Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Illusion of Design

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The September 17th issue of the New Scientist features ten articles on “The World’s Ten Biggest Ideas.” These include the “Big Bang,” “Science,” and “Evolution.” Who did the article on evolution. You guessed it:

The path to complex life is one of the greatest human insights in history, says Richard Dawkins

The world is divided into things that look designed (like birds and airliners) and things that don’t (rocks and mountains). Things that look designed are divided into those that really are designed (submarines and tin openers) and those that aren’t (sharks and hedgehogs). The diagnostic of things that look (or are) designed is that their parts are assembled in ways that are statistically improbable in a functional direction. They do something well: for instance, fly.

Darwinian natural selection can produce an uncanny illusion of design. An engineer would be hard put to decide whether a bird or a plane was the more aerodynamically elegant.

So powerful is the illusion of design, it took humanity until the mid-19th century to realise that it is an illusion. In 1859, Charles Darwin announced one of the greatest ideas ever to occur to a human mind: cumulative evolution by natural selection. Living complexity is …

Comments
Arnhart - One is being worked on. You can usually do it yourself if you actually look at the list. There are some truly bad claims that T.O rightfully calls people on, but the majority of it is just hand-waving. People like to point to it thinking that "oh, they have a list, they must be right" but usually the arguments themselves are pretty worthless, and sometimes even cede the point within the arguments. Anyway, the in-progress response is here: Response to the Creationist Claims index: http://www.nwcreation.net/wiki/index.php?title=Creationist_claims Response to the transitional forms FAQ: http://www.nwcreation.net/wiki/index.php?title=Transitional_forms Response to the 29 evidences for macroevolution: http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_ac_01.asp The response to the 29 evidences is probably the weakest work. It's not really wrong, it's just that there exist many good arguments that he could have used but did not. Work on the Creationist Claims Index is growing, but slowly, as there are only one to three people working on it. Personally, I'd like to see an Index to Evolutionist Claims as well, and even open it up to evolutionists to restate the claims in their own words.johnnyb
September 18, 2005
September
09
Sep
18
18
2005
05:38 PM
5
05
38
PM
PDT
Qualiatative, I don't understand your comments about the "Index to Creationist Claims". Could you give me some examples of "avoidance of the arguments"? And what do you mean by "ateleological arguments" versus "teleological" ones?Arnhart
September 18, 2005
September
09
Sep
18
18
2005
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT
Arnhart, I read the entire list several months ago. Unless they have updated them significantly, the "responses" are: 1.) beating down straw men 2.) merely responding with accusations of incredulity 3.) over extrapolations of referenced papers OR 4.) some other avoidance of the arguments ------- johnnyb, I agree. It never ceases to amaze me how ateleological arguments are supposedly allowable within science while teleological ones are not.Qualiatative
September 18, 2005
September
09
Sep
18
18
2005
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PDT
The "illusion" of Design Darwinian natural selection can produce an uncanny illusion of design. An engineer would be hard put to decide whether a bird or a plane was the more aerodynamically elegant. So powerful is the illusion of design, it took humanity until the mid-19th ceJeff Blogworthy.com
September 18, 2005
September
09
Sep
18
18
2005
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT
It's statements like these that really irk me. I sit in medical school every day and listen to profs lecture on the complex negative and positive feedback systems built into the biochemistry of the way the human body works, and then listen to them say in the next breath how our bodies have "figured out a way to keep the clotting cascade in check," or "figured out a way to monitor hormone levels." Give me a break. They sit there and lecture to us for hours on end explaining to us the intricacies of these systems and yet accept the fact that these things arose by chance over quadrillions of years. It's funny how scientist will find a new protein in a living system and then assume it has a function and spend the next 5 years of their careers looking for it's function. Every protein would not have to have a purpose if it was slowly evolving, and part of a random chance phenomenon. Just my two cents. I appreciate what you are doing for the ID community WmAD.drseth
September 18, 2005
September
09
Sep
18
18
2005
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT
Thanks Arnhart for the link. It seems a very complete list about the controversy. But I think a detailed response to it needs time and an entire book. A blog space is not sufficient.niwrad
September 18, 2005
September
09
Sep
18
18
2005
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT
The interesting thing is that, if he knew anything about metaphysics, he would realize that the negation of the one kind of design necessarily negates the other. In other words, if we aren't designed, then there is no reason to consider the acts that we do acts of design. Or, more specifically, if material causation is the only type of causation in existence, then "design" is simply a false concept altogether. If he doesn't believe that, then even he doesn't take his conclusions seriously. If he does, then ALL design is an illusion, including the design of evolutionary theory. Of course, we shouldn't be too hard on the metaphysically challenged.johnnyb
September 18, 2005
September
09
Sep
18
18
2005
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT
Has anyone written a point-by-point response to Mark Isaak's "Index to Creationist Claims" at www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html? Isaak's statement seems to be one of the best general summaries of answers to creationist/ID arguments.Arnhart
September 18, 2005
September
09
Sep
18
18
2005
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT
"[...] and those that aren’t designed (sharks [...]" Mmm, I don’t know rationally why but the idea that a shark (such a formidable and beautiful war machine of the sea) is NOT designed is just a little ridiculous. Perhaps I would have accepted more easily another animal from Dawkins.niwrad
September 18, 2005
September
09
Sep
18
18
2005
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT
That segement on evolution appears 'designed' for political posturing reguarding ID :/Jedi Deist
September 18, 2005
September
09
Sep
18
18
2005
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT
"An engineer would be hard put to decide whether a bird or a plane was the more aerodynamically elegant. " I'm not so sure he would even think it a contest.Charlie
September 18, 2005
September
09
Sep
18
18
2005
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT
I`m being assaulted by PZ Myers and his Panda`s Middle Finger minions at my website. It`s vicious, and I would appreciate any help anyone could give me. www.tbirdblog.blogspot.combirddog
September 18, 2005
September
09
Sep
18
18
2005
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply