Intelligent Design

Engineers! Not Biologists Investigate the Cochlea

Spread the love

The title of this PhysOrg news summary really tells us all we need to know about the neo-Darwin/ID debate. Tacitly included is the assumption that only via known physical and mathematical laws can biologists attain an understanding of this particular ‘adaptation.’

This then would require that NS, via the ‘environment and climate change’ is able to produce innovations consistent with laws that were only discovered millions of years later. How is this possible? This can only become possible if the ‘environment’ is interacting with something that is capable of encoding and producing some form of mathematical/physical knowledge or information.

This in turn begs the question: where did this ‘knowledge’ or mathematico/physico ‘information’ come from? Can we, in an intellectually honest and rigorous fashion, say that it is the ‘environment and climate change’ that has brought this about?

When one steps out from behind the “Looking Glass,” it is simply mind-boggling that conclusions can’t be easily reached given what is right in front of our faces. Again, this is no “proof” of God; rather, it is a clear indication that we’re dealing with an intelligent agent in all of this kinds of innovation.

9 Replies to “Engineers! Not Biologists Investigate the Cochlea

  1. 1
    mahuna says:

    You’re making the mistake that laws of science discovered within the last 500 years (e.g., The Law of Gravity) did not exist before they were discovered. Phyicists and mathematicians did not invent or manufacture the laws. The Earth resolved itself into a sphere 4 billion years ago because that’s how the laws have always worked. Life on Earth has always obeyed the applicable laws. It’s just that humans have been a bit slow at realizing the laws existed. Some of the problem has to do with the availability of modern measuring and observation equipment (clocks, telescopes) and some of the problem has to do with the knowledge of advanced mathematics (calculus).

  2. 2
    PaV says:

    mahuna:

    Of course I know that the laws of science existed before they were discovered—or else, they couldn’t be discovered!

    But we’re not talking about simple laws of nature, we’re talking about using these laws of nature to solve a problem, or to provide a function. This is what engineers do. Many, many ID proponents are engineers precisely because we know what the design process involves.

    That engineers, and not biologists, are looking for an explanation indicates that ‘reverse’ engineering is in play. But, of course, how can you ‘reverse-engineer’ something unless it was first engineered itself.

    Now, mahuna, if you want to claim that NS+RV is capable of “engineering”, go right ahead. But such a claim is patently absurd. This is the dilemna that Darwinists face.

    Another day; another bad day for Darwinism. The end is soon.

  3. 3
    Neil Rickert says:

    This then would require that NS, via the ‘environment and climate change’ is able to produce innovations consistent with laws that were only discovered millions of years later. How is this possible? This can only become possible if the ‘environment’ is interacting with something that is capable of encoding and producing some form of mathematical/physical knowledge or information.

    I think you have that backward.

    If you don’t have the mathematical/physical knowledge, what remains is the possibility of random variation together with trial and error learning of which variants work. It is a powerful method.

    Score one for Darwin.

  4. 4
    tjguy says:

    Well Neil, why don’t you investigate that hypothesis and see if you can find a path where each little random mutation/change could produce enough survivability advantage for it to be selected for. This is the claim, right? It is so easy to say it, but nigh impossible to demonstrate that it actually happened that way. So in the end, evolutionists just have to believe it happened lik they think, in spite of the fact that they can’t test, verify, or demonstrate their idea.

  5. 5
    BigDub says:

    To Neil Rickert who said:

    “I think you have that backward.

    If you don’t have the mathematical/physical knowledge, what remains is the possibility of random variation together with trial and error learning of which variants work. It is a powerful method.

    Score one for Darwin.”

    That’s the ridiculous “reasoning” right there, in a nut shell, that forces me to reject the entirety of your intellectual foundation for describing anything. And by you, I mean people like Dawkins, Krauss, Coyne, and others who simply refuse to see reality for what it is.

    Life is an inherent phenomenon, but it is also an intelligent phenomenon. A random search requires something to be searching! Why would something be searching? The problem is one of how we approach the fundamental nature of reality itself, and the Darwinists are and have been off their rockers for a long long time.

  6. 6
    Jerad says:

    tjguy,

    Well Neil, why don’t you investigate that hypothesis and see if you can find a path where each little random mutation/change could produce enough survivability advantage for it to be selected for. This is the claim, right? It is so easy to say it, but nigh impossible to demonstrate that it actually happened that way. So in the end, evolutionists just have to believe it happened lik they think, in spite of the fact that they can’t test, verify, or demonstrate their idea.

    If the fossil, genetic, biogeographic and morphological data are not strong evidence for universal common descent via modification then . . .

    Isn’t it also nigh impossible to prove the ID inference as well? With no independent physical evidence of a designer and no ‘witnesses’ then don’t you just have to believe that it happened that way? How can you test, verify or demonstrate your idea? I’m assuming you’re saying that the designer intervened many times over the eons. I realise there are other paradigms but you didn’t elucidate your version.

    PaV,

    Sorry, I still don’t get what you’re getting at. Us humans ‘discovered’ most of the laws of physics, chemistry, mathematics within the last 2000 years . . . are you saying for something to have been designed before then means there had to be an intelligence around that was aware of those laws? Sorry for being a bit dense.

    If that’s what you’re getting at then you still have the problem of there being no independent physical evidence of a designer at the pertinent moments . . . whenever they are.

  7. 7
    PaV says:

    Neil:

    I think you have that backward.

    If you don’t have the mathematical/physical knowledge, what remains is the possibility of random variation together with trial and error learning of which variants work. It is a powerful method.

    I say this without rancor, but I find it incredible that you might really believe this. What you describe is what intelligent beings do. What evidence is there that random forces can do this? None. Except in the most limited of ways.

    Again, just because I improve my ability to jump through exercise doesn’t mean it is any way valid to then project this out to say, “given enough time” (that is, for the ‘exercise’) I’ll someday be able to jump over the Empire State Building. That ‘exercise’ can improve your ability to jump is a “fact”; but, to extrapolate this outwards beyond all sensible and realistic limits, is wrongheaded.

  8. 8
    Jerad says:

    PaV,

    Again, just because I improve my ability to jump through exercise doesn’t mean it is any way valid to then project this out to say, “given enough time” (that is, for the ‘exercise’) I’ll someday be able to jump over the Empire State Building. That ‘exercise’ can improve your ability to jump is a “fact”; but, to extrapolate this outwards beyond all sensible and realistic limits, is wrongheaded.

    That’s not quite it though. Evolutionary theory doesn’t say with practice and time we’ll learn how to make big leaps by improving what we’re doing. It says: if we keep taking baby steps, like we are doing, we can eventually climb Mt Improbable. Keep doing what we’re doing and we can go a long ways. Each step adds virtually nothing to the total but if you take enough steps it adds up to something.

  9. 9
    Neil Rickert says:

    PaV:

    What evidence is there that random forces can do this? None. Except in the most limited of ways.

    Evolution is not just “random forces.”

Leave a Reply