Chance, Law, Agency or Other?

_{Barry Arrington
May 19, 2008

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Suppose you come across this tree:

Tree Chair

You know nothing else about the tree other than what you can infer from a visual inspection.

Multiple Choice:

A. The tree probably obtained this shape through chance.

B. The tree probably obtained this shape through mechanical necessity.

C. The tree probably obtained this shape through a combination of chance and mechanical necessity.

D. The tree probably obtained this shape as the result of the purposeful efforts of an intelligent agent.

E. Other.

Select your answer and give supporting reasons.

Comments

Daniel King, (42) My bad. I was in a hurry and didn't proofread well enough. The sentence should read,
The problem you don’t get is that, unless there is a question-begging definition of science, there is no requirement that science must be compatible with atheism.
A non-question-begging definition of science might be the study of reproducible events, or perhaps the study of events for which there is a known physical mechanism (although the latter would rule out quantum mechanics). A question-begging definition of science would be the explanation of events in nature by means of natural processes. How can we know ahead of time that all events, including the Big Bang and the OoL, are in fact explained by natural processes? The latter definition of science would appear to beg that question.Paul Giem_{May 20, 2008
May
05
May
20
20
2008
09:53 PM
9
09
53
PM
PDT}

Wow, five posts to answer, what fun. #35:
So then, if you discovered an abandoned city on Uranus or Jupitor, you would conclude that it was either designed by humans, or was natural, not artificial?
I would hypothesize that it was designed by something in the same general category as humans, i.e., an evolved being constituted of matter, which I would proceed, to the extent of my available brains, time, and resources, to learn as much as I could about.
And would anyone who credits its existance to design be described as propounding a creationist or religious view?
It would depend on the nature of the proposed designer. (See below for my attempt to define "creationist.") #37:
Consider a robot that makes robots like itself. The robot is not intelligent. It simply follows a computer code that tells it to place nut B on bolt A and twist clockwise. Through a whole series of such instructions another robot is produced by non-intelligent means. But the robot itself was obviously the product of intelligence.
By "the robot itself," I assume you mean the first robot; so I don't see how "the robot itself" is not a "created" object, or how your proposal differs from front loading. #37 again:
The question of whether it is possible to detect design and the question of whether a designer of living things exists are the same question. If I demonstrate design has occurred (i.e., detect design) I have necessarily demonstrated the existence of a designer, because design does not happen without the existence of a designer.
I have no quarrel with "if design, then designer," except that it seems circular; but I don't quite understand your first sentence here. It is certainly possible that we can detect design and that a designer of living things does not exist. (If you mean to say "the question of whether it is possible to detect design in living things and the question of whether a designer of living things exists are the same question," that would not be responsive to my point, which is that our ability to detect design by humans -- in archeology, crime scene investigation, etc. -- does not mean that we can, by the same principles and methods, infer design or a designer of humans. (Sorry if this needs more explication than I have time for here.)) #38:
We use induction to infer “making” and “designing” ability in most intelligences, based on the limited number of examples we’ve seen (human design.)
I would think that induction would be of limited validity if there is insufficient similarity between the inferred instances and the observed instances; so I would question the validity of inferring, from artifacts of human intelligence, that other things were intelligently designed by something or someone that we know nothing about. #39:
1) What is your definition of “creationism”?
I've never had to define it before, but I suppose this will do: the belief that nature, and most specifically, living things, were intentionally brought into being by some entity outside of nature.
2) if we limit ID to cases of human design, is it still religious?
I don't see how it would be, but it seems superfluous. Detection of design is simply a component of other activities and disciplines (archeology, CSI, etc.).
If not, then it isn’t ID that is religious, since you’re using ID in both cases. ID has religious implications (as does Darwinism), but it doesn’t have religious premises.
Again, if we're only talking about detection of human (or animal) design, I don't see why we have to use the term ID. As for ID not having religious premises, I don't agree. Behe, for example, has said that he arrived at ID through scientific inquiry, unrelated to his Christian beliefs; but I question whether he would have reached his conclusions in the absence of a prior conception of (even without belief in) a supernatural, intelligent being. #41:
The problem you don't get is that there is no requirement that science, unless there is a question-begging definition of science, is [ ]required to be compatible with atheism. [I removed an apparently spurious "not" from your sentence.]
I have no expectation that science will be compatible with atheism. (I do think it must be materialistic; if anyone can tell me how they can do nonmaterialistic science, I'd like to hear it.) I do object to disingenuous claims that ID has nothing to do with theism. I think there's a fundamental dishonesty going on when some in the ID community are saying "we just want to do science, follow the evidence where it leads, the Darwinists are suppressing scientific inquiry, we are the Galileos of our age" and others are saying that the problem is that we have to abandon materialism.pubdef_{May 20, 2008
May
05
May
20
20
2008
09:32 PM
9
09
32
PM
PDT}

jstanley01 writes: "I think [Alan is] missing the irony of the picture: how the human intelligence behind the specified complexity that makes up a chair can be so evident, while any intelligence at all behind the orders-of-magnitude greater specified complexity required to produce a tree can seem so obscure to so many people." Yes! You got it. Thanks.BarryA_{May 20, 2008
May
05
May
20
20
2008
09:32 PM
9
09
32
PM
PDT}

"However, this immediately raises the question, if ID is valid, aren't both the "chair tree" and a "natural tree" designed?" Yes, but on different levels. Normally we look at the CSI required to code for the tree, in this case we are looking at how the tree was arranged to grow in the pattern that it did after the fact. "Indeed, I believe that virtually all of the commentators here would agree." No kidding, but see the above point. "In that case, how useful is the so-called "explanatory filter", as clearly it cannot distinguish between the level of design exhibited by the object in the photograph and the "natural" objects with which it is compared?" I'm assuming your understanding of the Explanatory Filter (or what I like to call the "X" filter) literally stems from the way I applied it to the EXTERNAL ARRANGEMENT of the tree, and for the most part that was the original question that was being asked. The X filter can ALSO be applied to the genome of the tree if that's the type of issue you're looking towards. "Indeed, if ID “theory” is valid, it seems likely that essentially all living objects and processes (and formerly living, but now dead ones, such as corpses and fossils) are designed, or are artifacts produced by designed entities." That's a possibility but nonetheless I think you have fallen for a somewhat common misconception. ID only concerns itself with CERTAIN aspects in biology (and physics/cosmology). You wouldn't need every last characteristic of life to be the product of design for it to be a valid theory. "Ergo, the “explanatory filter” apparently cannot produce a quantitative assessment of the level of design of any living (or formerly living) object or process." Again, you've confused what the explanatory filter IS with WHAT we're applying it to. "Extending this line of reasoning..." Which we can explicitly see is based off of a straw man... "...the “explanatory filter” is also useless for the purposes of verifying or falsifying “borderline” cases." If you would like, I can show you how I personally use the Explanatory Filter (or simply the "X" filter) and apply it to a biological structure such as the flagellum. Then you know how you can apply it at the biological level. "But, in the same way that the “explanatory filter” cannot distinguish between an espaliered tree and a “natural” tree (i.e. one not modified by a human “designer”)" Dude, the X filter is part of our every day reasoning, it's not that tough to apply it to the Tree in the image. Chance? Heck no. Regularity? Though highly improbable, the fact that it conforms to a specified low descriptive yet familiar pattern we see repeated elsewhere means that this is consistent with being an intentional arrangement. Design? Yes, see the previous sentence for clarification. "...it cannot quantitatively distinguish between a non-living Martian “blueberry” and a living one (or one produced by a living entity or process)." See the above elaborations on the X filter, you're assuming it cannot be applied at the biological level because we used it in a different context. "One of the most basic principles of modern biological science is that, if one cannot statistically analyze the validity of one’s empirical results as compared with one’s proposed hypothesis for the origin of such results, then one isn’t “doing science”." We totally agree with this and it's one of the reasons we express skepticism over Darwinian evolution. Take the following video as an example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w As an evolutionary explanation, you have protein parts just pop out of no where, magically gather at the same location, in the right order, without any interfering parts getting in the way, and in a way where they are interfacing compatibly to form a functional flagellum capable of overcoming Brownian motion. No attempts to statistically quantify the likelihood that such a pathway will be crossed are made. And without numbers (which you agree are important), there is no way to falsify (or verify) that the pathway can even occur. When Dembski (or many of the other people on UD, myself included) attempt to quantify such a pathway, we see that it has no realistic chance of happening (since the odds tend to satisfy the UBP). So in terms of not rigerously testing their results statistically Evolutionists are just as guilty. "Yet, on the basis of the foregoing," Which was based on a misconception. "the “explanatory filter” (and, by extension, the soi dissant “theory” of “complex specified information” upon which it is based) is utterly useless as an analytic tool in the empirical sciences." See bottom point. "Discovering how, exactly?" Would you like me to show you how it's done with the flagellum?F2XL_{May 20, 2008
May
05
May
20
20
2008
09:22 PM
9
09
22
PM
PDT}

