Atheistic evolutionists.....

[Wiccan_Child]

No. For every answer you get 3 or 4 new questions always pop up out of that answer. You can't use the inability to answer the new question as an argument against the answer.

The question is: what is the origin of the designs in living organisms?
Answer: God made them.
New question: Where did God come from?
Answer: Don't know.
That "don't know" doesn't negate the answer "God made them" because "don't know" applies to a different question.

As an example in science:
Question: What is the origin of the spacetime/matter/ energy in the universe?
Answer: The Big Bang.
Question: What is the origin of Big Bang?
Answer: don't know.

You can't use the "don't know" to negate all the arguments and data for the Big Bang.

It's not the "I don't know" that refutes the argument. The critic uses the argument on itself: you end up with an infinite regress, an unending list of designers of designers. If that isn't parsimonious (not to mention paradoxical), I don't know what it.

It doesn't mean that there couldn't have been a designer, only that this particular logical argument isn't a valid proof of one.

 

[lucaspa]

If your argument is that complex things necessarily need a designer and that God is complex, God needs a designer. QED.

First, even if that were true, it doesn't negate that God is the designer of plants and animals.

Second, at some point in the cause and effect chain, you are going to have to have some entity that just IS. That entity isn't caused. It's called First Cause. And that entity needn't be simple.

 

[lucaspa]

It's not the "I don't know" that refutes the argument. The critic uses the argument on itself: you end up with an infinite regress, an unending list of designers of designers. If that isn't parsimonious (not to mention paradoxical), I don't know what it.

Infinite regress does not necessarily mean you don't have the correct answer. For instance, there was a theory that the universe expanded and collapsed "infinitely". So our universe came from a preceeding one and that from a preceedig one, etc. An infinite regress. Didn't stop the theory from being seriously considered.

Parsimony is not used to evaluate theories or determine truth. It doesn't work. The simplest explanation is not the correct one. (Of course, William of Ockham did not state what is today called Ockham's Razor; it has been erroneously changed from what Ockham stated.)

It doesn't mean that there couldn't have been a designer, only that this particular logical argument isn't a valid proof of one.

Remember, the AfD was not simply a logical argument. It was based on data. The designs seen in plants and animals. Couple to that only one theory to account for them and you have the AfD.

 

[lucaspa]

I am merely pointing out that if you claim that complexity necessarily needs a designer and God is complex, you must agree that God had a designer.

That wasn't the AfD. You (and Dawkins in The Blind Watchmaker) changed it. The argument was that the designs in plants and animals needed to be accounted for. Nothing was said about all complexity. Complexity is not the same thing as a design. There was no known process that could have made those designs except an intelligent entity. The only entity that qualified was God.

 

[BananaSlug]

Another entity that could quality is just pure natural selection. A god is not required for the appearance of "design."

 

[Split Rock]

That wasn't the AfD. You (and Dawkins in The Blind Watchmaker) changed it. The argument was that the designs in plants and animals needed to be accounted for. Nothing was said about all complexity. Complexity is not the same thing as a design. There was no known process that could have made those designs except an intelligent entity. The only entity that qualified was God.

Part of the Paley argument was based on complexity, however. The watch needed a watchmaker because it was complex, had a specific function, and each part was required for that funtion.

 

[tanzanos]

Creationists fail to comprehend that natural selection happens over very long time spans. Also that biology depends on chemistry and chemistry depends on the fundamental laws of physics.
Natural selection is nothing more than the ability of life to adapt to the pertaining environmental conditions. An example being:

Birds living in dense shrubs or wood have short wings; simply because large wings would hinder flight amidst the branches and twigs. Also small wings allow for rapid transition; good for avoiding enemies.

Open area birds have large wings for reasons of conserving energy by taking advantage of thermals and thus can soar for long distances.

Now since mutations are constantly happening and are a normal part of life; then any bird born with the wrong sized wing for the environment will have less of a chance to produce offspring because it is disadvantaged compared to its brethren with the correct wing size.

Science is complicated; and especially to creationists, since almost no creationist bothers to learn the pertaining science he undoubtedly ends up relegating the complexities to some deity! Just like our stone age ancestors thought that lightning was created by Gods.

Actually if one considers the simplicity of the fundamentals and one bothers to take the path of erudition; then one can easily see how life can adapt and evolve without divine intervention.

 

[MoonLancer]

Second, at some point in the cause and effect chain, you are going to have to have some entity that just IS. That entity isn't caused. It's called First Cause. And that entity needn't be simple.

if their needs to be a first uncased cause, why does it need to be god?

maybe man created god in his own image?

 

[Hespera]

That wasn't the AfD. You (and Dawkins in The Blind Watchmaker) changed it. The argument was that the designs in plants and animals needed to be accounted for. Nothing was said about all complexity. Complexity is not the same thing as a design. There was no known process that could have made those designs except an intelligent entity. The only entity that qualified was God.

There certainly IS a known process that has produced and continues to produce "designs", one that has nothing to do with (G)od.

Would you btw say that a river system as a "design" to it? If not why not?
And did it need to be designed, or was it formed simply by moving water interacting with the material about it?

How about crystals? Carbon nanotubes? Ocean currents? A nuclear reactor (careful with that one).

 

[Hespera]

if their needs to be a first uncased cause, why does it need to be god?

maybe man created god in his own image?

If we are created in the physical image of god then (H)e has a strong resemblance to a monkey. Kind of an offensive idea, so I figured they mean in some sort of spiritual image. Whatever that might be.

 

[Naraoia]

First, even if that were true, it doesn't negate that God is the designer of plants and animals.

Which, if you read Wiccan's post carefully, he acknowledged:

It doesn't mean that there couldn't have been a designer, only that this particular logical argument isn't a valid proof of one.

It's not the conclusion but the argument that's problematic.

Second, at some point in the cause and effect chain, you are going to have to have some entity that just IS. That entity isn't caused. It's called First Cause. And that entity needn't be simple.

Why can't we have an infinite chain of causation? Sure, it's hard (impossible?) to imagine one, but when has being hard to imagine stopped something from being possible?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Infinite regress does not necessarily mean you don't have the correct answer. For instance, there was a theory that the universe expanded and collapsed "infinitely". So our universe came from a preceeding one and that from a preceedig one, etc. An infinite regress. Didn't stop the theory from being seriously considered.

Indeed, but the logic used in the argument contradicts itself when infinite regress is considered. As I said before, it's the logic that is wrong, not necessarily the conclusion.

Parsimony is not used to evaluate theories or determine truth. It doesn't work. The simplest explanation is not the correct one. (Of course, William of Ockham did not state what is today called Ockham's Razor; it has been erroneously changed from what Ockham stated.)

Regardless of its etymology, what we now call "Occam's (or Ockham's) Razor" holds true: all things otherwise the same, the simplest solution is more likely to be true than one which invokes unnecessary entities.

I could say that lightening is the wrath of Thor, but that requires me to invoke the existence of Thor (since that is the only reason to consider his existence: as an explanation for lightening). On the other hand, explaining it using electrostatics doesn't require us to invoke anything new: we already know that electrons exist.

Remember, the AfD was not simply a logical argument. It was based on data. The designs seen in plants and animals. Couple to that only one theory to account for them and you have the AfD.

But it still uses a logical argument:

• Life and the universe look designed.
• Designed things have a designer.
• Therefore, life and the universe have a designer.

This logic can be shown to be paradoxical, and thus one cannot use it to infer anything about the world.

It doesn't matter if the premises or conclusions just so happen to be true.