and arguments in favour of Intelligent Design.
Yes, but I was looking for your opinion on why that is the case.
I do not know why a higher percentage of Christians in Europe support evolutionary theory compared to those in the US of A. Maybe you should ask some of them. I did hear Dr Rowan Williamson (former Archbishop of Canterbury) argue that ID was bad theology and I figured he knew more about theology than I do.
While I appreciate the invitation to ‘prove ID wrong’ or to ‘prove unguided evolution true’ we all know that the arguments and reasons I would give would be the same ones you’ve all heard many, many times before. Personally, I find the data, evidence and arguments made in favour of unguided evolution more compelling than the data, evidence and arguments made in favour of Intelligent Design. I do accept that hypothesising an, as of yet undemonstrated, unguided origin of life is a bit of a leap (of faith?) at this point but as I don’t see strong, compelling evidence of any being around at the time who could have started everything going. And I do subscribe to the argument that even if some alien seeded life on Earth billions of years ago then how did that alien come to be? In other words, pan spermia or alien intervention just kick the can of the question of the origin of life down the road. Additionally, considering the vast distances and energy requirements for interstellar travel why would some being spend all that time and all that trouble to kick-start life on Earth and then skedaddle without leaving a note or message. Hey, maybe we’ll find one on the Moon someday (ala 2001, a Space Odyssey) and if that’s the case then I’ll change my opinion based on the evidence.
I’m happy to discuss my own personal beliefs or why I find some arguments compelling and others not so much. But there is no way I can present to you all an argument or evidence or data that you haven’t already seen or digested. So I won’t waste your time trying to come up with THAT BIG POINT that might change your minds.
Mostly we all look at the same physical evidence and data but we come to different conclusions. I don’t see that changing based on anything I say here. I will try and be honest and (fairly) respectful though . . . I do have my snarky moments like anyone else and you’re all welcome to call me on those.
Prove me wrong: there is no evidence that there is a natural mechanism to build/that built proteins or complex structures in life forms.
We just had our first admission today by an anti ID person that there isn’t any evidence.
(I added natural to the challenge because it should have been in the original challenge. Of course an intelligence could have done it.)
Jerry: We just had our first admission today by an anti ID person that there isn’t any evidence.
That’s not what I actually said. Why is it so hard just to have a civilised, agree-to-disagree conversation?
Prove me wrong: there is no evidence that there is a mechanism to build/that built proteins or complex structures in life forms.
I think the evidence for unguided evolution is strong and consists of several lines of data. You might cast aspersions on one line or one step of one line but when you consider all that evidence together I find it strongly compelling. As ET might say: you can’t ‘prove’ anything in biology. At best you can find plausible pathways that match the data and evidence. I admit that the unguided explanation for the origin of life isn’t quite there yet but I think some progress is being made. But there is no way we’ll ever be able to ‘prove’ how it happened.
(I added natural to the challenge because it should have been in the original challenge. Of course an intelligence could have done it.)
Noticed after I penned my response but since I assumed that’s what you meant I’ll keep my response as is.
JVL, I invited and would host an up to 6,000 word presentation of your case. That has nothing to do with whether or not it would persuade me. As a matter of fact, actual demonstration of 72 or 143 ascii characters of coherent functional information be blind chance and/or mechanical necessity would show me that FSCO/I is not a strictly reliable sign of design as cause. KF
Kairosfocus: JVL, I invited and would host an up to 6,000 word presentation of your case.
That’s kind of you but, again, I’ve got nothing new to add to the debate.
As a matter of fact, actual demonstration of 72 or 143 ascii characters of coherent functional information be blind chance and/or mechanical necessity would show me that FSCO/I is not a strictly reliable sign of design as cause.
What kind of demonstration would that be? Just curious . . . I’m trying to think of how that could be achieved . . . a chemical experiment? A bit of software . . . probably not that as the software would have to be intelligently designed. How could one demonstrate the generation of so many bits of complex, specified functional information? Is it even possible, theoretically?
JVL
It is a leap of faith to think that blind, unguided nature can produce origin of life. This is an honest admission on your part. However, doesn’t this leave the strongest and most compelling evidence that only intelligence could produce the result? Agreed that the idea of an alien agent doing the work only pushes the problem back. But for what we observe, there has to be a cause. Why not a leap of faith in the idea that there was an Intelligent Designer?
JVL
Trying to simulate conditions in the wild with software would mean an intelligently designed solution, but even that has not been close to having been achieved. Even a guided process has not been able to bring the elements together like that. If blind, unguided nature supposedly created life from non-life, we should be able to do the same thing in a lab with chemicals – directed specifically to that result.
Silver Asiatic: It is a leap of faith to think that blind, unguided nature can produce origin of life. This is an honest admission on your part. However, doesn’t this leave the strongest and most compelling evidence that only intelligence could produce the result? Agreed that the idea of an alien agent doing the work only pushes the problem back. But for what we observe, there has to be a cause. Why not a leap of faith in the idea that there was an Intelligent Designer?
In all other cases when we know some artefact was created by a (human) intelligent designer we have other evidence that a human or group of humans was around at the time. We’ve got nothing like that for the origin of life. Plus, the nature of the ‘design’ seems to indicate something unplanned, in my opinion. So, I find the undesigned case stronger. Like I said: if we find a message or statement (or a crashed ship, or living quarters, or spent fuel rods, or a latrine, or . . . ) left behind by some alien race that seems to date from the right time then I’m happy to change my opinion. Our current knowledge tells us that the vast distances, the energy it would take, and the time it would take makes interstellar travel pretty daunting. IF our knowledge changes then my opinion changes. I consider the alien visitation scenario unlikely based on what we know now of how it could be done.
