The Materialist Double Standard

_{Barry Arrington

May 15, 2017

Intelligent Design

2}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

Yet again a materialist comes into these pages (this time rvb8) and asserts that ID necessarily entails a supernatural designer. The conversation usually goes something like this:

Materialist: ID is not science, because it studies the supernatural.

ID Proponent: No, that’s wrong. ID is the study of design in nature. While the designer may be supernatural, he is not necessarily so.

Mat: No, you are dissembling.

ID: Why do you say that?

Mat: Because the design of living things would require a miracle, and miracles are, by definition, supernatural.

ID: Let me get this straight. You believe that blind, unguided natural forces are sufficient to account for the staggering complexity and diversity of life.

Mat: That’s right. That is why it is a superior scientific explanation to ID, which requires a miracle-working designer.

ID: Wait. If the design of life is not beyond the reach of blind unguided natural forces, it must follow on your own premises that the design of life involves nothing but chemistry; no miracles are necessary.

Mat (starting to feel queasy as the logic begins to unfold): Well, yeah.

ID: And if blind unguided natural forces can manipulate the chemicals sufficiently to create life without a miracle, surely there is nothing in principle that would preclude a designer wielding super-sophisticated technology from doing the same thing without resort to a miracle.

Mat: Well, who designed the designer? And besides ID is part of an international plot to establish a theocracy. You’re a poopyhead. . . .

The double standard on display here is quite amusing. The materialist swallows right down the camel that blind unguided natural forces can design staggeringly complex life forms. Then he strains at the gnat of a non-supernatural designer wielding sophisticated technology doing the same thing.

Comments

wd400: You seem to be extremely selective in your interpretation, ignoring the broad and clear picture obtained over many decades of dedicated and extensive research in favor of a small handful of possible, maybe, could-be, transitionals here and there. We should also note that some of alleged transitionals you mentioned, such as Kimberella aren't legitimate transitionals to the Cambrian anyway. And there is certainly no rational transitional leading up to Kimberella. As a result, such forms represent yet another relatively-abrupt arrival, without transitionals of their own, just adding to the problem, not solving it.
Do you really think we should have fossils for all the intermediate forms near the root of the animal tree?
I have certainly not argued that we should have fossils for all intermediate forms. This isn't a question of a perfect record, but it is a question of rational acceptance of the record that we do have as broadly accurate. Sure, we can continue to claim bad data, but that is a pretty poor excuse for an argument. When, under Darwin's theory, we are supposed to have "innumerable" predecessors leading up to a phylum, and when we don't have those predecessors preserved in the record but we do have the phylum, then any rational and objective person should seriously start to question whether the predecessors actually existed. With apologies to Darwin, we don't just get to assume they did, but didn't get preserved. That is a little too convenient.
It’s not true that Darwin though[t] the fossil record contradicted his theory (just that it did not provide a pefect record of the transitions he envisaged) . . .
You are misrepresenting the level of the problem. Darwin most certainly did not think that the fossil record was pretty good in supporting his theory but just did not quite "provide a perfect record." He realized that the fossil record, if accepted at face value, was fundamentally problematic and fatal to his theory. I've quoted some relevant language from The Origin above, so let's take what he said seriously, rather than trying to gloss over it and pretend that the problem didn't exist. Darwin wasn't just worried about a few minor missing links here and there needed to complete the picture. He was quite aware that the record was problematic across the board. He argued that the fossil record needed to be severely and extensively faulty in order for his theory to stand. He admitted that if we accepted the fossil record as largely accurate, then his theory would fail. Most paleontologists now do, and it does. The failure of the fossil record to support Darwin's approach doesn't mean that the materialist creation story is dead quite yet. But it is on life support. After all, even as we acknowledge the realities of the fossil record we could still try to salvage the broader claims of evolutionary theory by making up a new story -- one that doesn't require slight, successive changes in broad geography over long periods of time. We could make up a new story to "explain" that organisms tend to evolve in places that, conveniently, always seem to be just out of reach of our observations or the fossil record. We could even come up with a fancy name, like, say, "punctuated equilibrium," to describe our new idea. But we would hopefully then acknowledge that our new idea doesn't really explain how evolution works, but that we are, like Darwin and his disciples after him, instead attempting to explain away the gaping evidentiary chasm that separates Darwin's theory and the realities of the fossil record.Eric Anderson_{May 21, 2017
May
05
May
21
21
2017
04:49 PM
4
04
49
PM
PDT}