allen is not making many valid points at all.....he is just showing that he has never read any of Dembski's works.....Dembski's point in defining the explanatory filter was NEVER to be able to ALWAYS detect design in every instance. rather, it was to show that somethings show irrefutable levels of design. beyond that, your post is pretty poor actually..... the point of the explanatory filter is to show merely that somethings are certainly designed. your post has done zero to address that....interested_{May 20, 2008
May
05
May
20
20
2008
07:52 PM
7
07
52
PM
PDT}

Allen_MacNeill @ 47 I think you're missing the irony of the picture: how the human intelligence behind the specified complexity that makes up a chair can be so evident, while any intelligence at all behind the orders-of-magnitude greater specified complexity required to produce a tree can seem so obscure to so many people. If both are the products of design, of course there are going to be borderline problems. Take a co-authored book for example: it may not be self-evident from a cursory reading ot the text which author wrote what. Familiarity with each author's own unique style may be required, and even that may not be enough. Or take a co-written piece of software: it may be impossible for a third party to sort out which coder wrote what code. I don't see how that borderline problem relates to the Mars blueberries. It seems to me that whether they display sufficient specified complexity to wiggle, or to have used to have wiggled -- in contrast to the rocks that surround them -- is exactly everyone's waiting to see.jstanley01_{May 20, 2008
May
05
May
20
20
2008
07:46 PM
7
07
46
PM
PDT}

Allen, I am not sure you are making a valid point. There are two different issues, the basic design of the organism and its potential capabilities and how that organism's outward appearance or capabilities is affected by the environment. These are two completely separate issues. On each issue the EF could be applied. You seem to be conflating issues when they are really quite separate.jerry_{May 20, 2008
May
05
May
20
20
2008
07:00 PM
7
07
00
PM
PDT}

Furthermore, the originator of the "explanatory filter" itself has said this about quantitative analysis of hypotheses about design:
"ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it’s not ID’s task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering.”
http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000152.html Discovering how, exactly?Allen_MacNeill_{May 20, 2008
May
05
May
20
20
2008
06:21 PM
6
06
21
PM
PDT}

An interesting question, but not necessarily in the way intended. Consider the fact that all of the commentators so far have compared the object in the photograph with a "natural" tree, and concluded that the "tree" in the photograph must have been designed (perhaps by the person next to it in the photo). However, this immediately raises the question, if ID is valid, aren't both the "chair tree" and a "natural tree" designed? Indeed, I believe that virtually all of the commentators here would agree. In that case, how useful is the so-called "explanatory filter", as clearly it cannot distinguish between the level of design exhibited by the object in the photograph and the "natural" objects with which it is compared? Indeed, if ID "theory" is valid, it seems likely that essentially all living objects and processes (and formerly living, but now dead ones, such as corpses and fossils) are designed, or are artifacts produced by designed entities. Ergo, the "explanatory filter" apparently cannot produce a quantitative assessment of the level of design of any living (or formerly living) object or process. Extending this line of reasoning, the "explanatory filter" is also useless for the purposes of verifying or falsifying "borderline" cases. For example, it cannot be used to determine if the "blueberries" so abundant in some of the photographs taken by the Mars surveyor robots are the product of living organisms (and therefore of "design"), as doing so would involve calculations that would indicate that the "blueberries" either did or did not exceed some quantitative threshold indicating design. But, in the same way that the "explanatory filter" cannot distinguish between an espaliered tree and a "natural" tree (i.e. one not modified by a human "designer"), it cannot quantitatively distinguish between a non-living Martian "blueberry" and a living one (or one produced by a living entity or process). One of the most basic principles of modern biological science is that, if one cannot statistically analyze the validity of one's empirical results as compared with one's proposed hypothesis for the origin of such results, then one isn't "doing science". Yet, on the basis of the foregoing, the "explanatory filter" (and, by extension, the soi dissant "theory" of "complex specified information" upon which it is based) is utterly useless as an analytic tool in the empirical sciences.Allen_MacNeill_{May 20, 2008
May
05
May
20
20
2008
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT}

Lemme see. Could it be A? B? C? D? E? Mind if I sit down while I think about this?jstanley01_{May 20, 2008
May
05
May
20
20
2008
05:15 PM
5
05
15
PM
PDT}

"Another famous example would be IBM’s Deep Blue computer beating the chess champion Gary Kasparov using Machine Code and its machine set, the computer and monitor with its powersource, electricity." He actually had some interesting things to say about Deep Blue. I believe he made a comment that if a computer could beat him in chess then a computer could write the best books, plays, or something to that effect. "Who is doing the requiring? The scientists or the atheists?" Sadly it could be both if many scientists regard themselves to be atheist or agnostic. Still can't find any justification for why things that are "scientific" must be in terms of matter and energy. I find the third fundamental entity (information/intelligence) to be just as testable.F2XL_{May 20, 2008
May
05
May
20
20
2008
03:34 PM
3
03
34
PM
PDT}

When dealing with the origin of life (OOL as they call it I guess), if you exclude the design inference, then that makes all other inferences atheistic in nature. So if the evolutionary proponents are going to sit there and deny the inference of design, they are in effect in the business of validating atheism with respect to the origin of biological organism(s). By the way, (D) is the obvious answer to the question posed. I see a recognizable pattern that has a low probability of existence. Extremely low probability. Exceptionally patterned. Very intuitive. Very cool.RRE_{May 20, 2008
May
05
May
20
20
2008
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT}

BarryA, Codes can be granted the ability to produce the effect of intelligent agency when given a machine set that is compatible to that particular code. In another way, codes can mimick the effects of a mind and body when a machine(s) are able to be used by the code. That would explain how the genetic code with its compatible machine set (nano robots within the cell) could produce yet another code with a compatible machine set, in other words, reproduce. Our automobile factories can use a code in combination with robotic arms (machines) to purposefully produce the car. The code and compatible machine set (robotic arms) can mimick the effects of a welder. Another famous example would be IBM's Deep Blue computer beating the chess champion Gary Kasparov using Machine Code and its machine set, the computer and monitor with its powersource, electricity. The obvious point would then be what produced the 'original' genetic code and the 'original' set of compatible machines that make the cell. After all, a code has only been shown to come into existence through intelligent agency (either another code with compatible machine set or through a mind with a compatible machine set). So in my opinion, this would regress until a mind becomes the final answer as to any codes' origin. Also, observation has shown us that each and every time a mind has been shown to exist, a compatible machine set has been present (biological body). So I think I have shown that a code can in fact produce the effects of intelligenct agency, although this has always regressed back to a mind at the irreducible point of origin.RRE_{May 20, 2008
May
05
May
20
20
2008
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT}

The problem you don’t get is that there is no requirement that science, unless there is a question-begging definition of science, is not required to be compatible with atheism.
Enough with the double negatives, already. Do you mean to say, "Science is required to be compatible with atheism"? Who is doing the requiring? The scientists or the atheists? File under: Incoherence.Daniel King_{May 20, 2008
May
05
May
20
20
2008
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT}

