A watch on the beach

[Jerry Smith]

The classic question: "If you find a watch on the beach, do you conclude that it just accidentally formed there, or that it was designed."

The answer: "No." You don't jump to conclusions based on superficial appearance. Unless you already know where watches come from, the scientific approach would be to look for a process that produces watches, and to keep looking until you find one. If and when found, you study it in as much depth as possible in order to understand it.

Please read my new essay that shows a similar point about jumping to conclusions, in a scenario where no direct and obvious evidence is immediately available to confirm any given hypothesis.

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/smijer/TheWatch.htm

This essay is a likely subject for future revision, and possibly expansion. It is only part of the bigger story.

Comments are welcome.

 

[Sinai]

Interesting story, Jerry. I enjoyed it. But you might consider working in another character (Fred, maybe?) who insists that the watch was neither a gift from God nor made by other people; rather, it simply evolved via random mutations from simpler substances on or around the beach (or some other place). That way you could satirize not only those YEC literalists whom Bob seems to exemplify, but also those evolutionists who refuse to admit the possibility or probability that an Intelligent Designer could have at least helped to cause the intelligent design....

 

[Jerry Smith]

Interesting story, Jerry. I enjoyed it. But you might consider working in another character (Fred, maybe?) who insists that the watch was neither a gift from God nor made by other people; rather, it simply evolved via random mutations from simpler substances on or around the beach (or some other place).

I would, but I don't know any guys like Fred.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Does the watch have a brand name? That would be a dead give away that somone dropped it there.
Is the watch a Rolex? Then u can colclude that it is mine, and you can Fe_Ex it to me.

 

[Jerry Smith]

That way you could satirize not only those YEC literalists whom Bob seems to exemplify, but also those evolutionists who refuse to admit the possibility or probability that an Intelligent Designer could have at least helped to cause the intelligent design....

I could put Nancy in there. After reviewing the evidence, she concludes that it is inescapable that watches are made by people. Still, she is very religious, and she wants badly for this to give scientific support for her religion. She claims therefore, "these watches are by far too complex for humans to have designed an manufactured them by their own intelligence. Therefore, we must infer that God gave them special knowledge of watch-making."

 

[Sinai]

Originally posted by Sinai:

That way you could satirize not only those YEC literalists whom Bob seems to exemplify, but also those evolutionists who refuse to admit the possibility or probability that an Intelligent Designer could have at least helped to cause the intelligent design....

Originally posted by Jerry Smith:


I could put Nancy in there... she is very religious, and she wants badly for this to give scientific support for her religion. She claims therefore, "these watches are by far too complex for humans to have designed an manufactured them by their own intelligence. Therefore, we must infer that God gave them special knowledge of watch-making."

Well, that appears to be just about the opposite of what I suggested. But, what the heck, you're telling the story. If you'd rather satirize two creationists and not satirize anyone who refuses to admit the possibility that an Intelligent Designer could have had anything to do with the intelligent design, so be it.

 

[Jerry Smith]

It really wasn't meant as satire. I did my best to have the reactions of each character mirror their real-world counterparts as closely as possible. Yes, the creationist approach comes off looking fairly bad in the story, but IMO, the creationist approach is bad for exactly the same reasons in reality. If I am wrong, please tell me why.

 

[Jerry Smith]

To carry those last thoughts further...

Look at Nancy - is she not the archetypical ID'er? She is smart enough and open-minded enough to recognize the fact of human manufacture of watches. But, rather than settle for a reconciliation between her faith and her theology, as a "theistic evolutionist" might do, she feels she must have science that directly embraces her theology.

In her attempt to use science as an apologetic tool, she postulates the unprovable and supports the postulate with nothing more than personal incredulity.

Look at Bob. He is so narrowly focused on a particular interpretation of his Bible passage, that he feels he must attack science to defend his theology. Can't you hear him now? "The plain meaning of the Bible is that gifts like this are from God. The Bible doesn't say that every good and every perfect thing is from man! It's perfectly obvious what God is saying, and if you weren't spiritually blind, you would see how preposterous your theory and its imaginary evidence really are!"

I think these characterizations are accurate.

 

[Sinai]

Once again, Jerry, I guess that depends upon what you mean by "creationist." Are you suggesting that anyone who believes there is a God and that "in the beginning" it was God who caused the "big bang" (or primeval atom, or whatever you wish to call the creation of the universe) will inevitably have the reactions of Bob and/or Nancy?

 

[Jerry Smith]

Sinai...

If I was suggesting that, then I wouldn't have bothered writing the story. Remember, there were villagers in the story - some of them swayed by Bob, and some of them who joined Mary. Also, remember that some of the villagers did believe in God, and reconciled their theology with the conclusions about watches that came from the evidence...

 

[Sinai]

Good point, Jerry.

I still think you could use the story to show that narrow-minded over-reactions can come from others across the spectrum rather than being limited to a certain group. Well, you asked for suggestions and comments....

 

[Jerry Smith]

I'm going to make some notes to review before revising the story, and your suggestion (being the first) will be at the top!

 

[Jerry Smith]

I have made some corrections - particular where it came to pronoun gender. Hope that clears up some of the puzzled frowns!

 

[Stormy]

Jerry: Why did it take so many words for you to get your message across?

You associate people who believe in a Creator and question evolution with your idiot. Next time you need not be so polite. I can take the condensed version.

There was one ray of truth and reality in your story that I will quote back at you.

"The simple fact is that you are so intent on denying God that you will accept any kind of impossible theory to avoid having to give Him credit for His works."

 

[Jerry Smith]

Stormy, if the Bob of the story seems like an idiot to you, then the purpose of the story is half-served. When you draw the parallels between Bob and the ICR, or AiG, or many of the other professional Creationists, and see that I have represented them accurately - the purpose will be fully served.

There was one ray of truth and reality in your story that I will quote back at you.

quote:
"The simple fact is that you are so intent on denying God that you will accept any kind of impossible theory to avoid having to give Him credit for His works."

Reading the story, was Bob's statement sensible in the context of the story? If not - is it sensible for you to quote it back to me in the context of this conversation?

 

[Jerry Smith]

Storm - before you reply, I hope I have time to clarify this point.

The parallel that you should find are between Bob's reasoning and the reasoning of the professional deniers of evolution. I think I have portrayed Bob as a fairly clever fellow, able to use reasonable-sounding arguments, and make them fit the conclusion he was so quick to jump to (because it seemed so convenient at the time.)

 

[Stormy]

While many were interested in finding the origination of this marvelous watch, there was one who instead began to imagine its origination. Charles thought There is absolutely no reason that such a thing would have to be created by God. Bob is a fool! But the rest of them are really not too bright either. They only think in broad terms. They look at the result and think it screams created. But I believe that the sea itself would surely be capable of producing the watch if given a few billion years. For within its waters are all sorts minuet particles of metal that could have been its "beginning"! Later gears would begin to form and each new gear added to its complexity. It would only be natural for the selection of all that is needed from the waters. As the gears began to work together hands began to form and the entire structure took on a covering that would protect it from its watery environment thru a mutation of the metal. It is all so understandable!

More proof !!! The small appendage that just washed up to sea fits precisely within the small crease of the watch. It is a definite evolutionary link to the watch. This is exciting!! Do you understand???!!!! The sea is creating more and more marvelous things. From one tiny particle of metal more and more will come. It is already beginning!!! Another watch has washed to shore! The sea is giving up it mysteries! Soon everything that is needed will evolve from the sea. Maybe I will live long enough to see a machine large enough to carry me inside! I will never walk again! I am so thrilled by my understanding that surpasses that of a god. I must begin to write books and persuade all who will listen that God is not needed and the sea itself is the originator of all that is good! Now that is a thought!! I wonder Charles says, as he picks up the watch. Could it be true??? The watch fits upon my arm!!!!!! I have stumbled on the missing link between me and the sea!

Thus Charles work was completed and the "Theory of the Origination of Stupidity" was created.

Somehow your story did not seem complete! LOL

 

[Jerry Smith]

And Mary, whose reasoning and methods led to the correct explanation for the origin of watches, and mirrors the work of scientists whose reasons and methods led to the correct explanation of the origin of species, remained aloof from Charles, who employed only fantastic guesswork.

It was later discovered that Charles was not really a man, but merely a figure made of straw meant to resemble a man.

 

[Stormy]

In real life I identify most closely with Mary. I think it is better to find all the pieces to a puzzle before we attempt to claim with confidence that the picture it will protray will not be the face of God!

I thought Charles was a good addition since you are an evolutionist that has already solved the puzzle without all the pieces.

 

[Jerry Smith]

I thought Charles was a good addition since you are an evolutionist that has already solved the puzzle without all the pieces.

I haven't solved anything. 150 years of research - done entirely by others - gets the credit for the correct solutions that have been found. I have merely reviewed their work, and been compelled to recognize their success.

I think that you and I both are better reflected in the nameless persons of the islanders.