Bob @ 87 This guy takes a stab at the nature of the designer based mostly on the evidence from nature. He's a German YEC. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DA0Ojxr4pv0Macauley86_{May 21, 2017
May
05
May
21
21
2017
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT}

Marfin, Inferring ancestral relationships is hard, not impossible: http://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003919. "Reasonable doubt" is not a scientific concept, even so, it is very unlikely that any Archaeoptryx fossil is an ancestor of modern birds. (You can see this just by simulating phylogenies and placing fossils on them -- most will fall on branches that have no descendants, which is just a property of birth-death processes). Phylogenetics is about much more than someone's opinion, you should check it out. EA, I'm afraid very little of this is informed by any understanding of paleontology, Darwin's ideas or modern evolutionary biology. Have you read any non-creationists works on these topics? An intro textbook like Carl Zimmer's one would be a start. The few substantive points you make are just weird. Do you really think we should have fossils for all the intermediate forms near the root of the animal tree? Which fossil bed has this uninterrupted series of millions of years of deposition? It's not true that Darwin though the fossil record contradicted his theory (just that it did not provide a pefect record of the transitions he envisaged) and none fo the small subset of transitional fossils I listed in my comment where known when the Origin was published (Archaeoptryx was described shortly after)wd400_{May 18, 2017
May
05
May
18
18
2017
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT}

A/mats hate this (see below)...which is one reason why it brings me great joy. https://www.evolutionnews.org/2017/05/intelligent-design-goes-international-a-report-from-istanbul/Truth Will Set You Free_{May 18, 2017
May
05
May
18
18
2017
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H asks:
To get back to my question – why not? Why does ID restrict itself so that it will not even make the attempt? Why doesn’t it even refuse to address the simpler problem of what does the pattern of design say about the designer?
ID theorists are free to argue about or investigate what can be inferred or evidenced about a designer, just as evolutionary biologists are free to argue about or investigate various theories about abiogenesis. However, just as abiogenesis is not within the formal scope of evolutionary theory, designer identification/profiling is not within the formal scope of ID theory because ID is about design detection, not designer identification. Lack of an abiogenesis theory doesn't invalidate evolutionary theory; not identifying the designer (much less the designer of the designer) doesn't invalidate ID theory. If you are asking why don't the main design theorists add "designer identification" to the theory, I'd say that unnecessarily broadens the scope of the theory at this time. It's hard enough to get people to agree to just the detection of a design without additionally getting into the question of who or what may have done the design and how the design was implemented. Let's get the first step established first, then we can work on what follows.William J Murray_{May 18, 2017
May
05
May
18
18
2017
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT}

Origenes @ 140: Nice use of Meyer's research. Very interested to see how WD400 responds.Truth Will Set You Free_{May 18, 2017
May
05
May
18
18
2017
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT}

wd400, it is also worth pointing out that your claim that Darwin was concerned about the lack of soft-bodied fossils is revisionist history and misrepresents the line of argumentation. Darwin was concerned about the pervasive lack of transitional forms. His reference to soft bodies was all part of his attempt to explain -- rather, explain away -- the fossil record. In The Origin he asserted that the fossil record is "an extremely imperfect and intermittent record," and that "no organism wholly soft can be preserved." His disciples latched onto this artifact hypothesis and used it for generations to attempt to explain (i.e., explain away) the lack of transitionals. And it has turned out to be false. Darwin also stated that "Those who believe that the geological record is in any degree perfect, will undoubtedly at once reject my theory." The fossil record doesn't have to be perfect for Darwin's theory to be in trouble. Just perfect "in any degree". Darwin was keenly aware that the fossil record not only did not support his theory, but strongly contradicted it. A handful of alleged transitionals (which he also had in his day) doesn't help much. It is quite telling that we have about as many identified phyla as we do decent alleged individual transitionals. Yet under Darwin's theory we should have tens of thousands, if not millions ("innumerable progenitors", to use his words), of transitionals leading up to each phylum. Finally, it is worth noting that Darwin additionally argued that "periods of elevation" of the land would be favorable to formation of new species but would be unlikely to preserve fossils, while "during subsidence", when the record would be more complete, it is unlikely that new species would be formed. Even setting aside the now-overturned elevation/subsidence view of geology, there is no scientific reason (or reason under random variation + natural selection) why elevation would be more favorable to the formation of new species than subsidence. It was just another attempt to explain away the fossil record. That Darwin was a skilled rhetorician is unquestionable. He was skilled at talking his way out of the many difficulties of his theory, conjuring up rhetorical stances that, although lacking in substance, would be believed by his followers. His willingness to objectively stack his theory up against the evidence -- not so much.Eric Anderson_{May 18, 2017
May
05
May
18
18
2017
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT}

Eric Anderson: It sounds like you need to get up to speed on the general state of paleontology.
wd400: Certainly one of us does….
I’m fairly sure that the following will help determining who needs to get up to speed. Source: S.Meyer, ‘Darwin’s Doubt’, Ch.3.
Over the past 150 years or so, paleontologists have found many representatives of the phyla that were well known in Darwin’s time (by analogy, the equivalent of the three primary colors) and a few completely new forms altogether (by analogy, some other distinct colors such as green and orange, perhaps). And, of course, within these phyla there is a great deal of variety. Nevertheless, the analogy holds at least insofar as the differences in form between any member of one phylum and any member of another phylum are vast, and paleontologists have utterly failed to find forms that would fill these yawning chasms in what biologists call “morphological space.” In other words, they have failed to find the paleontological equivalent of the numerous finely graded intermediate colors (Pendleton blue, dusty rose, gun barrel gray, magenta, etc.) that interior designers covet. Instead, extensive sampling of the fossil record has confirmed a strikingly discontinuous pattern in which representatives of the major phyla stand in stark isolation from members of other phyla, without intermediate forms filling the intervening morphological space. Foote’s statistical analysis of this pattern, documented by an ever increasing number of paleontological investigations, demonstrates just how improbable it is that there ever existed a myriad of as yet undiscovered intermediate forms of animal life—forms that could close the morphological distance between the Cambrian phyla one tiny evolutionary step at a time. In effect, Foote’s analysis suggests that since paleontologists have reached repeatedly into the proverbial barrel, sampled it from one end to the other, and found only representatives of various radically distinct phyla but no rainbow of intermediates, we shouldn’t hold our breath expecting such intermediates to eventually emerge. He asks “whether we have a representative sample of morphological diversity and therefore can rely on patterns documented in the fossil record.” The answer, he says, is yes.55 By this affirmation, he doesn’t mean that there are no biological forms left to discover. He means, rather, that we have good reason to conclude that such discoveries will not alter the largely discontinuous pattern that has emerged. “Although we have much to learn about the evolution of form,” he writes, the statistical pattern created by our existing fossil data demonstrates that “in many respects our view of the history of biological diversity is mature.”56 - - - - - 55. Foote, “Sampling, Taxonomic Description, and Our Evolving Knowledge of Morphological Diversity,” 181. Another statistical paleontologist, Michael J. Benton, and his colleagues have reached a similar conclusion. They note that “if scaled to the . . . taxonomic level of the family [and above], the past 540 million years of the fossil record provide uniformly good documentation of the life of the past” (Benton, Wills, and Hitchin, “Quality of the Fossil Record Through Time,” 534). In another article Benton also writes: “It could be argued that there are fossils out there waiting to be found. It is easy to dismiss the fossil record as seriously, and unpredictably, incomplete. For example, certain groups of organisms are almost unknown as fossils. . . . This kind of argument cannot be answered conclusively. However, an argument based on effort can be made. Paleontologists have been searching for fossils for years and, remarkably, very little has changed since 1859, when Darwin proposed that the fossil record would show us the pattern of the history of life” (“Early Origins of Modern Birds and Mammals,” 1046). 56. Foote, “Sampling Taxonomic Description, and Our Evolving Knowledge of Morphological Diversity,” 181. I should note that there is one way in which my analogy to colored marbles in a barrel fails to capture the nature of the challenge of Cambrian fossil discontinuity. If after pulling samples from a barrel for a while you finally came up with a green and orange ball to go along with the piles of red, blue, and yellow balls, you still wouldn’t have much confidence that the barrel had a rainbow of ball colors finely grading from one to another. Yet you could at least say that the orange ball stands between the yellow and red ball, and the green ball stands between the blue and yellow balls (like the hybrid produced from two plants). But many of the new Cambrian animal forms that have been discovered since Darwin’s time aren’t seen as intermediates between the previously known animal forms representing known phyla. They aren’t evolutionary intermediates between one existing phylum and another. Instead, scientists consider them as existing out in morphological space all their own, standing not as intermediates but as phyla that themselves are in need of intermediate forms—almost as if, by stretching my analogy, some new primary color had been discovered.
Origenes_{May 18, 2017
May
05
May
18
18
2017
05:08 AM
5
05
08
AM
PDT}