For me, the most plausible explanation based on the knowledge and evidence we have now is: unguided processes. You can hypothesise an intelligent designer but where is the evidence (aside from the contested objects) that there was one about? I don’t mean to offend but it does sound a bit like the Erich von Daniken arguments for ancient alien astronauts: we don’t know how the locals could have done this and we’re going to interpret some of their paintings and writings as evidence of alien visitation so, ta da, ancient alien astronauts. But if the interpretation is wrong the whole thing falls apart. No aliens means the local Egyptians built the pyramids, the local Brits build Stonehenge, etc.
Has it ever occurred to you that trying to force a designer into the mix is not that much different from believing it was all down to unguided processes? Both arguments are looking at the same data, the same evidence and guessing the cause. They are just hypotheses. Which is why I look around to see if there’s more evidence or data to support aliens.
Trying to simulate conditions in the wild with software would mean an intelligently designed solution, but even that has not been close to having been achieved. Even a guided process has not been able to bring the elements together like that. If blind, unguided nature supposedly created life from non-life, we should be able to do the same thing in a lab with chemicals – directed specifically to that result.
Yeah, possibly. But it depends on knowing what the conditions on the early Earth were. And that seems to be a moving target. So it’s not clear how to ‘guide’ the process, not yet anyway. AND it seems to have taken thousands if not millions of years. How long are you willing to wait for the ‘primordial soup’ to do its thing?
JVL states,
Oh come on now, don’t be bashful. I certainly have not of anyone coming close to falsifying ID and collecting Perry Marshall’s 10 million dollar prize in the process.
If you know who did it, please tell us. And If no one has done it yet, I want to start a petition immediately to get this mad super genius every scientific prize on the planet, perhaps even get him a ticker tape parade in NYC.,, His own postage stamp even. Shoot name a small nation after the guy! 🙂
JVL
You’ve affirmed that there is no demonstrable evidence for the origin of life from non-living matter. We know that the irreducible elements of life can be modeled by human intelligence. This is evidence that intelligence was involved in that origin.
A designer is not being forced in. We see that which appears to be designed (as Dawkins affirms). We recognize that unguided processes do not, as yet, produce the design (origin of life). Intelligence is the most probable cause.
An alien designer does not answer the problem of fine-tuning of the universe. The universe had a beginning, thus was caused by something outside of the universe. This is the first, uncreated, immaterial, omnipotent cause – which we call God.
We have had many in the past. In fact the exact same challenge was once made to an evolutionary biologist who was part of a group responsible for setting guidelines on the teaching of evolution.
His name was Jack Krebs, Here is the thread and just see how Jack avoids backing anything of substance on the teaching of evolution. One would think a recognized expert could at least provide something. But he couldn’t.
Anyone interested in how this conversation went can go to
https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/complex-speciation-of-humans-and-chimpanzees/#comment-186360
It took place 13 years ago. From the linked comment, To the expert on evolution.
What happened on this very long thread after this was evasion by Jack Krebs. As were all his comments before.
We get the same evasion today with the same disingenuous excuses. Nothing has changed.
On the thread linked to in the thread above, the next comment is by Dave Scot to another expert on evolutionary biology, Allen MacNeill, who taught evolutionary biology at Cornell
Response was crickets.
As I have said many times the most interesting question is not whether there is research supporting evolutionary biology or not but why is there an unwillingness to provide an honest answer? The respondents know what they are doing is evading a relevant question but pretend in all seriousness they are being forthright.
Silver Asiatic: You’ve affirmed that there is no demonstrable evidence for the origin of life from non-living matter. We know that the irreducible elements of life can be modeled by human intelligence. This is evidence that intelligence was involved in that origin.
It’s not evidence, it’s a possible explanation.
Let’s suppose a cabin in the woods burns down. We know that humans can set and cause fires. That doesn’t mean that particular fire was cause by a human. It could have been lightning. I’ve never seen a fire caused by lightning so how do I know that can happen?
A designer is not being forced in. We see that which appears to be designed (as Dawkins affirms). We recognize that unguided processes do not, as yet, produce the design (origin of life). Intelligence is the most probable cause.
Not if there was no designer around at the time. How do you know there was a designer around at the time with the necessary skills?
This is one of the reasons I find the unguided explanation more plausible: it doesn’t hypothesise any unknown causes.
An alien designer does not answer the problem of fine-tuning of the universe. The universe had a beginning, thus was caused by something outside of the universe. This is the first, uncreated, immaterial, omnipotent cause – which we call God.
Interestingly enough I’ve been hearing about some new physics data which suggests no designer was necessary. So, again, which explanation is more plausible? One which supposes an unknown and undetected cause or agent or one that doesn’t?
I think the acceptance of a supreme being is at the heart of the debate: you and many others have a personal and immediate reason for accepting the existence of a supreme, loving being. I don’t. So it comes down to physical evidence. In my mind.
Jerry: We get the same evasion today with the same disingenuous excuses. Nothing has changed.
I’m not responsible for what other people have said or done. Like I said: I’m happy to answer questions about my own personal views and reasons.
As I have said many times the most interesting question is not whether there is research supporting evolutionary biology or not but why is there an unwillingness to provide an honest answer? The respondents know what they are doing is evading a relevant question but pretend in all seriousness they are being forthright.
I’ve not looked at the threads in question and I’m certainly not going to answer for anyone else. BUT, do you think it’s possible that sometimes people are hesitant to respond honestly because of what they guess will be the response? Like, for instance: when I ask ID supporters when they think design was implemented do you think it’s possible they think I will mock them if they answer honestly?
I think many unguided evolutionary supporters have admitted that we don’t really know how life got started on Earth. And that is the truth. It doesn’t mean researchers are just tossing in the towel and giving up. It is a complicated and difficult problem and it’s going to take a long time to finish exhausting the possible lines of experimentation.
Jerry 288
That was insightful. Mr. Krebs is expert enough in evolutionary theory to set educational standards as curriculum director and says he has “an anthropology degree, with background especially in human evolution and the evolution of behavior.”
Challenged several times on that thread – he came back with nothing. Zero.
Allen_McNeill tried to cover for him with some rhetoric, but underneath that also they have nothing to show to defend their own theory. Instead, they turn around and attack ID or get involved in tangential disputes about attitudes and forum-behavior.
I remember back then. The evolutionists were a bit more arrogant and uneducated. So, they’ve gained a little humility, but have added nothing towards empirical demonstrations of their claims.
JVL, this very thread provides abundant evidence of intelligence providing FSCO/I, in the form of code bearing informational strings well beyond the ASCII form threshold, at 7 bits per character. We have an observation base of trillions of cases of such FSCO/I, just start with the Internet, and go to a hardware store and look at screws for the organisation side. In every case, the source is design, and we can readily see that search challenge in config spaces for 500 to 1,000 bits for the atoms of the sol system at the low end and for the observed cosmos at the high end for ~ 10^17 s would round down to negligible search. That’s why; essentially the reasoning behind the stat mech support to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Further to this, again, March 22, I presented an excerpt on the infinite monkeys theorem as a test, precisely as a case in point https://uncommondescent.com/education/wikipedia-presents-pseudo-knowledge-fake-knowledge-on-id-yet-again/ The result was 10^100 as a factor short of a 72 character ASCII string. Now, you have been around UD for a while so you should know about such and certainly you know about the nature of DNA as a code bearing complex string in the heart of the cell. This implies complex code, algorithms, i.e. linguistic, goal directed information, which on factors on the table is a strong sign of design as cause. So, I think we can safely conclude, bluff called. KF
Kairosfocus: So, I think we can safely conclude, bluff called.
Draw whatever conclusions you wish. I still find the preponderance of the evidence in favour of unguided evolution. If you’d like to ask me, respectfully, about certain bits of data or evidence then I’ll be happy to respond. If you’re just going to tell me I’m wrong then I’m much more likely to ignore you.
JVL
You’re walking along the right pathway of reasoning, but then falling short when the most plausible and reasonable solution arises.
Yes, a cabin burns down. Now we do some forensics work.
It could have been lightning. It could have been the heat of the sun – or even some other unknown natural cause (sparks off of stones).
However, we find 3 empty gasoline containers in different parts of the house. We find the hottest parts of the fire were in 3 select locations – adjacent to the cans.
So the lightning struck three times, hitting all three gas cans simultaneously, knocking them over in separate parts of the house? Or the cans spontaneously tipped over and started on fire?
No – we have positive evidence of intelligent design in this case. The cans are evidence of a plan and purpose – which eliminates natural causes.
The same is true in Origin of Life – we have positive evidence of coded-language which is an artifact of intelligence. That points to a designer – not a natural cause.
The physical-material universe cannot be created by that which is physical, but by what is immaterial and non-physical.
JVL, do you hear the echo in the cave, at this point you are projecting. There is no preponderance of evidence favouring blind chance and mechanical necessity as plausibly causing FSCO/I in Darwin’s pond or anywhere in the cosmos. There are trillions of observed cases of FSCO/I coming about by design. The string data structures in the living cells speak eloquently as to their empirically warranted cause — coding, we call it these days, used to be programming. KF
PS: The ideological bias driving the imposition of evolutionary materialistic scientism is clear from Monod, yes, a Nobel Prize winner [and French Resistance fighter]: https://uncommondescent.com/atheism/monods-objectivity-naturalistic-scientism-and-begging-big-questions/
Ideology, not evidence.
Silver Asiatic: However, we find 3 empty gasoline containers in different parts of the house. We find the hottest parts of the fire were in 3 select locations – adjacent to the cans.
You do not have that kind of indicators regarding the origin of life on Earth and an intelligent designer. The truth is: no one knows.
You don’t have your ‘cans’ as evidence. You don’t have any supporting physical evidence at all.
What you have is a supposed abstract ‘code’ which has been proposed to have been an arbitrary accident or ‘choice’. You do not have independent evidence of a designer.
ID says: only intelligent designers can create abstract and arbitrary codes based on our experience. Since DNA is an abstract and arbitrary code the best explanation is an intelligent designer.
But . . . what if it isn’t a completely abstract and arbitrary code? What if it’s based on some basic chemical affinities? As some research suggests.
Our experience of intelligent designers is limited to human beings, anything past that is speculation. And I thought we were avoiding that.
The physical-material universe cannot be created by that which is physical, but by what is immaterial and non-physical.k
Assertions are not evidence. If you want to restrict the discussion to actual evidence then please do so.
Kairosfocus: JVL, do you hear the echo in the cave, at this point you are projecting.
Do you want to talk about evidence and data or just ideology?
Why don’t you bring up a particular bit of physical evidence that you find compelling and we can, hopefully, have a productive discussion. Don’t just make sweeping generalisations overburdened with vague statements. Let’s talk about the actually evidence. Pick a case.