Pubdef, (33), You make a valid point along with some that appear to be mostly incorrect. Regarding the detection of design, if one comes across a beaver dam, one infers either instinct or intelligence or both in the beavers. instinct is simply a low-level "hardwired" intelligence, very much akin to computer programs. If someone happens on a valley where no humans have been (which is unlikely to happen now) and finds a beaver dam, it is reasonable to infer some kind of intelligence, even if one has never seen a beaver. Could one say that a given dam was made by beavers and not humans? Not securely, as conceivably humans could imitate beavers. Could one say that a dam was made by humans and not beavers? If it were 500 feet high and made of reinforced concrete, on this earth, probably yes. But in either case, one can say that the dam was the result of intelligent design, and not the random falling of mud, logs, concrete, and/or steel. The inference of intelligent design is at least partly independent of the designer. BarryA (37) has successfully shown how design can be separated temporally from making something. This is also true for the springing of traps. Frontloading is a demonstrably real phenomenon. Your valid point is that this is in some sense creationism and religious. If one accepts that there was a designer, then that designer had to be more intelligent than us (as we can neither create life nor transport it at will to another solar system yet). So from our perspective, even if material, this designer is effectively godlike. Furthermore, if this designer was material, the question of "Who designed the designer?" is appropriate, leading to an ultimate designer or designers that were (are?) not dependent on the organization of matter for its/their intelligence. So, yes, there would be rather clear creationist (in the broader sense) implications. The problem you don't get is that there is no requirement that science, unless there is a question-begging definition of science, is not required to be compatible with atheism. An interpretation of science compatible with atheism has to win on the merits. It looks like such an interpretation is losing rather badly in several areas, most prominently on the OoL. Tough break. You have to win on the merits, and if you lose, then you have to either concede and move to our side, or maintain a faith-based atheism. As for me, I'll go with the evidence. And I think every scientist should be able to do the same without intimidation. Do you?Paul Giem_{May 20, 2008
May
05
May
20
20
2008
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT}

The choice is obviously D! But nowhere does this challenge "materialist assumptions" like other commenters have suggested. At the risk of sounding like a darwinist, this was clearly designed by a natural entity, a human being is the most likely explanation. It was also designed for a discernible purpose - making a chair that you could take a picture of and show off how cool you are! It's a very neat chair. You don't have to have a signature saying whodunit to identify the designer, the shape, size, and nature of the design that took place suggests that it was a skilled human designer. Here's a question, if there was a flaw in the design, could you infer that the designer was less-than-fully capeable of carrying out the design? For large, complicated designs, can the effects of miscommunication be detected when multiple designers are involved? These are the kinds of questions I'm really interested in.EJ Klone_{May 20, 2008
May
05
May
20
20
2008
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT}

Sorry Barry, I mistook #38 for DLH when it was you. Good point either way.Atom_{May 20, 2008
May
05
May
20
20
2008
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT}

DLH wrote:
The question of whether it is possible to detect design and the question of whether a designer of living things exists are the same question. If I demonstrate design has occurred (i.e., detect design) I have necessarily demonstrated the existence of a designer, because design does not happen without the existence of a designer.
Bingo. pubdef wrote:
This leads to illumination of why Intelligent Design is, essentially, (1) creationism and (2) religious
1) What is your definition of "creationism"? 2) if we limit ID to cases of human design, is it still religious? If so, then you need to explain how detecting signs of intelligent activity on material objects becomes a religious proposition. If not, then it isn't ID that is religious, since you're using ID in both cases. ID has religious implications (as does Darwinism), but it doesn't have religious premises.Atom_{May 20, 2008
May
05
May
20
20
2008
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT}

pubdef wrote:
The fundamental point is not so much that we have seen humans design things as that we have seen humans make things; better, that we have seen humans do things; better yet, that we have seen humans. So, the inference to human design is fundamentally different from an inference to nonhuman design. This leads to illumination of why Intelligent Design is, essentially, (1) creationism and (2) religious.
Why is it different? How do you know humans can make things? Because you've seen a few do so? You are also using induction to infer "making" ability in most humans based on a limited number of examples. We use induction to infer "making" and "designing" ability in most intelligences, based on the limited number of examples we've seen (human design.) As I've written here before, artifacts establish the historical presence of designing intelligences. So your point devolves into my original post (#1)...you will argue that deisgn can't be true, because we have no "evidence" of ancient non-human designers. (Conveniently, there can never be any such "evidence", since even if we found a big signature that said "Made by Alien 115", it couldn't have been designed, since we have never seen a non-human alien intelligence designing. So that evidence wouldn't count, nor would any set of evidence.) So I'd rather not use your reasoning.Atom_{May 20, 2008
May
05
May
20
20
2008
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT}