WD-400 No not very hard , impossible to test, if you disagree show me the test. You say I don`t need to assume ,then you show me a tree which is nothing but assumptions. It is someone best assumption of lineage based on another assumption that Darwinian evolution happened in the first place. Show me how you know beyond a reasonable doubt that archaeoptryx is or is not on a direct line in bird evolution , you can`t as there is no way to test this assumption, and this is the case with all fossils. The evidence is that we have fossils, anything after that is interpretation, not fact , not tested , interpretation,someones opinion.Marfin_{May 18, 2017
May
05
May
18
18
2017
04:29 AM
4
04
29
AM
PDT}

CR @131
CR: ID only claims that human beings are designed? That’s it?
Who said that? ID WRT life:
Intelligent design challenges the idea that natural selection and random mutation (and other similarly undirected materialistic processes) can explain the most striking appearances of design in living organisms. Instead, it affirms that there are certain features of living systems that are best explained by the design of an actual intelligence—a conscious and rational agent, a mind—as opposed to a mindless, materialistic process. The theory of intelligent design does not reject “evolution” defined as “change over time” or even universal common ancestry, but it does dispute Darwin’s idea that the cause of major biological change and the appearance of design are wholly blind and undirected. Nor does the theory seek to insert into biology an extraneous religious concept. Intelligent design addresses a key scientific question that has long been part of evolutionary biology: Is design real or illusory? [Stephen Meyer, 'Darwin's Doubt', Ch.17]

CR: I thought it thought ID claims we were designed because we are improbably well adapted to serve a purpose.
Can you provide a quote? Specifically, what purpose does ID claim humans have? And to whom?
Our being well adapted is the appearance of design, which needs to be explained.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that 'adaptability' is central to ID. A flash drive that doesn't fit a computer is just as much designed as an 'adapted' flash drive.Origenes_{May 18, 2017
May
05
May
18
18
2017
03:11 AM
3
03
11
AM
PDT}

Marfin, It's true that it is very hard to test whether a particular fossil is an ancestor (rather than a cousin) of modern groups.Thankfully that doesn't matter very much. The tree here is a nice example of how you do not need to assume a fossil is ancestral to any particular group in order to reconstruct and evolutionary history.wd400_{May 18, 2017
May
05
May
18
18
2017
02:40 AM
2
02
40
AM
PDT}

Most of the animal groups that are represented in the fossil record first appear, “fully formed” and identifiable as to their phylum, in the Cambrian, some 550 million years ago. These include such anatomically complex and distinctive types as trilobites, echinoderms, brachiopods, molluscs, and chordates. … The fossil record is therefore of no help with respect to the origin and early diversification of the various animal phyla…[R.S.K. Barnes, P. Calow and P.J.W. Olive, The Invertebrates: A New Synthesis, pp. 9-10 (3rd ed., Blackwell Sci. Publications, 2001).]

The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.” [Stephen Jay Gould, “Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?” Paleobiology, 6(1): 119-130 (1980)].

We are still in the dark about the origin of most major groups of organisms. They appear in the fossil record as Athena did from the head of Zeus — full-blown and raring to go, in contradiction to Darwin’s depiction of evolution as resulting from the gradual accumulation of countless infinitesimally minute variations … [Jeffrewy Schwartz, Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species, p. 3 (Wiley, 1999).]
Source: evolutionnews.orgOrigenes_{May 18, 2017
May
05
May
18
18
2017
01:52 AM
1
01
52
AM
PDT}

wd 400- Colin Patterson when questioned about fossil ancestry re archaeopteryx ,said there is no way of putting it to the test. So my question to you is what test can be done on any fossil to prove it is ancestral to any other fossil.Marfin_{May 18, 2017
May
05
May
18
18
2017
12:54 AM
12
12
54
AM
PDT}