🙂 Tell us 1 single process in human body that is RANDOM.
Case closed.
Sandy: ? Tell us 1 single process in human body that is RANDOM.
Case closed.
I don’t think I said any process in the human body is random except for mutations in cell reproduction. So, what’s the discussion?
JVL
The presence of a coded-language within a communication circuit (sender-translation-receiver-response-function) is evidence of an intelligent source. That’s how SETI works. We look for language signals – that means there’s intelligence at work. The code is specified for highly-sophisticated functions. This is positive evidence. There is no evidence that unguided nature can produce anything close. Some researchers state it is impossible.
Exactly. To falsify that, we need to see the evidence that codes can be created by unguided physical elements.
Then that ID proposal is falsified. Until then, ID stands as the best explanation. We don’t hold out and say “maybe there’s a better one” without affirming that we have a “best one” already.
I mentioned SETI but we are aware of design created by animal intelligence also, so not just human. Since there is a low-level intelligence in various forms of life (some say in plants) with increasing power and range up to human intelligence – the proposal that there exists a greater, immaterial intelligence is reasonable.
Logical evidence is evidence. It’s a necessary part of reasoning. We must accept the Law of non-contradiction, otherwise we cannot reason or communicate.
It is a contradiction to propose that the material universe was created by a material factor.
1. For a thing to begin to exist means that “beginning” is a starting point, before which the thing did not exist.
2. “Today I baked a cake which had never existed before. But that same cake existed last week.” That’s a contradiction.
3. The material universe (all aspects of what is material) began to exist. Before then, it did not exist.
4. To say that something material caused all material aspects to exist is a logical contradiction.
That’s logical evidence.
🙂 You don’t know that. You only assert that. Give me a link where somebody prove that.
PS: To make such a statement you have to know everything about cell. You don’t know ,nobody know except the Engineer that produced the prototype.
The Bible say about atheists that are crazy. It’s the ultimate craziness to say that life on Earth ,a masterpiece made by a Supreme Mind, appeared by chance.
Silver Asiatic: There is no evidence that unguided nature can produce anything close. Some researchers state it is impossible.
There is evidence IF there was no designer around to kick-start life on Earth. No present designer means no design.
Exactly. To falsify that, we need to see the evidence that codes can be created by unguided physical elements.
Show me some independent evidence that there was a designer around at the pertinent time.
Until then, ID stands as the best explanation.
I would disagree because you have no separate evidence of a designer present at the pertinent time. That’s pure conjecture.
the proposal that there exists a greater, immaterial intelligence is reasonable.
I disagree. There is no physical evidence that such a being can or does exist. And I thought we were talking about evidence.
Logical evidence is evidence. It’s a necessary part of reasoning. We must accept the Law of non-contradiction, otherwise we cannot reason or communicate.
At some point logical evidence pointed to there being no black swans. Logic is subject to our experience. Just like all data.
JVL
Anything that exists is evidence of a cause.
JVL claims that “I don’t think I said any process in the human body is random except for mutations in cell reproduction. So, what’s the discussion?”
Really? Perhaps you can inform James Shapiro of this fact?
Of course, if Darwin’s Theory were a normal science, this would count as yet another major falsification of the theory, but alas, Darwin’s Theory, (since it is really just a religion for atheists masquerading as a science), gets a free pass.
To add further insult to injury, recombination of DNA during sexual reproduction is also found to be far less random than was originally presupposed by Darwinists
As Jonathan Wells has stated, “It’s the organism controlling the DNA, not the DNA controlling the organism.”
Or as Denis Noble has stated, DNA is an ‘organ of the cell’, not its dictator.’
Again, if Darwin’s Theory were a normal science, this would count as yet another major falsification of the theory, but alas Darwin’s Theory, (since it is really just a religion for atheists masquerading as a science), gets a free pass.
JVL, you just dodged the opportunity and tried to dismiss evidence on the table. Your response is telling us a lot. KF
.
SA, you might not have been following along over the past months and weeks. Here is JVL’s protectionist double standard: (After clearly acknowledging the validity of the science and history behind the design inference, this is the his sacred cow).
JVL uses a gratuitous double-standard when considering evidence against his personal belief system.
And when he is asked to share the “compelling” evidence that supposedly undermines the recorded science and history that forms the design inference, he has nothing of substance to offer. He goes so far as to even acknowledges he has nothing of substance:
JVL stands directly in front of a design inference that is based recorded history and documented experimental results (which he not only cannot refute, but acknowledges as valid), using sound logic (that he himself uses in the same situation, drawing the same conclusion) and he cannot even speak the words.
.
JVL’s entire post at #304 is obese with denial and obfuscation.
That Darwinists really have no real clue what they are talking about when they mention randomness within the cell, nor a real clue as to exactly how much randomness may actually be in the cell, was touched upon earlier in this thread at post 3
In the OP, this fact about the eye was listed:
That fact, along with many other facts, proves that the human body cannot possibly be dominated by nearly as much ‘random thermodynamic jostling’ of atoms as Darwinists, from Harvard no less, tried to falsely portray to the general public in a video they produced in 2013, which was entitled ‘Inner Life of the Cell: Protein Packing’,,,
In the above 2013 video, as you can see, Harvard Biovisions tried to make the inner workings of the cell look as random, chaotic, and haphazard as possible in order to try to dispel any impression of design in the cell that they had inadvertently created in their first 2006 “Inner Life of a Cell” video.
