What's The Matter?

[justlookinla]

What design?

Whatever design Dawkins claimed, without evidence, was an illusion.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yeppers. A claim was made but no evidence to support the claim after many requests for the evidence. Plenty of personal attacks for actually asking for evidence, but no evidence.

A group that claims that there are mountains of evidence but which never seem able to produce it when needed to support certain claims.

 

[Skaloop]

What does that mean to you? Can you explain?


A direct quote by Dawkins saying what specific thing? Not sure what you are saying here.
So let me get this straight, Dawkins who is an outspoken atheist and I would say militant atheist, makes an asserted claim that the design we see is an illusion but gives no evidence for that claim and you accept that without any evidence; and then claim I am the one without evidence. Priceless.

I could honestly not care less what Dawkins says. I disagree with him on many points. I don't accept his claim without evidence; I accept the basis of his claim with evidence. A preponderance of it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I could honestly not care less what Dawkins says. I disagree with him on many points. I don't accept his claim without evidence; I accept the basis of his claim with evidence. A preponderance of it.

Great, specifically what evidence do you cite that shows that the design we see is an illusion?

 

[justlookinla]

Not necessarily. Again, "created" implies intent. Life arose, life developed, life evolved; that doesn't mean life was created.

Well, first, you still haven't given the evidence, based on the scientific method, that I asked for. Not sure if you're using the evasive tactic that if you evade long enough, the original request will be forgotten. It hasn't.

"Create" is simply a term which indicates something existing which did not previously exist...

cre·ate
krēˈāt/
verb

1. bring (something) into existence.
   synonyms: produce, generate, bring into being, make, fabricate, fashion, build,construct
   • cause (something) to happen as a result of one's actions.

What brought humanity into existence? Based on the evidence produced by the scientific method.​

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I am amused that you think that those quotes support your position. Both of them mention "appear" to have been designed, or "appearance" of design. Neither of them say that they were designed for a purpose.

Also, if you actually read The Blind Watchmaker, you'd know that it obliterates the idea of intentional design.

Design and purpose go hand in hand. If something functions purposefully, especially to the exclusion of any other function, it was probably designed for that purpose. Example; the eye, liver, bladder, foot, etc.

I don't see the practical value of dismissing design. Purposeful design in nature is the practical observation by most, regardless of being deemed a subjective opinion by science.

 

[Strathos]

Why could the processes of evolution, mutation and natural selection not be the tools of a designer?

Doesn't it make sense for a designer to set up systems that can develop and function independently, instead of micromanaging every single thing?

In fact, this is what we see in the Bible. When God intervenes directly, it's a specific instance. For example, look at the plagues of Egypt. God specifically sends frogs, lice, locusts, etc. to punish Egypt. Does that mean that every time these creatures cause trouble anywhere, God specifically ordered it? If so, why point out that He did in this case? Obviously it's not a normal event.

God sets up systems, how things work. Occasionally He feels the need to step in and personally do something. But He set up the system so that most of the time, that's not necessary.

 

[Oafman]

Why could the processes of evolution, mutation and natural selection not be the tools of a designer?

Doesn't it make sense for a designer to set up systems that can develop and function independently, instead of micromanaging every single thing?

In fact, this is what we see in the Bible. When God intervenes directly, it's a specific instance. For example, look at the plagues of Egypt. God specifically sends frogs, lice, locusts, etc. to punish Egypt. Does that mean that every time these creatures cause trouble anywhere, God specifically ordered it? If so, why point out that He did in this case? Obviously it's not a normal event.

God sets up systems, how things work. Occasionally He feels the need to step in and personally do something. But He set up the system so that most of the time, that's not necessary.

What is this designer hoping to achieve? Did they use evolution to create a particular species, eg humans? If so, why not just magic humans into existence, rather than faffing around for 3 billion years? If they unleashed evolution without having in mind the goal of it eventually creating a particular species (just let it loose and see what happens) then it's a stretch to describe such a being as a 'designer'.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Isn't developing immunity a function of evolution?

Yes. But populations evolve. Not individuals. And not overnight.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Observation is part of science. We can take an actual objective biological system and its function and compare it to an actual functional designed system and see objectively the function and structure are designed similarly. It rests on objective evidence of both systems.

You need to demonstrate actual design before you can conclude design.
"this looks like that" is not such a demonstration.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The BF is actual.

"BF"?

The function is actual. It is similar to the actual rotor system designed by humans.

We aren't talking about the function (in hindsight, of all things). We are talking about it being natural or not.

You claim it is not. You have not justified that statement.

The actual appearance and function of both systems actually are structurally similar and functionally similar.

Which doesn't mean it is artificially designd.

This is a case of real systems being designed for a purpose that show similar design and function.

Why?

It doesn't take Rocket Science to objectively conclude the appearance is not an illusion.

Indeed, it doesn't. It only takes confirmation bias and an argument from incredulity (and ignoring biology).

Does appearance have function?

That's like asking "can plastic be blue?"
They both are words to describe some thing. I don't see how one implies the other must or must not be present.

Does it have function in the way a designed similar system has function? It is you that needs to show by evidence that this similarity of function and design is an illusion.

Evolution.

 

[DogmaHunter]

What evidence do you have to justify that it is an illusion?

I was replying to the statement that "it's definatly designed".

When someone makes such a claim to knowledge, they should be able to support it.
It's not upto me to present evidence that the claim is wrong, if the person making the claim can't present evidence that the claim is correct.

It's called shifting the burden of proof.
I don't need to do anything. I can simply reject the claim being made at face value if the person making the claim can't present evidence in support of it.



Having said that: evolution explains why life looks the way it does. As you have been told so many times...

 

[DogmaHunter]

I disagree. The view that only naturalistic mechanisms(1*) created the incomprehensibly complex(2*) human body isn't supported by the scientific method. No doubt the scientific method supports certain forms of evolution, but not that form.

1. misrepresentation. Evolution doesn't say "only" natural mechanisms. At best, it will say that only natural mechanisms are known to be part of it. And that it appears sufficient. If you can demonstrate unnatural mechanisms playing a role, then science will be happy to include such. Can you?

2. argument from incredulity (= my argument against evolution, is that I don't understand/believe it).

 

[DogmaHunter]

The evidence is the design.

/facepalm....

So, the evidence for the claim "it is designed" is .... an assertion that it is designed?

Be serious.

You have to show why it is not actual design and only an illusion.

Shifting burden of proof.
You claim that there is actual design. Support your claim. And preferably, not by asserting your claim again.

 

[DogmaHunter]

bhsmte, if you can seriously observe the Bacterial Flagellum and the rotary systems as a whole and can deny that they appear designed in the same way as the human designed counterpart except much much more efficient and self error correcting, there is no amount of testing would satisfy your biased materialist point of view.

Wait, are you complaining to bhsmte that he doesn't just by default accept your claims?
You feel like you should be exempt from having to validate what you mean and support your claims?


Please answer his questions. What is the test? How to objectively determine the presence of actual design?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Appears to be is used to establish something that seems to be the case. I got sunburned, appears to be the case. I found this card, it appears to be a visa credit card...etc.

Right. And what comes next? Because you seem to be skipping over that part.

I'll help you along.
You find a sheet with red stains on it. "this appears to be blood".
Now, can you conclude in that instance that it IS blood? Because it appears to be so?

What would you need to determine if what it appears to be is the same as what it ACTUALLY IS?

Would it be okay to not take any further steps, simply assert that it is blood and then tell other people "it's blood unless you can prove that it isn't?"

Off course not.

The statement that it is ACTUAL blood will only be supported once you...........can you guess??

Once you actually test the red stain to see if it actually is blood and not just ketchup or red paint.

Yes, and the objective test is to use new technology available to us today to observe systems in the cell which is not possible without this technology and observe their structure and features along with the function included.

The equivalent of this "objective test" is the take a closer look at the stain to see which type of red it is and if it matches how red blood is.

This "test" will not tell you if the stain is actually blood.

The design is overwhelming apparent and biologists admit it.

Funny you should use that word. You know what else they find "overwhelming"? The evidence for evolution, which explains why organisms look the way they look (both on the inside and outside).

You seem to want to dismiss that.

Irony alert.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Frances Crick:
Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.
— Francis Crick
What Mad Pursuit (1990), 138.
Richard Dawkins:
"Biology is the study of complex things that appear to have been designed for a purpose. Physics books may be complicated, but ...The objects and phenomena that a physics book describes are simpler than a single cell in the body of its author. And the author consists of trillions of those cells, many of them different from each other, organized with intricate architecture and precision-engineering into a working machine capable of writing a book. " p1-3.

"Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selectioin overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning. The purpose of this book is to resolve the paradox to the satisfaction of the reader, and the purpose of this chapter is further to impress the reader with the power of the illusion of design." Cover of The Blind Watchmaker

None of these people agree with your views, why do you quote them?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Also, if you actually read The Blind Watchmaker, you'd know that it obliterates the idea of intentional design.

I did

I don't believe that for a second.

 

[DogmaHunter]

A direct quote by Dawkins saying what specific thing? Not sure what you are saying here.
So let me get this straight, Dawkins who is an outspoken atheist and I would say militant atheist, makes an asserted claim that the design we see is an illusion but gives no evidence for that claim and you accept that without any evidence; and then claim I am the one without evidence. Priceless.

For crying out loud........

The very point of the book you are quoting from does exactly that which you claim it does not.

I mean, the title alone should give you a clue.......

This is how I know that you haven't read it.

The entire book is about how organized complexity like we see in life comes about without any external interventions or intention or purpose.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Well, first, you still haven't given the evidence, based on the scientific method, that I asked for. Not sure if you're using the evasive tactic that if you evade long enough, the original request will be forgotten. It hasn't.

"Create" is simply a term which indicates something existing which did not previously exist...

cre·ate
krēˈāt/
verb

1. bring (something) into existence.
   synonyms: produce, generate, bring into being, make, fabricate, fashion, build,construct
   • cause (something) to happen as a result of one's actions.

What brought humanity into existence? Based on the evidence produced by the scientific method.​

Evolution.