Yes, I’m quite for real. Are you? It sounds like you need to get up to speed on the general state of paleontology.
Certainly one of us does....wd400_{May 17, 2017
May
05
May
17
17
2017
11:02 PM
11
11
02
PM
PDT}

wd400: Yes, I'm quite for real. Are you? It sounds like you need to get up to speed on the general state of paleontology. A handful of alleged, in some cases quite controversial, examples of supposed intermediates certainly does not address Darwin's acknowledgement and concern that under his theory there should be "innumerable" transitional forms. Even if the questionable cases are accepted as gospel, they are the exceptions that prove the rule. I also had to laugh at your reference to soft bodied fossils as a support for Darwinian theory. It wasn't too long ago that one of the Darwinists' favorite claims was that we don't have transitionals because soft bodies generally don't fossilize. Now, as you point out, many soft bodied organisms have been found, putting to rest that all-too-convenient claim. Unfortunately for the Darwinian narrative, those soft bodies are unable to serve as reasonable transitional forms to later fossils in the record. We have to look at the record as a whole. We can't rely on a few questionable fossils to support a theory that is supposed to have acted broadly across the Earth and across innumerable organisms and vast periods of time. As Gould, Eldridge, and most serious paleontologists have recognized over the years, the record is discontinuous and unsupportive of the gradual, "slight-successive changes," to "plastic" organisms, over vast periods of time that underlies Darwin's whole expectation. That is the whole reason Gould and Eldridge came up with their similarly-convenient artifact hypothesis. And the problem still exists today, with other researchers beginning to be a bit more open about the problem. Darwin's approach was to blame the data. The same is still true of those who try to shoehorn the data into his theory today. All this, without mentioning other problems, such as the broad failure of the record to corroborate his bottom-up expectation of slow, inevitable change from species on up to phylum.Eric Anderson_{May 17, 2017
May
05
May
17
17
2017
10:28 PM
10
10
28
PM
PDT}

I guess you'll have to tell me what these links have to do with the question, Origenes. A moth evolved yellow wings some time over 5 million years of evolution? OK. Koonin's paper is interesting, but almost entirely about microbes and not fossils.wd400_{May 17, 2017
May
05
May
17
17
2017
09:22 PM
9
09
22
PM
PDT}

@Origenes ID only claims that human beings are designed? That's it? I thought it thought ID claims we were designed because we are improbably well adapted to serve a purpose. Our being well adapted is the appearance of design, which needs to be explained. As for traveling back in time to design ourselves, why would we design ourselves as we are? I mean, why not do a better job? Also, our best, current theory of time travel is that traveling back in time would mean traveling to another universe in the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. You could kill your grandfather in a different universe without causing a paradox in regards to yourself, but we couldn't design the human race unlesss we were already designed in at least one universe. Also, I was asking what traces other than us, which woluld be begging the question.
You seem to be asking “if we are designed by aliens, are those aliens also designed?”
I'm asking the question I asked, which was how can ID consider the existence of some other designer like us probable if ID thinks we are improbably well adapted? Or does ID not imply that a designer is the most probable explanation for the biosphere? What is the inference?critical rationalist_{May 17, 2017
May
05
May
17
17
2017
08:37 PM
8
08
37
PM
PDT}

wd400 @129
As nature does jump, exclusive gradualism is dismissed. Saltatory evolution is a natural phenomenon, provided by a sudden collapse of the thresholds which resist against evolution. The fossil record and the taxonomic system call for a macromutational interpretation. [van Waesberghe, H. 1982. “Towards an alternative evolution model.” Acta Biotheoretica 31:3-28.]

We offer evidence for three independent instances of saltational evolution in a charismatic moth genus with only eight species. … Each saltational species exhibits a markedly different and discrete example of discontinuous trait evolution [Rubinoff, D., J. Le Roux. 2008. “Evidence of repeated and independent saltational evolution in a peculiar genus of sphinx moths (Proserpinus: Sphingidae).” PLoS One 3:e4035.]

Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity. The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin’s original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution. The cases in point include the origin of complex RNA molecules and protein folds; major groups of viruses; archaea and bacteria, and the principal lineages within each of these prokaryotic domains; eukaryotic supergroups; and animal phyla. In each of these pivotal nexuses in life’s history, the principal “types” seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate “grades” or intermediate forms between different types are detectable. [Koonin, E. 2007. “The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution.” Biology Direct 2:21.]

Here we provide for the first time evidence of major phenotypic saltation in the evolution of segment number in a lineage of centipedes [Minelli, A., A. Chagas-Júnior, G. Edgecombe. 2009. “Saltational evolution of trunk segment number in centipedes.” Evolution & Development 11:318-322.]
Thank you dr. HunterOrigenes_{May 17, 2017
May
05
May
17
17
2017
05:25 PM
5
05
25
PM
PDT}

(1) why Darwin himself thought the fossil record presented a grave objection to his theory, and (2) what discoveries have happened in paleontology in the last 150 years to completely overturn the understanding of the fossil record so that now it supports Darwinism rather than being a grave objection to it.
Are you for real? Darwin was concerned about fossils because their were few transitionals known at the time, no fossils of soft-bodied animals and no fossils that pre-dated the Cambrian. So, the discoveries of, from the top of my head Pikaia, Kimberella,Archaeopteryx, Ichthyostega, Tiiktalik pre-cambrian sponge spicules and Homo erectus have all done rather a lot to address his concerns!wd400_{May 17, 2017
May
05
May
17
17
2017
04:10 PM
4
04
10
PM
PDT}

Bob O'H: Cambrian rabbits? Seriously? Remind me who the clueless person was who first proposed this rhetorical red herring as though it actually constituted a rational response to the issues raised by the fossil record -- issues noted by Darwin himself? It was a brilliant rhetorical ploy, to be sure, given that Darwinian minions would swallow this red herring and regurgitate it for years to come. Look, if you are serious about the substance, rather than regurgitating Darwinian propaganda talking points, please think through (1) why Darwin himself thought the fossil record presented a grave objection to his theory, and (2) what discoveries have happened in paleontology in the last 150 years to completely overturn the understanding of the fossil record so that now it supports Darwinism rather than being a grave objection to it. ----- Incidentally, your single-minded obsession in going on and on and on and on with your assertion that design proponents have no interest in any other questions is growing quite tiresome. Let's put it to rest: Do you or do you not understand that there is a difference between (1) an initial inference to design, (2) additional questions that might be asked, and (3) general research carried out under a design framework? It doesn't make any difference whether you think ID researchers are doing good work or making important discoveries or whether you agree with what they are doing. Your tiresome insistence that they aren't doing what they are doing is both patently false and smacks of a dogmatic rhetorical stance, rather than a willingness to look at objective facts.Eric Anderson_{May 17, 2017
May
05
May
17
17
2017
03:21 PM
3
03
21
PM
PDT}

CR: Since ID claims human designers are so improbably well adapted, they must have been designed, it’s unclear how ID proponent can suggest a designer is the most probable explanation for the biosphere.
Wait a sec ... Because ID claims that humans are designed, it is unclear why ID proposes that other lifeforms are also designed? I would say that this is not ‘unclear’ at all. In fact it is unclear how anyone, like you apparently, can find this ‘unclear’.
CR: Since we couldn’t have designed ourselves, which highly probably designer did it?
Perhaps we went back in time to design life on earth. We do not know.
CR: Where are they now?
I think we do not know.
CR: What traces did they leave when designing us?
Us, other life forms and arguably a universe fine-tuned for life. Didn’t you know that already?
CR: For example, if we take ID seriously …
Well, so far you have given us zero reason not to do that.
CR: … wouldn’t a highly advanced alien civilization be just as well adapted to serve a purpose, and therefore just improbable as us?
You seem to be asking “if we are designed by aliens, are those aliens also designed?” Well, maybe. But, how can we know for certain prior to scientific investigation? Keep an open mind will you?!Origenes_{May 17, 2017
May
05
May
17
17
2017
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PDT}

CR: Who in or around UD has ever argued that:
ID claims human designers are so improbably well adapted, they must have been designed
To my best recall on being here for about a decade, nil. I would suggest that an ID advocate may argue that the human body plan and/or genome exhibit sufficient of functionally specific complex organisation and/or associated information that we may freely infer design on empirically reliable sign. One particular focus would be our linguistic ability or possibly our upright walking stance, which requires a lot of differences between our skeletons and those of apes, etc. I suggest the two are about as similar as chalk and cheese would be in a grilled sandwich. KFkairosfocus_{May 17, 2017
May
05
May
17
17
2017
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT}

ID claims human designers are so improbably well adapted
I don't think ID claims this. I'm not even sure what it means. It could be that humans aren't "adapted" at all. Andrewasauber_{May 17, 2017
May
05
May
17
17
2017
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT}

Since ID claims human designers are so improbably well adapted, they must have been designed, it's unclear how ID proponent can suggest a designer is the most probable explanation for the biosphere. Since we couldn't have designed ourselves, which highly probably designer did it? Where are they now? What traces did they leave when designing us? For example, if we take ID seriously, wouldn't a highly advanced alien civilization be just as well adapted to serve a purpose, and therefore just improbable as us?critical rationalist_{May 17, 2017
May
05
May
17
17
2017
12:05 PM
12
12
05
PM
PDT}

F/N: Looks like I need to bring forward my comment at 111, to BO'H: >>>>>>> 111 kairosfocusMay 17, 2017 at 6:08 am BO’H: I will pick up your first point: >>First, I asked the question as Barry had stated it, and it’s only a sensible question under certain assumptions.>> 1 –> That is, it is not a good question, though it seems to be a favourite rhetorical resort. 2 –> As in, cf 99 supra. >> So if I might shift my goalposts a bit, I think better questions would be “who or what is the designer?”,>> 3 –> That is, subject changes, under challenge. 4 –> This now becomes the more generic, subject-shifting red herring, with a dash of question begging. 5 –> The prior question is, empirically grounded warrant on signs (e.g. FSCO/I, fine tuning of complex unified systems, etc) that leads to a well founded conclusion that an entity X is designed. 6 –> On the proper order, we then move to the issue, what sort of approach, what difficulties, what solutions, how elegant. 7 –> This then allows us to see what sort of capabilities are needed, and how well did the designer fulfill them. Given Jutland + 101 is coming up end of month, ponder British vs German WW 1 era battlecruisers, and onward evolution. 8 –> We may then fill out a job eval on the designer that allows us to move on to a list of candidates. 9 –> But by dragging away from warrant and proper methodical approach to a rhetorically loaded question, prejudiced dismissal is invited. >> and “what can we say about the designer?”. >> 10 –> Back ways around. 11 –> Design is process, leading to artifact that often has revealing traces in it. Again, ponder Mauser’s G98 vs Lee’s design and the SMLE, as well as the P14 that copied the Mauser philosophy. (This became the US Enfield.) Sidelight the Ross. Contrast the Swiss straight-pull rifles. 12 –> From Artifact we may make inferences on designers. But first, we settle the issue of “archaeology vs natural” in the terms of that discipline. >>>>>>> Sets the context for 115:
A long time ago now, I first heard of TRIZ from ID thinkers, and have discussed it here at UD many times. This very week, I have pointed out the relevance of Venter et al and molecular nanotech labs to what can be said abbout OOL on earth. And that same basic point I can trace to Thaxton et al in TMLO 30+ years ago, which is readily accessible and which has been discussed as to import many times at UD. Uniformly, it is objectors who refuse to actually consider what is discussed in this vein, in haste to rush on to knocking over strawmen — which speaks volumes and not in their favour. The problem still remains, that the first, foundational question is warranted inference to design. Until I see some semblance of willingness to acknowledge that, I have to see the demand to go elsewhere as red herrings led away to strawmen duly set up to be pummelled rhetorically, if they are lucky.
KFkairosfocus_{May 17, 2017
May
05
May
17
17
2017
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PDT}

@Pindi, your #102 You must have responded before I noticed I had 'left out a designer'. The Amended version of my post reads : 'When you look at a new car, do you ask who was the designer of the designer ? Of course not.' Yes, I know the designed of all designers, but you claim not to know the designer of any of them. But you don't ask the car salesman if he knows the proto-designer, do you ? --------------- Bob O'H, sorry I got your name wrong, though an 'O'H' intrigues me as also an abbrevaition for a uniquely Irish surname.Axel_{May 17, 2017
May
05
May
17
17
2017
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PDT}

KF @ 115: Brilliant.Truth Will Set You Free_{May 17, 2017
May
05
May
17
17
2017
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PDT}

Origenes @ 117: Your kind patience toward these a/mats is admirable. Saintly.Truth Will Set You Free_{May 17, 2017
May
05
May
17
17
2017
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT}

KRock @ 118: Agreed. He/she is a true hater. Consumed by hate.Truth Will Set You Free_{May 17, 2017
May
05
May
17
17
2017
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT}

The only thing I've learned from rvb8 here at UD is that he/she is a devoted and avid hate-theist—particularly Christianity.KRock_{May 17, 2017
May
05
May
17
17
2017
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply