The appearance of design

[laptoppop]

I was told in another forum that the "watchmaker argument" (nature LOOKS designed, so its probable that it IS designed) was "falsified".

I asked for details on the methodology of falsification and got no real answers (a lot of anger and generalizations, though).

Check out this NY Times article by Behe (a ID proponent who I disagree with on many particulars): http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/07/o...=b530716e1f96e7ba&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland

From the article:
"For example, Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, once wrote that biologists must constantly remind themselves that what they see was not designed but evolved. (Imagine a scientist repeating through clenched teeth: "It wasn't really designed. Not really.")"

So -- would you agree that nature LOOKS designed? For example how about the incredible wonderful molecular machines in each cell?
(By the way - here is a cool video with cheesy music about the molecular machines. Sorry -- its in "Real" format, if you don't have that already. http://nwcreation.net/videos/voyage_inside_cell.html )

If you think the argument has been falsified, how has it been proven false? (you can disagree about nature being designed -- but that's a far cry from PROVING it false)

Please, no insults. I want to hear real data, not contentless insults.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

So, could you show us something not designed by God so that we may see the difference between designed and undesigned?

 

[laptoppop]

As the article mentions -- Mount Rushmore. It was not designed by God, but it looks designed -- oh, and it is.

As for something where the parts are designed, but the outcome is and looks random -- pick up sticks (the child game with a bunch of long toothpics that you drop and play with)

 

[theIdi0t]

I was told in another forum that the "watchmaker argument" (nature LOOKS designed, so its probable that it IS designed) was "falsified".

I asked for details on the methodology of falsification and got no real answers (a lot of anger and generalizations, though).

Check out this NY Times article by Behe (a ID proponent who I disagree with on many particulars): http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/07/o...=b530716e1f96e7ba&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland

From the article:
"For example, Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, once wrote that biologists must constantly remind themselves that what they see was not designed but evolved. (Imagine a scientist repeating through clenched teeth: "It wasn't really designed. Not really.")"

So -- would you agree that nature LOOKS designed? For example how about the incredible wonderful molecular machines in each cell?
(By the way - here is a cool video with cheesy music about the molecular machines. Sorry -- its in "Real" format, if you don't have that already. http://nwcreation.net/videos/voyage_inside_cell.html )

If you think the argument has been falsified, how has it been proven false? (you can disagree about nature being designed -- but that's a far cry from PROVING it false)

Please, no insults. I want to hear real data, not contentless insults.

I think the problem here laptoppop, is a play on words.

Instead of using design, since I.D. is just another name for supernaturally created, let us call it as such. Let us make a distinction between what looks supernaturally created, and naturally created. We should use supernaturally designed, and naturally designed, in our discussion, because to call a duck by another name gets confusing.

When I see a child do I think he was supernaturally created? no I don't. I think he was naturally created.

Let's ask you a question, do you believe Noah squeezed a pair of a few million species into the Ark (including 350,000 pairs of species of beetles)? If not do, you believe that the present degree of diversity, is the product of supernatural intervention, or natural process?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

As the article mentions -- Mount Rushmore. It was not designed by God, but it looks designed -- oh, and it is.

As for something where the parts are designed, but the outcome is and looks random -- pick up sticks (the child game with a bunch of long toothpics that you drop and play with)

I know how to identify human design, that is not too hard, but ID is about God's design.

How can I tell what is and is not designed by God?

Is there some sort of Godly tool marks or something?

Since the design argument insists that some things look like they were designed by God, then there must be a way to make this determination. What is this method of telling Gods design from things not designed by God?

 

[laptoppop]

I think the problem here laptoppop, is a play on words.

Instead of using design, since I.D. is just another name for supernaturally created, let us call it as such. Let us make a distinction between what looks supernaturally created, and naturally created. We should use supernaturally designed, and naturally designed, in our discussion, because to call a duck by another name gets confusing.

When I see a child do I think he was supernaturally created? no I don't. I think he was naturally created.

Let's ask you a question, do you believe Noah squeezed a pair of a few million species into the Ark (including 350,000 pairs of species of beetles)? If not do, you believe that the present degree of diversity, is the product of supernatural intervention, or natural process?

No, I don't think I can accept "naturally designed" because as I understand it - the process of evolution is supposed to be based on variations which are then selected upon by natural selection -- no need for design input.

I'll answer your question - but it has no bearing on this thread. Like most YEC scientists I believe that there is a range of natural variation, beyond which DNA repair mechanisms kick in. A biblical "kind" (not the same as a species -- see barimology) has a range of reasonable variation -- like eye color in humans. Animals can change rapidly within their ranges (such as breeding new types of dogs -- you can establish it within just a few generations) -- but not beyond their ranges. Noah did not need to take every variation on the ark, only each "kind". Also, if you look at the dimensions and work the math, the ark was HUGE - tons of room. People have studied the size and variety needed - there's plenty of room.

 

[laptoppop]

I know how to identify human design, that is not too hard, but ID is about God's design.

How can I tell what is and is not designed by God?

Is there some sort of Godly tool marks or something?

Since the design argument insists that some things look like they were designed by God, then there must be a way to make this determination. What is this method of telling Gods design from things not designed by God?

I notice you are diving into a pendantic argument about the term designed instead of answering the question. The design argument alone cannot prove "God" did it -- it is just arguing that things LOOK designed. Things such as the molecular machines I mentioned -- single purpose machines, glorious in design -- more complicated than anything man has ever put together. A wonderful system, in which all of the parts work together to accomplish the work of a cell. It *looks* designed -- and wonderfully designed at that.

Since this is a Christian forum, I see no need to prove God exists.

 

[Smidlee]

Even an evolutionist like Dawkins agree there is the appearance of design found in nature but claim it's an illusion. The appearance of design in nature must not be allow as evidence of real design since evolutionist themselves uses appearances as evidence of common descent. (they have no real engine to build the complexities we find in living cells) They will do everything they can to keep their monopoly of what can be call science.

 

[Galle]

I asked for details on the methodology of falsification and got no real answers (a lot of anger and generalizations, though).

This is an extreme misrepresentation of what you actually got in that thread (which I notice that you don't bother linking). You received some rather insightful answers there which you have completely ignored. For you to rationalize your behavior is almost breathtaking. And the worst part is that I see you're doing the EXACT same thing here.

Please, no insults. I want to hear real data, not contentless insults.

I'll tell you what: as soon as you either provide some real data OR stop with the unfounded insults, I'll take you seriously. Until then, it's clear you don't care about what anyone else has to say.

 

[Galle]

(they have no real engine to build the complexities we find in living cells) They will do everything they can to keep their monopoly of what can be call science.

Want to break the evolutionists' monopoly on science? No one's stopping you; there's no conspiracy to keep you out. Just provide a "real engine to build the complexities we find in living cells", publish it, test it, and refine it into a useful model or theory. Please note that "magic man done it!" doesn't qualify.

 

[theIdi0t]

No, I don't think I can accept "naturally designed" because as I understand it - the process of evolution is supposed to be based on variations which are then selected upon by natural selection -- no need for design input.

I apologize, I thought I had corrected the terms in my previous post, I had meant to say "naturally created" and "supernaturally created".

Can you accept, "naturally created", such as a child is naturally created, not supernaturally created?

And you do agree that natural selection occurs, this helps to explain naturally created variants of bacteria that are resistant to particular antibiotics?

I'll answer your question - but it has no bearing on this thread.

It has a significant bearing on the thread, though it may not be apparent to you right away.

Like most YEC scientists I believe that there is a range of natural variation, beyond which DNA repair mechanisms kick in. A biblical "kind" (not the same as a species -- see barimology) has a range of reasonable variation -- like eye color in humans. Animals can change rapidly within their ranges (such as breeding new types of dogs -- you can establish it within just a few generations) -- but not beyond their ranges.

But you do agree that the variations occur because of gene mutations? And do you believe these variations are created by natural process/naturally created, and not God divinely intervening, creating the variations of dogs, let's say, or 350,000 variations of beetles., or even the color of one's eyes.

These are all naturally created, am I correct?

Noah did not need to take every variation on the ark, only each "kind". Also, if you look at the dimensions and work the math, the ark was HUGE - tons of room. People have studied the size and variety needed - there's plenty of room.

Perhaps a TE can help define what the biological equivalent of "kind" is, but from my understanding of "kinds", Noah didn't need to take a pair of wolves, and pair of dogs on the ark, or a pair of monkeys, and pair of chimpanzee, or gorillas on the ark. A pair of monkeys, and a pair of dogs would suffice? In terms of 350,000 species of beetles, just one pair would suffice? or would you just say just that one pair of insects would suffice?

And the cause of increased diversity from the time of the ark, was caused by genetic mutations? And do you agree that natural selection at least resulted in some of these variations, such as the color of a moths wings changing in a given population?

And this is all a natural process, not a supernatural process? am I correct?

 

[theIdi0t]

Even an evolutionist like Dawkins agree there is the appearance of design found in nature but claim it's an illusion. The appearance of design in nature must not be allow as evidence of real design since evolutionist themselves uses appearances as evidence of common descent.

This is a play on words. In early day of creationism trying to enter the schools, it was rejected, because it was deemed to be religious indoctrinization. Some years later the argument was brought into the public square with a name change: "Intelligent design", same duck different name.

To use design carelessly, without saying up front what one is truly implying, serves to confuse the discussion, and not progress it.

There is difference between naturally designed or better yet naturally created, and supernaturally designed or better yet supernaturally created.

Dawkin's is refering to our intuitive understanding of things, that leads us to see certain complexities as the product of the hand of a designer. Such as we use for the Watch Maker arguments, where one uses the same line of logic in seeing a watch, and inferring a designer, and seeing a biological process and seeing a designer.

But what is forgotten, is that biology sees a blind watchmaker, using a long period of trial and error to produce his products. Either the supernatural is blindfolded, or the natural is blindfolded, the reasonable believer, who is aware of such processes, will not utter such blasphemy as God is blind, so we infer the natural.

 

[laptoppop]

This is an extreme misrepresentation of what you actually got in that thread (which I notice that you don't bother linking). You received some rather insightful answers there which you have completely ignored. For you to rationalize your behavior is almost breathtaking. And the worst part is that I see you're doing the EXACT same thing here.


I'll tell you what: as soon as you either provide some real data OR stop with the unfounded insults, I'll take you seriously. Until then, it's clear you don't care about what anyone else has to say.

Do you have anything to actually add to the discussion? The folks around here know me - check my posts. I posted in the other forum by mistake (which I acknowledged).

 

[laptoppop]

I apologize, I thought I had corrected the terms in my previous post, I had meant to say "naturally created" and "supernaturally created".

Can you accept, "naturally created", such as a child is naturally created, not supernaturally created?
[/qoute] I guess.

And you do agree that natural selection occurs, this helps to explain naturally created variants of bacteria that are resistant to particular antibiotics?

Actually, yes virtually all YEC scientists accept natural selection. And, mutations as well. It is just the series of beneficial mutations/selection that we have a problem with. For example, in the case of anti-biotic resistance in bacteria, as far as I know, there are no examples of clearly beneficial non-directed mutations without some negative effects, such as decreased motility.

It has a significant bearing on the thread, though it may not be apparent to you right away.

But you do agree that the variations occur because of gene mutations? And do you believe these variations are created by natural process/naturally created, and not God divinely intervening, creating the variations of dogs, let's say, or 350,000 variations of beetles., or even the color of one's eyes.

These are all naturally created, am I correct?

Yes, from a particular starting point and within particular variation liimits.

Perhaps a TE can help define what the biological equivalent of "kind" is, but from my understanding of "kinds", Noah didn't need to take a pair of wolves, and pair of dogs on the ark, or a pair of monkeys, and pair of chimpanzee, or gorillas on the ark. A pair of monkeys, and a pair of dogs would suffice? In terms of 350,000 species of beetles, just one pair would suffice? or would you just say just that one pair of insects would suffice?

Barimology is not my particular interest. I'm more interested in geology and theology. I am not qualified to specify exactly how many varieties of what would be included.

And the cause of increased diversity from the time of the ark, was caused by genetic mutations? And do you agree that natural selection at least resulted in some of these variations, such as the color of a moths wings changing in a given population?

And this is all a natural process, not a supernatural process? am I correct?

No, not completely. For example finch beaks. It is often commented how they increase in length during dry periods. What is not mentioned is how they go back when times are more normal. They vary -- but within limits.

 

[laptoppop]

This is a play on words. In early day of creationism trying to enter the schools, it was rejected, because it was deemed to be religious indoctrinization. Some years later the argument was brought into the public square with a name change: "Intelligent design", same duck different name.

To use design carelessly, without saying up front what one is truly implying, serves to confuse the discussion, and not progress it.

There is difference between naturally designed or better yet naturally created, and supernaturally designed or better yet supernaturally created.

Dawkin's is refering to our intuitive understanding of things, that leads us to see certain complexities as the product of the hand of a designer. Such as we use for the Watch Maker arguments, where one uses the same line of logic in seeing a watch, and inferring a designer, and seeing a biological process and seeing a designer.

But what is forgotten, is that biology sees a blind watchmaker, using a long period of trial and error to produce his products. Either the supernatural is blindfolded, or the natural is blindfolded, the reasonable believer, who is aware of such processes, will not utter such blasphemy as God is blind, so we infer the natural.

Yes, I know the consensus view, and I know of Dawkin's work. I hardly expect an outspoken atheist to be looking for or recognizing the hand of God.

The world looks designed in many many many ways. Yes, the consensus view of secular biology is that it is an illusion -- but it has been stated that the watchmaker argument has been falsified. Do you agree, or is it still out there? Based on what evidence? As far as I recall, truth is not dependent on a popular vote.

 

[Galle]

The folks around here know me - check my posts.

Yes, you've achieved a reputation of sorts that is easily discernible from your posting history. You may want to consider the implications of this.

I posted in the other forum by mistake (which I acknowledged).

You did acknowledge a mistake, but then you went on to start this very thread to complain about it! If you're going to complain about the answers you feel you didn't receive in another forum, why did you not simply stick around and address what posts you did get? For that matter, you did get some answers. Split Rock's, for example, was pretty clear.

 

[laptoppop]

No, I started this thread to discuss the topic with folks who I "know" and who "know" me. At different times I have received rep from both creationists and TEs. I may be opinionated but I try to be fair. I'll stand by my reputation with the regulars here. Do you have anything to add to the topic?

 

[laptoppop]

For that matter, you did get some answers. Split Rock's, for example, was pretty clear.

Split Rock's post was fine for an agnostic. It still failed to say how design has been falsified. It just postulated an alternative -- that's far from disproving something, especially in a Christian concept where we all agree that God exists and has been active in history.

 

[theIdi0t]

No, not completely. For example finch beaks. It is often commented how they increase in length during dry periods. What is not mentioned is how they go back when times are more normal. They vary -- but within limits.

I think you're assuming that a particular long beak finch, becomes a short beak finch because of varying weather conditions? Rather than favorable variation shifts within the population as result of varying weather shifts?

Or, I think you might be assuming that when the conditions favor long beaked finches, that the shorter beak finches are completely eradicated from the population, but they are not.

Let's assume you have 100 finches, 90 of them being short beaked, and other 10 being long beaked, let's say the weather conditions shift to favor the long beaked finches, the population through natural selection shifts to 80 long beaked finches and 20 short beaked finches, the weather condition shift again, and now the population shifts to 80 short beaked finches to 20 long beaked finches. The shifts in weather conditions occur in such short intervals, that natural selection does not have time to completely eliminate an entire variation. That's why these finches show natural selection, in action.

Here's a link

So natural process, or super natural process?

 

[laptoppop]

The finch beak shift represents natural population variation based on conditions. My point is that it does not demonstrate evolution, but rather variation within limits. A natural process -- set into place by God about 6,000 years ago.