Evidence for Design (3)

[Kylie]

Yes! I'm sure there're equally good versions for other browsers though.

Cool. I'll have to see if I can find one.

In the meantime, I'm getting a terrible thirst for evidence for design over here.

Lemme see if I can quench it.

Something is designed if every part of it serves to fulfill a particular purpose. A good design will have no superfluous parts, and everything will be as simple as possible.

For example, the stapler I am looking at is designed. I can tell because it fulfills a particular purpose (to bind several sheets of paper together using short lengths of bent wire) Each part of it serves to fulfill this purpose. It has a hammer part which forces the wire down, it has a holder section to hold the wires before use, it has a lever mechanism to make the stapling process easier, it has a spring loaded pusher to advance the next piece of wire into place ready for the next stapling, it has a metal plate which bends the wire to prevent it from coming loose and it has a flat base to provide stability while you staple. And everything is as simple as it can be while still doing the job efficiently.

Hence I conclude that the stapler is designed. That was easy.

I think the problem come from people who try to come up with a definition for design that includes life forms.

 

[createdtoworship]

Cool. I'll have to see if I can find one.



Lemme see if I can quench it.

Something is designed if every part of it serves to fulfill a particular purpose. A good design will have no superfluous parts, and everything will be as simple as possible.

For example, the stapler I am looking at is designed. I can tell because it fulfills a particular purpose (to bind several sheets of paper together using short lengths of bent wire) Each part of it serves to fulfill this purpose. It has a hammer part which forces the wire down, it has a holder section to hold the wires before use, it has a lever mechanism to make the stapling process easier, it has a spring loaded pusher to advance the next piece of wire into place ready for the next stapling, it has a metal plate which bends the wire to prevent it from coming loose and it has a flat base to provide stability while you staple. And everything is as simple as it can be while still doing the job efficiently.

Hence I conclude that the stapler is designed. That was easy.

I think the problem come from people who try to come up with a definition for design that includes life forms.

it's about CSI

Intelligent Reasoning: Measuring Complex Specified Information with Respect to Biology

here:
Intelligent Reasoning: January 2006

and here:
Intelligent Reasoning: Biological Specification (Dembski CSI) and My explanation of CSI

I don't agree with everything on the site as I am not as abrasive, but it still is valuable information on ID.

 

[createdtoworship]

Sir Arthur Keith (evolutionist) had the honor wrote the forward on the 100 year anniversary in 1959 to Darwin's origin of the species:
“Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable” (as quoted in Criswell, 1972, p. 73). Professor D.M.S. Watson, who held the position of the Chair of Evolution at the University of London for more than twenty years, echoed the same sentiments when he stated that “evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it has been observed to occur or can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is incredible"

above from many online sources, but this one happens to be:

https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=12&article=273


the aboves are arguments from silence, or God of the gaps fallacies. (I am glad to reverse the latter on you guys)

 

[Kylie]

it's about CSI

Intelligent Reasoning: Measuring Complex Specified Information with Respect to Biology

here:
Intelligent Reasoning: January 2006

and here:
Intelligent Reasoning: Biological Specification (Dembski CSI) and My explanation of CSI

I don't agree with everything on the site as I am not as abrasive, but it still is valuable information on ID.

If design is indicated by CSI, then a stapler (which I'm sure we both agree has been designed) must exhibit CSI. Please demonstrate the CSI in a stapler.

 

[createdtoworship]

If design is indicated by CSI, then a stapler (which I'm sure we both agree has been designed) must exhibit CSI. Please demonstrate the CSI in a stapler.

it has engineering, I mean if you don't have the exact same size staple out of dozens of sizes it won't work. A handle without a spring and clamp is useless (irreducibly complex). It has the obvious signs of design and CSI.

 

[Black Akuma]

Sir Arthur Keith (evolutionist) had the honor wrote the forward on the 100 year anniversary in 1959 to Darwin's origin of the species:
“Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable” (as quoted in Criswell, 1972, p. 73). Professor D.M.S. Watson, who held the position of the Chair of Evolution at the University of London for more than twenty years, echoed the same sentiments when he stated that “evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it has been observed to occur or can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is incredible"

above from many online sources, but this one happens to be:

https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=12&article=273


the aboves are arguments from silence, or God of the gaps fallacies. (I am glad to reverse the latter on you guys)

Gradyll, Sir Arthur Keith died in 1955.

 

[createdtoworship]

Gradyll, Sir Arthur Keith died in 1955.

very well, that is a misquote.

as found by a christian who is a scientist here:
You Cannot Promote Truth With Lies! | Proslogion

what about the second one, got anything on that?

looks like even evolutionists are accepting it:

https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/StupidSci.HTM

 

[Black Akuma]

Sir Arthur Keith (evolutionist) had the honor wrote the forward on the 100 year anniversary in 1959 to Darwin's origin of the species:
“Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable” (as quoted in Criswell, 1972, p. 73). Professor D.M.S. Watson, who held the position of the Chair of Evolution at the University of London for more than twenty years, echoed the same sentiments when he stated that “evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it has been observed to occur or can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is incredible"

above from many online sources, but this one happens to be:

https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=12&article=273


the aboves are arguments from silence, or God of the gaps fallacies. (I am glad to reverse the latter on you guys)

very well, that is a misquote.

as found by a christian who is a scientist here:
You Cannot Promote Truth With Lies! | Proslogion

what about the second one, got anything on that?

It's not a misquote. Misquoting implies the statement was taken out of context or altered.

He just plain never wrote that. It's a lie.

Now, if the first one is a lie, why should I give credence to the second? Or anything you post?

 

[Kylie]

it has engineering, I mean if you don't have the exact same size staple out of dozens of sizes it won't work. A handle without a spring and clamp is useless (irreducibly complex). It has the obvious signs of design and CSI.

Ah, so now it requires engineering instead of CSI. You have not explained what Complex Specified Information is present in a stapler.

 

[OllieFranz]

Sir Arthur Keith (evolutionist) had the honor wrote the forward on the 100 year anniversary in 1959 to Darwin's origin of the species:
“Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable” (as quoted in Criswell, 1972, p. 73). Professor D.M.S. Watson, who held the position of the Chair of Evolution at the University of London for more than twenty years, echoed the same sentiments when he stated that “evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it has been observed to occur or can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is incredible"

above from many online sources, but this one happens to be:

https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=12&article=273


the aboves are arguments from silence, or God of the gaps fallacies. (I am glad to reverse the latter on you guys)

Linking to a Creationist site that only repeats the trimmed down quote and "interprets" it is not making the context available. For that we need the original paper by Sir Arthur himself, so that we can see exactly what his point was in making that statement.

Was he voicing an hypothetical objection to his actual point of view? Or was he giving a more specific objection to a more specific hypothesis by a colleague (which would not at all be the same as doubting evolution in general)? These are only two of the possible alternate reasons for the words quoted. I can think of at least three more. And that assumes the quote is accurate and complete. It is not uncommon for crucial words and phrases to drop out before the quote is included on the Creationist website. (Certainly, creationists are not the only ones to adopt these practices, but almost any other person or group will, once discovered, show embarrassment and remorse, and will have to face consequences. But Creationist professionals are given a free pass from the fundamentalist sheep -- sheep who are so afraid of denying their "literal" understanding of Genesis that they refuse to believe those who correct the [to use your word] "misquote," or to check out the truth for themselves.)

 

[createdtoworship]

Linking to a Creationist site that only repeats the trimmed down quote and "interprets" it is not making the context available. For that we need the original paper by Sir Arthur himself, so that we can see exactly what his point was in making that statement.

Was he voicing an hypothetical objection to his actual point of view? Or was he giving a more specific objection to a more specific hypothesis by a colleague (which would not at all be the same as doubting evolution in general)? These are only two of the possible alternate reasons for the words quoted. I can think of at least three more. And that assumes the quote is accurate and complete. It is not uncommon for crucial words and phrases to drop out before the quote is included on the Creationist website. (Certainly, creationists are not the only ones to adopt these practices, but almost any other person or group will, once discovered, show embarrassment and remorse, and will have to face consequences. But Creationist professionals are given a free pass from the fundamentalist sheep -- sheep who are so afraid of denying their "literal" understanding of Genesis that they refuse to believe those who correct the [to use your word] "misquote," or to check out the truth for themselves.)

sir arthur keith died before the alleged 100th anniversary edition. So I was focusing on the second quote. Which appears legitimate from all my searches.

 

[createdtoworship]

Ah, so now it requires engineering instead of CSI. You have not explained what Complex Specified Information is present in a stapler.

reread post please,

engineering
springs
clamps

are all designed (CSI)

and present in a stapler.

 

[createdtoworship]

It's not a misquote. Misquoting implies the statement was taken out of context or altered.

He just plain never wrote that. It's a lie.

Now, if the first one is a lie, why should I give credence to the second? Or anything you post?

okay then we are done here.

thanks for the comment.

 

[Black Akuma]

sir arthur keith died before the alleged 100th anniversary edition. So I was focusing on the second quote. Which appears legitimate from all my searches.

Oh, really? It does? Then you won't mind posting the paragraph it came from, then.

Go on.

 

[createdtoworship]

Oh, really? It does? Then you won't mind posting the paragraph it came from, then.

Go on.

why?

if he made a mistake, own up to it.

be a real man.

don't wiggle under the evolutionary rock.

even evolutionists agree it was dumb

https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/StupidSci.HTM

 

[Black Akuma]

Sigh.

Here's the actual context. It's not even one quote, Gradyll, it's two.

Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists not because it has been observed to occur or is supported by logically coherent arguments, but because it does fit all the facts of taxonomy, of paleontology, and of geographical distribution, and because no alternative explanation is credible.

And the second part is found here.

The extreme difficulty of obtaining the necessary data for any quantitative estimation of the efficiency of natural selection makes it seem probable that this theory will be re-established, if it be so, by the collapse of alternative explanations which are more easily attacked by observation and experiment. If so, it will present a parallel to the theory of evolution itself, a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.

Your quote is a Frankenstein monster fused from two completely different paragraphs, that fails to even suggest it with an ellipses - as a writer, I can tell you this is considered extremely dishonest in journalism. Possibly worthy of getting you fired.

And you said you looked this up and it seemed legit? Shame, gradyll. Shame.

 

[Kylie]

I'm assuming that this is the second paragraph to which you refer?

Professor D.M.S. Watson, who held the position of the Chair of Evolution at the University of London for more than twenty years, echoed the same sentiments when he stated that “evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it has been observed to occur or can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is incredible"

You do realise that he said this in 1920, yes? Since then we've found a huge amount of evidence to support evolution. It has been observed, and there are logically coherent evidences that show that it occurs. The DNA evidence alone is enough to show that evolution occurs.

 

[Ursus scientia]

Something is designed if every part of it serves to fulfill a particular purpose. A good design will have no superfluous parts, and everything will be as simple as possible.

Sounds like a good working definition.

Gradyll: you need to get back on topic and try harder. You've said nothing meaningful for some time now.

 

[Kylie]

Sounds like a good working definition.

Thanks. I can't for the life of me imagine anything that we all agree was designed and doesn't fit this.

 

[mzungu]

it has engineering, I mean if you don't have the exact same size staple out of dozens of sizes it won't work. A handle without a spring and clamp is useless (irreducibly complex). It has the obvious signs of design and CSI.

Hogwash! This argument has been debunked a long time ago. Anything new?

Irreducible Complexity (bacterial flagellum) debunked - YouTube