Yet, the inner workings of biological systems are found to be not nearly as random and haphazard, (i.e. subjected to ‘random thermodynamic jostling,), as Darwinists, (from Harvard no less), have tried to portray to the general public
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/bbc-cell-film-pays-tribute-to-design-in-nature-without-knowing-it/#comment-725955
In fact, biological systems, far from being a sea of particles that are subjected to intense ‘random thermodynamic jostling’, as was falsely portrayed in the Harvard video, are instead dominated by far more ‘calm and smooth’ quantum principles.
And Darwinian biologists simply have not taken quantum principles into consideration at all in their understanding of biological systems.
As Jim Al-Khalili, who is an atheist himself, states in the following video, “To paraphrase, (Erwin Schrödinger in his book “What Is Life”), he says at the molecular level living organisms have a certain order. A structure to them that’s very different from the random thermodynamic jostling of atoms and molecules in inanimate matter of the same complexity. In fact, living matter seems to behave in its order and its structure just like inanimate cooled down to near absolute zero. Where quantum effects play a very important role. There is something special about the structure, about the order, inside a living cell. So Schrodinger speculated that maybe quantum mechanics plays a role in life”.
And indeed, Schrodinger’s ‘speculation that ‘quantum mechanics plays a role in life’ has now been confirmed.
Every important biological molecule in life is now found to be based on quantum principles, not on ‘random thermodynamic jostling’ principles as Darwinists have presupposed.
As the following 2015 paper entitled, “Quantum criticality in a wide range of important biomolecules” stated “Most of the molecules taking part actively in biochemical processes are tuned exactly to the transition point and are critical conductors,” and the researchers further commented that “finding even one (biomolecule) that is in the quantum critical state by accident is mind-bogglingly small and, to all intents and purposes, impossible.,, of the order of 10^-50 of possible small biomolecules and even less for proteins,”,,,
And as this follow up article stated, “There is no obvious evolutionary reason why a protein should evolve toward a quantum-critical state, and there is no chance at all that the state could occur randomly.,,,”
Even DNA itself does not belong to the ‘random thermodynamic jostling’ of classical mechanics, (as Darwinists have presupposed). but instead belongs to the world of quantum mechanics.
In the following video, at the 22:20 minute mark, Dr Rieper shows why the high temperatures of biological systems do not prevent DNA from having quantum entanglement and then at 24:00 minute mark Dr Rieper goes on to remark that practically the whole DNA molecule can be viewed as quantum information with classical information embedded within it.
Finding quantum entanglement and/or quantum information to be pervasive in biology, in every important biomolecule, is simple devastating to the reductive materialistic presuppositions of Darwinists.
Namely, quantum coherence and/or quantum entanglement is a non-local, beyond space and time, effect that requires a beyond space and time cause in order to explain its existence. As the following paper entitled “Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory” stated, “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,”
In their materialistic framework, Darwinists simply have no beyond space and time cause to appeal to, whereas Christian Theists do,
Darwinists, with their reductive materialistic framework, simply have no beyond space and time cause that they can appeal so as to be able to explain the non-local quantum coherence and/or entanglement that is now found to be ubiquitous within biology.
Whereas on the other hand, Christians readily do have a beyond space and time cause that they can appeal to so as to explain quantum entanglement. As Colossians 1:17 states, “He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.”
And here is a related video that goes over a few more details as to the fact that biological systems are not nearly as dominated by ‘random thermodynamic jostling’ as Darwinists, from Harvard no less, had falsely portrayed to the general public.
Verse:
UBP – weird coincidence. The first thing I thought of posting to JVL as a response was something like: “You need to review Upright BiPed’s analysis of language processing and communications networks and then engage seriously with the argument”. I was thinking that he had not seen your argumentation on this. But no, as you said:
That’s an elegant summary. He’s standing right in front of it. He actually leans towards it. Everything is there for him. But he backs away. Then turns and runs.
UPB 208 & 209
I find it sad in many ways. JVL grasps the situation and is willing to accept the inference. He seems sincere in many ways, interested and open to the evidence right up to the critical point..
That has to be the problem. There is something blocking his decision-making process. Something needs to be resolved so that the path will open up.
JVL, 299:
This is of course in the context of my remarks at 293 [with onward comments at 296 and 7), i.e.:
I would presume this thread with strings of ascii text [7 bits/character] is physical evidence, the Internet, screws in bins at hardware stores [and onward] are such. The observation that such FSCO/I per observation on a trillion case base, consistently comes about by design is a fact. That is, every observed case of FSCO/I origin beyond the 500 – 1,000 bit [or 72 to 143 ascii character threshold] is design. Where, obviously D/RNA in the cell is a similar case of string data structures expressing coded algorithms that are cumulatively highly complex, per multiple Nobel Prize winning work. Codes, plainly, are language and algorithms are stepwise, goal directed procedures.
So, why did you suggest that I failed to provide physical cases, especially when I went on to point to text creation, infinite monkeys theorem exercises as conceded by Wikipedia testifying against interest?
Are you not aware that coded meaningful text strings come as isolated zones in configuration spaces dominated by gibberish? So that, until one is on the beach of an island of function, incremental performance is not relevant? Thus, the search challenge of relevance is to find such islands? Which then makes the configuration space observation that the atoms of the sol system or cosmos for 500 and 1,000 bit spaces [000 . . . 0 to 111 . . . 1] cannot credibly search more than a negligible fraction blindly, in ~10^17 s [~ 13.8 BY] a relevant physical issue? That strings can be reduced to binary code and that 3-d functional configurations can be similarly expressed in some description language [cf. AutoCAD etc], so consideration of bit strings is WLOG? Where, BTW, this is essentially the same analytical issue and case that has been on the table since Thaxton et al in the early 1980’s. And more?
So, why did you set up and knock over a strawman about vagueness and sweeping generalisations?
The relevant core case is string data structure, code bearing structures. Molecular nanotech in D/RNA (or onward AA sequences) or computer code or text on paper are just different forms of the string: -*-*-* – . . . -*. once we are beyond 500 – 1,000 bits worth [3.27*10^150 or 1.07*10^301 configs], relevant atomic resources acting as observers at fast chem reaction cycle times per observation, on sol system or observed cosmos scope cannot blindly sample more than a negligible fraction of the config spaces. Where, gibberish dominates over islands of function [unconstrained vs tightly constrained to achieve adequate function]. That is the analytical context for the empirical observation that FSCO/I bearing strings, as opposed to gibberish, consistently come from design.
That is, FSCO/I is a strong sign of design. That in DNA we deal with codes so languale and algorithms so goals underscores this. And we pretty well knew that from 1953, as Crick acknowledged in his letter to Michael, his son. He directly compared to printed text.
So, we can freely conclude that [a] you are grossly ignorant of the core FSCO/I based ID case, its context of Darwin’s pond or the like, and/or [b] you chose to set up a strawman and knock it over.
Those are not the actions of someone standing on a strong case.
KF
Silver Asiatic: That has to be the problem. There is something blocking his decision-making process. Something needs to be resolved so that the path will open up.
Because I can’t possibly be right can I?
Why should I bother to try and respond honestly if I end up getting labelled as a liar or having something wrong with me because I don’t agree with you?
Did you see what Lieutenant Commander Data said:
I’ll leave you and Upright BiPed and Bournagain77 and Kairosfocus to debate my shortcomings and motives.
JVL, I am not motive mongering, I have faced your claims and have offered you an opportunity to back them up, declined. I put on the table a specific case relevant to OOL and to origin of body plan level biodiversity: functional, algorithmic, coded information-bearing data structures beyond 500 – 1,000 bits of complexity. This has been put on the table in one form or another by the modern ID research programme since the early 1980’s so you cannot justly plead ignorance. It also happens to be the case UB has highlighted. You evaded his challenge and you are evading mine, that’s observable behaviour not motive mongering. Consider your bluff called, which is now a judgement that you put up a front but on being challenged are retreating behind a rhetorical squid ink cloud. That suggests that you have for a considerable time been unable to answer this central case, and as, doubtless, you have consulted and checked the usual sites that object to ID, they don’t have an answer you are willing to put up before knowledgeable supporters of the design inference on FSCO/I as reliable, empirically tested sign. Recall, in one form or another, this is the core, world of life case put on the table by ID researchers and supporters for about 40 years now, i.e. from Thaxton et al (with support from Hoyle too) on. Whatever your motive, that points to the real balance on the merits. KF
JVL,
The problem is that while you admit to the physical evidence that would in every other case clearly result in a conclusion of design, you deny the conclusion of design in this particular case with the defense: “there is no plausible designer available” to account for the design.
What does “not plausible” mean? “Not plausible” to whom, under what worldview? I assume you mean “not plausible” to you.
It’s entirely plausible to hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people that some great, intelligent mind designed that information (and also accounts for the fine-tuning of the universal forces.) It has been entirely plausible to some of the greatest minds, including scientific minds, in history. It was entirely plausible to some of the greatest physicists in history, including current ones, that had to account for what they found via quantum theory experimentation (consciousness & information, not matter or “energy,” being fundamental to reality.)
It’s entirely appropriate for others here to say that your resistance to the design conclusion appears to be the artefact of a somewhat particular worldview that denies the obvious conclusion of the evidence. That evidence not only points directly at intelligent design, it also excludes any other rational explanation (an appeal to virtually impossible, statistical, miraculous “chance” is not a rational explanation) or known causative value.
It’s perfectly reasonable to say, “Yes, the best conclusion is ID, although we don’t know the identity or nature of the designer.” It’s really not reasonable to deny the conclusion of ID because you personally don’t find any proposed designer “plausible.”
The lack of a “plausible” designer does not change the fact that only known, rational, demonstrable causative commodity for the thing in question is intelligent design, and that no other “explanation” even comes close to being remotely reasonable. The “plausibility” of any proposed designer for a specific artefact is irrelevant to the finding of intelligent design.
When a fire investigator makes a finding of arson, the lack of the ability of detectives to find a plausible suspect doesn’t change the finding.
JVL:
You can be as right as the people who say nature produced Stonehenge and the people who say the earth is flat. You are in good company.
JVL,
I now let Wikipedia stand in for you on FSCO/I, though they use the more generic CSI, complex, specified information. Of course, in biology the specification is about biological function, the core test case is DNA, and issues of coding [so, language] and of algorithms [so, goal directed step by step procedures] come up. We can take it as given that you are familiar with how DNA, RNA and Ribosomes function in protein synthesis and with how fold-function domains are isolated in the space of possible AA chains.
Let’s clip-comment:
>>In 1986 [–> TMLO is 1984], Charles B. Thaxton, a physical chemist and creationist,>>
1: Namecalling, he pioneered the modern design theory and did so in a book that was not tied to Biblical exegesis etc, characteristics of Creationism in any relevant sense. He made an argument, based on thermodynamics, information and complexity, that should have been summarised and answered.
>>used the term “specified complexity” from information theory>>
2: Actually, he CITED the term from researchers on OOL, in a context that makes plain the core issue.
>> when claiming that messages transmitted by DNA in the cell were specified by intelligence,>>
3: Strawman. He developed a detailed discussion on specified complexity, relevant thermodynamics and how such arises. At least DNA is mentioned but it is not drawn out to identify what was being discussed, this is setting up a strawman target.
>>and must have originated with an intelligent agent.[25]>>
4: Kindly provide a case of such FSCO/I arising by demonstrably blind chance and/or mechanical necessity, a first step for claiming plausibility of an explanation. There are trillions of cases on the source in intelligence, so deal with the logic of warranted inference to the best explanation.
>> The intelligent design concept of “specified complexity” was developed in the 1990s by mathematician, philosopher, and theologian William A. Dembski.[46]>>
5: Further developed i/l/o the context of configuration spaces, islands that are specified independent of listing configuration, and linked search challenge, expressed in statistical and probabilistic terms. I happen to think that direct search challenge is simpler and forces facing the issue instead of evading on oh how do you get to probability.
>> Dembski states that when something exhibits specified complexity (i.e., is both complex and “specified”, simultaneously), one can infer that it was produced by an intelligent cause (i.e., that it was designed) rather than being the result of natural processes.>>
6: On an empirically grounded warrant. Notice, the evidence base for inferring that FSCO/I is consistently found to arise from intelligently directed configuration is ducked and the key test case, DNA and/or protein AA chains, on the table since Thaxton et al, has not been seriously addressed.
7: You tell me why I shouldn’t infer for cause, that this is a strawman argument being made by Wikipedia’s dominant ideologues?
>> He provides the following examples: “A single letter of the alphabet is specified without being complex. A long sentence of random letters is complex without being specified. A Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specified.”[47]>>
8: Thaxton and those he cited also give similar definitions and examples.
>> He states that details of living things can be similarly characterized, especially the “patterns” of molecular sequences in functional biological molecules such as DNA.>>
9: At last, very late, DNA is mentioned, of course with warning flags in the form of scare quotes.
>>William A. Dembski proposed the concept of specified complexity.[48]>>
10: False, it came through Thaxton et al and is rooted in Orgel and Wicken. I now cite Orgel, 1973, as demonstrative and definitive proof:
>>Dembski defines complex specified information (CSI) as anything with a less than 1 in 10[^]150 chance of occurring by (natural) chance.>>
11: No, this is a strawman. Actual definition in NFL:
>> Critics say that this renders the argument a tautology: complex specified information cannot occur naturally because Dembski has defined it thus,>>
12: Strawman knocked over. The real challenge is to show how blind chance and/or mechanical necessity, without intelligent direction can and does give rise to FSCO/I, for which a random text generation infinite monkeys exercise as I discussed earlier and linked above, is a good case in point. 10^100 config space size too small.
>>so the real question becomes whether or not CSI actually exists in nature.[49][n 8][50]>>
13: DNA, RNA, proteins.
>>The conceptual soundness of Dembski’s specified complexity/CSI argument has been discredited in the scientific and mathematical communities.[51][52]>>
14: Naked appeal to collective authority in the face of an obvious cluster of cases in point that were put on the table by Orgel ~ 50 years ago, now.
>>Specified complexity has yet to be shown to have wide applications in other fields,>>
15: Try, engineering, Computer Science, Cryptanalysis, Information theory and more. We live in a digital age, they cannot not know this. This is deception.
>> as Dembski asserts. John Wilkins and Wesley R. Elsberry characterize Dembski’s “explanatory filter” as eliminative because it eliminates explanations sequentially: first regularity, then chance,>>
16: Dishonest, the successive defaults have been given, the context of inference to best explanation is suppressed, the onward issue of hypothesis testing on nulls and alternatives does not come up before this bald, strawman caricature. We have low contingency on given initial conditions, lawlike regularity is the explanation. We have highly contingent but not independently, simply specified result, chance is best.
>> finally defaulting to design. >>
17: Lie. The TWO — count ’em — defaults are eliminated in a context where FSCO/I is present, you have hit a narrow, functional target, not the barn door of gibberish, that suggests deliberate aim.
>>They argue that this procedure is flawed as a model for scientific inference because the asymmetric way it treats the different possible explanations renders it prone to making false conclusions.[53]>>
18: In fact there are precisely ZERO cases of known origin, where FSCO/I has come about by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity, beyond the 500 – 1,000 bit threshold. Trillions of cases of such by design are readily observed.
19: Anyone who has seriously looked at the matter will know this, the manifest deceit at Wiki here is now at agit prop big lie levels.
>>Richard Dawkins, another critic of intelligent design, argues in The God Delusion (2006) that allowing for an intelligent designer to account for unlikely complexity only postpones the problem, as such a designer would need to be at least as complex.[54]>>
20: irrelevant, we are far more complex than the codes, texts and machines we produce. The issue is not inference to designers and debates over their complexity but the credible causal process for an entity before us, and more particularly, a relevant aspect. One needs to consider an object, event, phenomenon, process etc aspect by aspect, various features may be best explained in diverse ways.
>>Other scientists have argued that evolution through selection is better able to explain the observed complexity,>>
21: The origin of R/DNA, its code and algorithms CANNOT be accounted for by biological evolution. There is a similar case for the first proteins and their correlation, given the threshold of complexity for a first cell.
>>as is evident from the use of selective evolution to design certain electronic, aeronautic and automotive systems>>
22: The evolution in question is of course highly fine tuned and designed by ‘human “intelligent designers” ‘
>> that are considered problems too complex for human “intelligent designers”.[55] >>
23: The very situation of genetic and evolutionary computing demonstrates the gross misrepresentation here.