pubdef writes “the real point is not that someone/something designed the flagellum, but that someone/something made it. (If I’m wrong, tell me — is it a viable hypothesis within the ID paradigm that living things were designed by an intelligence, but the design was implemented without intelligence?” Well, duh. No one suggests that each flagellum comes about as an act of special creation by an intelligent agent. That is absurd. Living things were indeed designed by an intelligent agent, and that design is indeed implemented without intelligence. Consider a robot that makes robots like itself. The robot is not intelligent. It simply follows a computer code that tells it to place nut B on bolt A and twist clockwise. Through a whole series of such instructions another robot is produced by non-intelligent means. But the robot itself was obviously the product of intelligence. Now consider the bacterium. It is truly the case that a bacterium is a self-replicating nano-robot. It is a marvel of nano-technology, complete with a computer code (DNA), material transport mechanisms, quality control apparatus, etc., all of which operate without the slightest need for input by an intelligent agent. The question you pose is therefore, utterly irrelevant to ID. We know what MADE the bacterial flagellum, the bacterium. The real issue is what is the best explanation for the existence of a staggeringly complex self-replicating nano-robot – unguided and blind natural forces or intelligent agency. The answer is, of course, obvious. pubdef then writes: “the real point of dispute between ID and ID opponents is not whether it is possible to detect design, but whether a designer of living things exists.” Wrong. The question of whether it is possible to detect design and the question of whether a designer of living things exists are the same question. If I demonstrate design has occurred (i.e., detect design) I have necessarily demonstrated the existence of a designer, because design does not happen without the existence of a designer.BarryA_{May 20, 2008
May
05
May
20
20
2008
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT}

re: #35 The planet "Jupitor" should not be confused with the more familiar "Jupiter", since it is in a different universe than our own, which is one of billions of universes that make all events possible.russ_{May 20, 2008
May
05
May
20
20
2008
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT}

The fundamental point is not so much that we have seen humans design things as that we have seen humans make things; better, that we have seen humans do things; better yet, that we have seen humans. So, the inference to human design is fundamentally different from an inference to nonhuman design. This leads to illumination of why Intelligent Design is, essentially, (1) creationism and (2) religious.
So then, if you discovered an abandoned city on Uranus or Jupitor, you would conclude that it was either designed by humans, or was natural, not artificial? And would anyone who credits its existance to design be described as propounding a creationist or religious view?russ_{May 20, 2008
May
05
May
20
20
2008
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT}

Re #17 and #27: "Dembski's whittler" is clever, but a few minutes thought brought me to why it doesn't get Dembski where he wants to go. The fundamental point is not so much that we have seen humans design things as that we have seen humans make things; better, that we have seen humans do things; better yet, that we have seen humans. So, the inference to human design is fundamentally different from an inference to nonhuman design. This leads to illumination of why Intelligent Design is, essentially, (1) creationism and (2) religious. Concerning (1), the real point is not that someone/something designed the flagellum, but that someone/something made it. (If I'm wrong, tell me -- is it a viable hyptothesis within the ID paradigm that living things were designed by an intelligence, but the design was implemented without intelligence? You might say that "front loading" is such a hypothesis, but I don't think that works as a separation of design and implementation.) Concerning (2), the real point of dispute between ID and ID opponents is not whether it is possible to detect design, but whether a designer of living things exists.pubdef_{May 20, 2008
May
05
May
20
20
2008
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT}

re: #31 Could it not be that the tree, through gradual evolution, provided progressively more comfy seating for Neanderthals/Cromagnans, and benefited from early man's aversion to insects? In killing the bugs that preyed on men, they would have likely killed some of the tree-eating species as well, thus forming a symbiotic relationship between man and chairtree.russ_{May 20, 2008
May
05
May
20
20
2008
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT}

To further clarify the explanatory power of Darwinian theory, we now turn to the chair-shaped tree. The insects that evolved through natural selection to avoid humans, and thus the deadly chemicals, evolved further to recognize subtle indicators of human presence, such as chairs. This tree, through natural selection, evolved to fool the insects into thinking that humans might be around to poison the insects with the deadly chemicals, and, thus, this variety of tree stood a better chance of survival from avoiding attack by insects that fear humans. Thus, through natural selection, the chair-tree passed on its chair-tree genes to future generations.
Gil, your post is an excellent contribution to the overwhelming body of evidence for macroevolution. But I would like your clarification on the origin of this: http://bp2.blogger.com/_Lj5KP8OgZVk/R8cfwjQTSTI/AAAAAAAABXE/wYkCFIJiwL0/s1600-h/trees-thumb.jpg Which came first, the chair-tree, or the man-tree? And do we have in one or the other a missing link that finally proves a theory which was already been proven?russ_{May 20, 2008
May
05
May
20
20
2008
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT}

teh = the* doens't = doesn't*Atom_{May 20, 2008
May
05
May
20
20
2008
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT}

pubdef wrote:
Unless I missed something, no one has responded to this point from Congregate #3: I could change my mind if you showed me that the tree’s ancestors had the same shape, or if seeds from it grew in the same shape.
If the tree's ancestors had teh same shape, then it took this shape through mechanical necessity (development program.) But then the question gets pushed back one level: how did the tree's ancestors come to take this shape? The reason no one responded (I believe) is because we all see that it doesn't really answer BarryA's implied question. We could also say it has this shape becuase it had the same shape two seconds ago and things tend to keep the same shape over time...but that doens't really answer Barry's implied question, either.Atom_{May 20, 2008
May
05
May
20
20
2008
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT}

Unless I missed something, no one has responded to this point from Congregate #3:
I could change my mind if you showed me that the tree’s ancestors had the same shape, or if seeds from it grew in the same shape.
pubdef_{May 20, 2008
May
05
May
20
20
2008
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT}

Matteo wrote:
can’t remember exactly where, but in some published essay or book, William Dembski pointed out the question-begging logic behind saying “we can identify human designs because we have seen humans design things, but not so with non-human designs”. Well, when we saw the human being designing something, how did we know that that was what he was doing? Dembski gives the example of a human being taking a whittling knife to a stick. How can we even tell that the human being is acting as a designer as he manipulates the knife, rather than just using it to absently hack away at the stick? Only by detecting design in the result! Hence we infer from the presence of design to the designing activity of the human, and not the other way around.
Exactly! he made the point in an essay in the Design Revolution. (Excellent book, btw.) Makes the point perfectly. Those who need to "See a designer around" before they could possibly concede design must first identify someone as a designer...and you can only do that by inferring design!Atom_{May 20, 2008
May
05
May
20
20
2008
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT}

Don't be silly. Nature designed the chair. What happened was Nature was walking around in her garden, in the cool of the day, as it were, when suddenly the idea occurred to Her, “Gee! It certainly would be nice to sit down every now and then!” And right then and there She thought of Chair. Cause let’s face it, even Nature gets tired of walking around all the time, creating millions of species and body plans out plain old atoms and stuff. Nature’s always having great little inspirations like that. Heck, I remember the time She said to Herself, “Self! Let’s make a liver.” Right out of the blue! Can you believe it? She’s so creative. And what about the time She made light? Without light, we’d all be in the dark. In fact we’re still in the dark about light. Nobody can figure it out. Is it particle? Is it wave? Who the heck knows? So that was another great idea She had. Or think about our solar system for a moment. I mean really think about it! Stuff orbiting the sun, stuff orbiting stuff, stuff staying out of stuff’s way. When Nature got done figuring all THAT out, she really needed to sit down. And that’s where Chair comes in. Nature is resting. (To tell the truth, She hasn’t really had any great new ideas in a long time. I don’t know why She stopped creating things all of a sudden, but She did. Except, of course, for the chair.)allanius_{May 20, 2008
May
05
May
20
20
2008
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 4 5 6 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply