What's The Matter?

[Jan Volkes]

The problem is not evolution, it is materialism. Science has been part of my life a good portion of it in fact, unlike you. It seems you are the one that believes what you are told about evolution and haven't researched anything for yourself.

'materialism'? what else is there? the things we make up in our minds like gods and spirituality are not real.

I'm not the one believing you are, I don't care if evolution is a fact or not it doesn't bother me either way, however evolution does make more sense to me than magic men in the sky because magic is for children, adults deal with what's real not imagined.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

I am not sure who you are posting this to but I am going to respond. I am responding to a fellow Christian here so I am responding to a person who as I already knows that God exists so the argument is based on that. Those who do not believe that God exists or has anything to do with the process of evolution at all are not included in this post. This post is theist to theist who do not challenge the claim that God created the universe and everything in it.

You seem to be under the same faulty impression that the materialists are; it is an either or situation, either God did it and so no evolution or evolution did it and no God. God engineered life to allow for adaptation to the environment and evolution is part of that. However, He can engineer systems and features in His creation that declare His Glory...
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
And:
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

Which means that when we look back in history and see the creation and see life throughout history His work within it is clearly seen. All throughout history mankind knew when they saw the complexity in all of nature that it was God that created it. Then Darwin comes along and takes that creative process of God and gives it a label and finds certain creative avenues that God uses to allow life to adapt and change to the environment and boom no need for God. Whether God micromanaged or engineered life according to a plan and it needs no micromanagement at all is really not the issue. The complex structures, features, and functions reflect as God intended to show His handiwork in creation. He wanted us to see His design to declare His work.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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

No, I need to observe the systems, features, function and structure of life forms and recognize they are designed or engineered for a purpose. This engineering provides evidence of design. We recognize design by the engineering for a purpose in design humans create. The evidence of this design or engineering is in the way the system, structure, features and functions show planning and purpose. If one wishes to dismiss this evidence of design, claim it is an illusion then it is the burden of that person to show why this evidence is an illusion.

 

[Jimmy D]

No, I need to observe the systems, features, function and structure of life forms and recognize they are designed or engineered for a purpose.

I'm curious as to what you believe the purpose to be, could you elaborate on that please?

 

[Oncedeceived]

"BF"?

Bacterial Flagellum.

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.

You have no justified that the design we see in nature is an illusion. Design is the evidence present in life forms. If you dismiss that evidence as an illusion you already admit it is there. You are just adding on the claim that the design that is evident in life forms is an illusion. It is up to you to provide evidence that shows that evidence is an illusion.

Which doesn't mean it is artificially designd.

What do you mean "artificially" designed?

Why?

We recognize design.

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

I see confirmation bias in you. You only believe the material universe is all there is and what you see in nature confirms your bias. You see design but you attribute to only material processes but you have no evidence that natural processes could even provide an illusion of design. You provide no argument at all, not one from incredulity or otherwise to support your claim that the design observed is an illusion. No one is ignoring biology, biology has not provided evidence that it can create an illusion of design.

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.

No, it is a question showing how implying the notion of the appearance as just a pattern or a shape equates to the features, systems and their functions. The ducky cloud is just a pattern or shape of something that is real and functions. In this case the design we observe in life forms is REAL, it exists and functions. Patterns and shapes are visual illusions of things that are real but the illusions themselves aren't really REAL. These structures, systems, and features really exist they are not phantom shapes or patterns but real living things that have function and purpose of design and engineering.

Evolution.

Evolution of the gaps.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

Are you not claiming that it is definitely designed by evolution? Are you not claiming that the design observed is an illusion created by evolution? Are you providing any evidence that evolution could produce such an illusion? Is that not a claim of knowledge that you should support with actual evidence rather than just evolution did it? You demand of others what you do not supply yourself.

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.

Except in this case, design is the evidence in which you and others claim is an illusion. What evidence are you using to support that what we observe (evidence of what is present) is an illusion? The burden is yours when something that is observed by scientific methods and is evident by that method is claimed to be faulty or an illusion.

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

Assertion is not evidence. No evidence has been provided that evolution can create the illusion of design. Evolution did it is not evidence. Evolution of the gaps is not evidence that evolution can create an illusion of design. Assertion is not evidence.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

One has to be initiated into the inner sanctums of science to hold that design doesn't exist in nature. Most folks are blissfully unaware of this.

If evolution/natural selection is indeed true it has produced some really great designs.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

The whole book makes assertions and stories and give no EVIDENCE whatsoever on how this actually can create an illusion of design. You read the book but you can't give one shred of evidence to support his claim, he didn't either. He just wove a great little story of how it might of or could have or would have but not a shred of evidence to provide support to his stories.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Would science concede design if it were attributed soley to natural selection?

 

[Oncedeceived]

/facepalm....

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

Be serious.



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

Bear with me here. What is the evidence that Darwin observed when the idea of evolution was created? I promise I will come back to this after you answer this question.

 

[Oncedeceived]

'materialism'? what else is there? the things we make up in our minds like gods and spirituality are not real.

I'm not the one believing you are, I don't care if evolution is a fact or not it doesn't bother me either way, however evolution does make more sense to me than magic men in the sky because magic is for children, adults deal with what's real not imagined.

When you want to make a real argument...get back to me.

 

[Oncedeceived]

One has to be initiated into the inner sanctums of science to hold that design doesn't exist in nature. Most folks are blissfully unaware of this.

If evolution/natural selection is indeed true it has produced some really great designs.

Right, those who are in the scientific field working have no problem claiming that there is design in nature. They dismiss it out of hand and make claims that it is an illusion but they do admit it is there; of course they don't provide evidence that shows it is an illusion. However, they are using this "illusion" to reverse engineer them to learn more about how these illusions actually came about and how to engineer similar designs (whoops I mean illusions) in our own creations. Man is not as ingenious as these illusions though because we are still unable to design anything close to those illusions we find in nature.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I'm curious as to what you believe the purpose to be, could you elaborate on that please?

I will provide you with the inner workings of the cell which shows how each system independently works in the cell to provide their purpose to the whole. Each system has their own job to do (purpose) which interacts with other systems doing their job (purpose) which interacts with the whole of the cell which in turn interacts with the organism itself as a whole.

and a shorter version.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Bear with me here. What is the evidence that Darwin observed when the idea of evolution was created? I promise I will come back to this after you answer this question.

I don't think it was a single observation that gave him the idea. Rather a collection of independent data lines that all converged into the notion of common descent through the mechanism of inheritable modification with natural selection.

If I would have to put it in a nutshell, I'ld say the realization that members of the same species in different environments had a tendency to differ from eachother in ways that made sense for the environment they found themselves in.

Which is what one would expect from a process where inheritable changes are introduced and subsequently "filtered" by a selection process.

No, it is a question showing how implying the notion of the appearance as just a pattern or a shape equates to the features, systems and their functions. The ducky cloud is just a pattern or shape of something that is real and functions. In this case the design we observe in life forms is REAL, it exists and functions.

No, the only thing that is REAL are the actual biological systems. The DNA, the bio-chemical processes, etc.
That is what is REAL.

That is also what needs an explanation.
Biology has a well-evidenced explanation. It's called evolution theory.

"design" is what you offer as an explanation.



Get it now?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Are you not claiming that it is definitely designed by evolution? Are you not claiming that the design observed is an illusion created by evolution? Are you providing any evidence that evolution could produce such an illusion? Is that not a claim of knowledge that you should support with actual evidence rather than just evolution did it? You demand of others what you do not supply yourself.

"Evolution is supported by overwhelming evidence".

I'm sure you heared that sentence before. It's true.
Find out.

Except in this case, design is the evidence

No.

"Design" is your claim.

Evolution did it is not evidence. Evolution of the gaps is not evidence that evolution can create an illusion of design. Assertion is not evidence.

And pretending that the idea you argue against is unsupported, while the opposite is true, is simply not honest.

 

[Jimmy D]

Thanks for the reply.

I don't want to get into a tedious debate about definitions of words and semantics, but it seems you're talking about function rather than purpose.

The post I was originally referring to said:

No, I need to observe the systems, features, function and structure of life forms and recognize they are designed or engineered for a purpose. This engineering provides evidence of design. We recognize design by the engineering for a purpose in design humans create. The evidence of this design or engineering is in the way the system, structure, features and functions show planning and purpose.

I'm curious as to what you think this purpose is. Obviously a car, for example, was designed for the purpose of transporting us from A to B, what's the purpose of the natural world?

Thanks

 

[Oncedeceived]

I don't think it was a single observation that gave him the idea. Rather a collection of independent data lines that all converged into the notion of common descent through the mechanism of inheritable modification with natural selection.

If I would have to put it in a nutshell, I'ld say the realization that members of the same species in different environments had a tendency to differ from each other in ways that made sense for the environment they found themselves in.

What was the evidence?

Which is what one would expect from a process where inheritable changes are introduced and subsequently "filtered" by a selection process.

What was the evidence?

No, the only thing that is REAL are the actual biological systems. The DNA, the bio-chemical processes, etc.
That is what is REAL.

That is also what needs an explanation.
Biology has a well-evidenced explanation. It's called evolution theory.

"design" is what you offer as an explanation.

So if we look at this:

We know that this didn't naturally arise from the materials that make it what it is. It came about by a plan for a purpose. It has a design based on what that purpose is.

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/5/1260/F1.medium.gif

This works on the same design and shows a plan for a purpose. It is made up of materials but the materials don't make it what it is anymore than the first one does.

Get it now?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Thanks for the reply.

I don't want to get into a tedious debate about definitions of words and semantics, but it seems you're talking about function rather than purpose.

The post I was originally referring to said:

No, I need to observe the systems, features, function and structure of life forms and recognize they are designed or engineered for a purpose. This engineering provides evidence of design. We recognize design by the engineering for a purpose in design humans create. The evidence of this design or engineering is in the way the system, structure, features and functions show planning and purpose.

I'm curious as to what you think this purpose is. Obviously a car, for example, was designed for the purpose of transporting us from A to B, what's the purpose of the natural world?

Thanks

In the Bacterial Flagellum this rotor system is used for the purpose of motility. The plan of the design is to have a way to move in the environment to reach food primarily faster...spinning 1500 times per minute. Exceeding any human design.

 

[Loudmouth]

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 design is overwhelming apparent and biologists admit it.

That is subjective evidence. Your entire argument is "well, it kinda looks designed". That is subjective.

The observation (evidence) is design.

Design is the claim, not the observation. You need to produce objective evidence for design. Until you do, there is nothing for us to disprove.

 

[Loudmouth]

In the Bacterial Flagellum this rotor system is used for the purpose of motility.

Does the bacterial flagellum use metal parts? Does it plug into the wall? Does it use electricity? Does it use coils of copper and magnets? Does it have blades made of wood? Does it have metal ball bearings?