_________
Wikipedia fails — and in so failing by way of patently dishonest strawman tactics in the face of manifest duties to truth, right reason, warrant, fairness etc — shows that we can be confident that they do not have a cogent response to the actual design inference.
KF
ID is evidenced in cosmology, physics, geology, chemistry and biology. How much independent evidence does one need? Compared to materialism, which only has liars, bluffers and equivocators for support, it is easy to see which has the science and which has the BS.
People like JVL want proof. They don’t care about science
Incredible amount of attention on one person who is disingenuous at best. Why?
This seems the norm here for when someone makes ridiculous comments.
Has there been one instance over the years where a person has changed their comments based on logic and evidence? No! Why expect it to happen now?
Maybe respond once or twice. But not a thousand times. When this happens, the person making the ridiculous comments is getting exactly what he/she wants.
Kairosfocus: I am not motive mongering, I have faced your claims and have offered you an opportunity to back them up, declined.
You motive monger all the time; you question why people don’t see things the way you do and cast aspersions on their beliefs and motives and intelligence with your crooked yardstick metaphor and many other oft repeated phrases like ‘agi prop big lie’ (used just above). You do not trust anyone you disagree with to be honest and sincere. Many other commenters here insist that someone like me must be lying or crazy or unable to reason. Why? Because I disagree with you on the data and evidence. Apparently having an alternate point of view is not considered normal or healthy or honest.
I remember when you offered your challenge a few years ago. When an explanation was offered you repeated the same things you always repeat and were uninfluenced by the counterpoints. If I know I would be repeating the same points made years ago which didn’t affect your view then why would they now?
I think unguided evolution is true because of the evidence and data found in the genomic, biogeographic, fossil, morphological and experimental (in which I include human breeding efforts) records. Taken all together they present what I consider an extremely strong case and show that unguided natural forces are capable of creating the genetic code and all the functional, complex, specified information contained therein. I do not believe there are biological ‘islands of function’ because of universal common descent. I agree that the specific origin of life on Earth is still unknown; I would love to see a plausible, unguided path for the origin of RNA and DNA . . . maybe if I’m lucky I will live to see one. If someone finds a verifiable rabbit fossil in a pre-Cambrian layer, if someone finds an irreducibly complex biological structure that is verified by biologists, if someone finds a crashed spaceship or some strong physical indication of a pre-historic intelligent being then I will revise my views as I should. New data means ideas should be modified or even thrown out.
I have no animosity towards the ID community. I am not afraid to have a civilised discussion of our views. I am genuinely interested in exactly what kind of intelligent design people are supporting, i.e. when and how in particular, but I know that’s pretty much a verboten subject. I am genuinely interested in hearing about a possible ID research agenda, I feel that the ‘field’ has run out of steam and would be happy to see some more work being done.
It would be nice to not have my intelligence or motives questioned. It would be nice not to be called crazy or a ‘Darwin-clown’ or an ‘Evotard’ (as ET is fond of saying). But I won’t hold my breath. I expect more stuff like this from Jerry:
Or this from ET:
William J Murray: It’s entirely plausible to hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people that some great, intelligent mind designed that information (and also accounts for the fine-tuning of the universal forces.) It has been entirely plausible to some of the greatest minds, including scientific minds, in history. It was entirely plausible to some of the greatest physicists in history, including current ones, that had to account for what they found via quantum theory experimentation (consciousness & information, not matter or “energy,” being fundamental to reality.)
That is true. I do not share that view.
It’s entirely appropriate for others here to say that your resistance to the design conclusion appears to be the artefact of a somewhat particular worldview that denies the obvious conclusion of the evidence. That evidence not only points directly at intelligent design, it also excludes any other rational explanation (an appeal to virtually impossible, statistical, miraculous “chance” is not a rational explanation) or known causative value.
I disagree. My view has come after careful consideration of the evidence, data and arguments made by both ‘sides’. I do not believe the evidence only leads to the conclusion of design. I think that it is rational to hold my view. Also, you have no idea of my own personal theological journey.
It’s really not reasonable to deny the conclusion of ID because you personally don’t find any proposed designer “plausible.”
As I’ve already explained, the lack of non-genetic physical evidence of a pre-historic intelligent designer is just one point in a multi-threaded argument.
The lack of a “plausible” designer does not change the fact that only known, rational, demonstrable causative commodity for the thing in question is intelligent design,
I don’t think that is the case however. I think we now know that unguided natural processes are capable of being the cause.
You sound like everyone else: there must be something wrong with me because ID is obviously true. You cannot accept the fact that it’s perfectly rational to hold a differing view. And because I don’t see you ever changing your opinion should I bother defending my own view?
JVL:
Pure BS. The only evidence for unguided evolution is found in genetic diseases and deformities. There isn’t any evidence that unguided evolution can produce eukaryotes GIVEN starting populations of prokaryotes. And GIVEN eukaryotes there isn’t any evidence that unguided evolution can produce developmental biology. The paper “Waiting for TWO Mutations” was written because there isn’t any evidence and they must rely of probability arguments. Unfortunately all probability arguments are evidence against unguided evolution.
What I said is true. So I understand why JVL would take issue with it.
The only predictions borne from unguided evolution are genetic diseases and deformities. No one knows how to test the claim that unguided evolution produced ATP synthase or any bacterial flagellum. Unguided evolution has never advance our knowledge, except with respect to genetic diseases and deformities. Otherwise it is a useless heuristic.