Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 1010011010
Well, first you'd need to identify groups of designed objects.
One group would be objects designed for a common task.
Another group would be objects designed by a common designer.
From that you may develop of rigorous characterization of what gives an object the appearance of being designed.
Then you would look for those characteristics in living things.
|
So how would you identify a group of designed lifeforms? I mean, according to you, it's not like there are any non-designed lifeforms, right?
Also, your 'test' wouldn't reveal a designer, as you'd have to assume the task and assume that the life form didn't just evolve inline with that task.
What's an appearance of being designed? How can we tell if something isn't designed?
Finally why do certain organisms get designed and others don't? What's the mechanism for all this design?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 1010011010
No one has done this, of course, because in all probability no rigorous characterization of design would arise. On the off chance that one could be formulated, though, I'd wager it's probable that no evidence of design would be detected in living things.
As it stands, ID is not a science and is not falsifiable. This is not because ID is inherently unscientific, but merely because no one has been bothered to do the legwork to establish a standard of evidence. This dismissive attitude of ID as the creationists' newest rhetoric is dangerous.
|
Can it even be done? I don't think so. The ID proponents aren't actually contributing to the body of scientific knowledge. I don't think they actually care, as all ID is, is a front for the 'wedge strategy'.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 1010011010
Watchmakers do give birth to more watches, though.
|
Only through disingenious rhetoric. They don't *actually* give birth to more watches which is precisely why the analogy fails.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 1010011010
And watchbuyers can select those watches that most fit their needs and desires.
|
This actually hurts ID's case, if this analogy held up to begin with.
Check out some of the creatures on this page.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 1010011010
If a watchmaker comes up with a new design that increases the usefulness or desireability of a timepiece, those watches will sell, and so the representation of that design of watch will increase in the population.
Thus we see in the design of watches (and other designed objects) an accumulation of new and interesting features over times... because the design process under market pressure is itself somewhat evolutionary in nature.
|
It doesn't matter though, that's not the flawed part of the analogy. The flawed part is that animals come from other animals, via birth. They do not get made in a factory. Additionally descent with modification via the mechanism of natural selection is a more parismonious explanation (and it has evidence in favor of it).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 1010011010
We don't, we're pointing out that the patterns we see in nature (genetic similarities, et al.) are similar to those patterns we may observe in certain lineages of designed objects. Thus is is reasonable to assume that these patterns known to arrise in designed objects, when found in living things, would also indicate that living things are designed.
|
Actually we do. The fact of the matter is not that evolution is against an appearance of design, that's subjective anyway, it's against the claim that organisms actually needed a designer. That's why you can't just point to something and say it was designed.
The eye looks designed, but throughout nature we can see other organisms with less complex eyes and as a matter of fact, our retinas are upside down, which goes against the designer idea.
The point is that it's not just reasonable to assume design because we have a natural explanation for it, this is again why the watchmaker argument fails. Not to mention the fact that snowflakes are quite complex, yet you don't see IDers saying they were designed (they came about via natural forces, or do you think they are designed?).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 1010011010
Or so you claim, anyway. I've yet to see how you distinguish between an evolutionary design process and natural selection.
|
Me and the majority of scientists (tens of thousands) claim this, yes. What is an 'evolutionary design process'?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 1010011010
Paley's was essentially an argument from ignorance. What Paley failed to realize is, of course, that watches, though designed and created, do evolve.
|
The modern ID argument is an argument from ignorance. There isn't any positive evidence on ID's side, all they do, as I've said, is point to a place where biologists don't currently know the evolutionary history and say 'there's where design happened!'.
Watches don't evolve, unless you are using a non-biological definition for evolution-but if so, you are being disingenious.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 1010011010
Certainly there is the occassional cognitive leap in technology. But surely you're not claiming that the genetic and/or fossil record is complete and without shortcomings?
|
No, it's not complete, nor does it need to be and nor is it realistic to expect it to be complete since fossilization is incredibly rare. Also, what do you mean by the genetic record?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 1010011010
Of course, if watches could have baby watches, and had been having baby watches for a thousand million years, you'd merely assert that the watches evolved... despite the fact that they were designed.
|
Um.... How would they be designed then? You mean the original watch, perhaps? If so, then your argument isn't against evolution, it's against abiogenesis.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 1010011010
I don't, really. I'm just playing Devil's Advocate to make things interesting.
|
Meaning what, that you don't accept ID?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 1010011010
Not yet. There potentially could be, if, as noted above, someone did the legwork to establish a standard of evidence for design.
|
And how exactly would they do this?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 1010011010
Why do we have computer viruses? Why do we have unnecessary includes? Why do we have buffer overruns?
|
Again you make a non analogious comparison. Additionally, computer virus are complete, retroviral inserts aren't. Furthermore, once again, computers don't give birth to computers.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 1010011010
Unless you're suddenly asserting that automobiles evolve (and not in the design process method outlined above) I think the observable fact that there are multiple car makers demonstrates you don't quite follow the logic.
|
I don't follow that logic, I'm following your logic. But again, your analogy starts from the knowledge that cars are designed. You apply this to organisms and you are assuming your conclusion.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 1010011010
And in all probability you would be able to identify an unbadged Honda, Ford, etc. etc. from model year to model year... Furthermore, you'd probably be able to identify that the same person that desined the VW Passat designed the new Ford 500... or the same person that designed the 94-98 Honda Accord line also worked on cars for Volvo and BMW. But still be able to identify these cars as Hondas, VWs, Volvos, or Fords... based on other design clues.
|
So what design clues do we have for organisms? What mechanism is there?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 1010011010
Unless those observations serve a design hypothesis equally as well or better. As it stands, we have no way of knowing if they do or not.
|
Why would they? Basically what you are admitting to is that there is no way that design could be false. It just is.
If you are going to do that, why bother calling it scientific? Why bother with all the trying to discredit evolution?
Why not just say I believe because I believe?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 1010011010
True. ID is not currently science. It is not inherently unscientific, though... which is pretty much the core message I'm trying to get across.
|
I already knew that. It's 'magic' or 'goblins' or 'aliens' or 'God' or whatever other means to stop science from progressing.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 1010011010
I'm going to lapse completely out of character for a moment.
I'm not very impressed with the way you've been handling this.
|
Fair enough, I admit that I've been rushed and a tad frustrated.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 1010011010
You remind me of a scholastic. You have respect for modern science, but knowledge is preferrable to respect. You jump to repeat what you've read from respected sources at the expense of actually paying attention to the argument being made by your opponent. Behe, Dembski, and the whole irreducible complexity and complex specific information snowjob are bankrupt, sure... but it doesn't make you (or me, when I'm not clowning at being Evil) look good to demolish those guys when you are the one that brings them up in the conversation. It looks like misdirection and grandstanding. Those are the tactics of the Creationists. Don't Do It. Stick to the conversation at hand, and constrain yourself to what's actually being said by your opponent. If it looks liek they're dancing the partyline or reciting some but of boilerplate, ask first, then tear them apart. Otherwise they can just ask you what the fuck you're talking about and you've spent your rhetoric on a straw man.
I now return you to your regulaly scheduled program.
|
Fair enough, I accept your criticism.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 1010011010
How long did it take us to go from the beginning of the industrial revolution to our current clumsy attempts at genetic engineering? Imagine where a culture even of our skill wold be after 5 billion years. Why is genetic engineering a disallowed design process for a sufficiently advanced species?
|
The problem is, with ID, where can we go? Seriously for a minute here; The problem with ID is that you can't use it, even if it's true. We use genetic engineering, sure, but that's not based on "ID".
You see, even if ID were true, I don't see how you'd ever get off the ground with it, what it's applications are or anything like that.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 1010011010
Is not, yes. Cannot be, no.
|
Does not compute. What do you mean?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 1010011010
Well, I'm certainly not going to be the one to put in the elbow grease to figure out if intelligent design has any merit, neither are you, in all probability.
|
Not right now, in any event. The problem is, ID 'scientists' aren't doing it either. What they are doing is combing the scientific research and then commenting on them. IIRC Behe just got a paper published-it still needs to be reviewed (IIRC), but it doesn't support ID. IIRC, it has a speculative sentence and that's about it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 1010011010
Careful where you stand. How do we know humans and mushrooms and coelacanths and blue spruces have a common ancestor? "'poof' It's evolution!"
|
DNA, fossils, shared retroviral inserts with our closest relatives, etc, etc. For instance, with mice, we have traded the gene for the eye with a flies gene for an eye and the transplant worked-ie, the mouse eye grew normally. Why would this be the case for ID?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 1010011010
So the Fundies are right in claiming there's some sort of significance in many scientists being Atheists? They're just trying to promote their godless agenda?
|
Heh, no, not actually. Not all Christians are creationists-especially not world wide. It's only within the united states that they make up such a large group.
I'd say the majority of people who accept evolution are either christian or they are some other type of theist.