Why Would An Agnostic Doubt the Theory of Evolution

[Notedstrangeperson]

I never claimed they were both wrong. I deny that anyone can tell whether one or the other is correct in the absence, of course, of seeing a burning bush and hearing someone say "Moses, Moses..."

Alright, so perhaps saying you think they're both "wrong" is incorrect, but I'm guessing you're at least doubtful about either theory. Do you have a view about the origins of life that's different from either creationism or Darwinism?

 

[justlookinla]

Yes.

But is is not delusional to view objects and believe that they appear to have all the attributes of design but accept that they aren't designed.

Why would one dismiss every example of objects which appear to be designed, have the qualities of being designed, have the attributes of being designed but then it not be delusional to do so?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Why would one dismiss every example of objects which appear to be designed, have the qualities of being designed, have the attributes of being designed but then it not be delusional to do so?

Exactly! That is why I posted my thread about everything being an illusion. The design we see in nature is just an illusion or delusion depending on who is making the claim. We see Francis Crick claiming that biologists must continue to remind themselves that they are not seeing design but evolution. Richard Dawkins claims that the world appears to be designed but it is an illusion, and they say Christians are delusional...

 

[justlookinla]

Exactly! That is why I posted my thread about everything being an illusion. The design we see in nature is just an illusion or delusion depending on who is making the claim. We see Francis Crick claiming that biologists must continue to remind themselves that they are not seeing design but evolution. Richard Dawkins claims that the world appears to be designed but it is an illusion, and they say Christians are delusional...

LOL. Go figure.

 

[Dizredux]

Why would one dismiss every example of objects which appear to be designed, have the qualities of being designed, have the attributes of being designed but then it not be delusional to do so?

So what are the qualities and attributes of being designed? Can they be described in such a way so we can reliably tell if an object is designed or not designed?

Dizredux

 

[Loudmouth]

Exactly! That is why I posted my thread about everything being an illusion. The design we see in nature is just an illusion or delusion depending on who is making the claim. We see Francis Crick claiming that biologists must continue to remind themselves that they are not seeing design but evolution. Richard Dawkins claims that the world appears to be designed but it is an illusion, and they say Christians are delusional...

Yep, just like the pig in this cloud is an illusion:

I would say that the cloud is not a pig. What about you?

 

[Loudmouth]

Why would one dismiss every example of objects which appear to be designed, have the qualities of being designed, have the attributes of being designed but then it not be delusional to do so?

First, you would have to show that they do have the appearance of design. A nested hierarchy does not have the appearance of design, just for starters.

 

[Sofaman]

Why would one dismiss every example of objects which appear to be designed, have the qualities of being designed, have the attributes of being designed but then it not be delusional to do so?

Lack of evidence of a designer, a plausible explanation of why objects appear to be designed without the need for a designer, the fact that within those objects, if they were designed, there is evidence of sub-optimal design.

The key word in what I said is appear. Do you believe everything you see. David Copperfield made an Elephant disappear on stage. Is it delusional to believe that all might not have been as it seemed?

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

So what are the qualities and attributes of being designed? Can they be described in such a way so we can reliably tell if an object is designed or not designed?

Link *whistles nonchalantly*

 

[HitchSlap]

LOL. Go figure.

LOL. I figure that when I see a watch reproduce, then you might have an argument.

I must say, it has been quite entertaining seeing you bumblefoot your way around these forums with your cdesign proponentsists straw men and laughably misleading characterizations of science.

Keep 'em coming. High EV!

 

[HitchSlap]

Yep, just like the pig in this cloud is an illusion:

I would say that the cloud is not a pig. What about you?

Yeah Loudmouth, but what you say is a cloud, is really a pig. You're just not looking at this objectively. I mean, there really is no way one can really know, but from where I'm sitting, a pig. Besides, I called my neighbor Bob, and he says pig, so pig.

 

[Dizredux]

Posted by Dizredux

So what are the qualities and attributes of being designed? Can they be described in such a way so we can reliably tell if an object is designed or not designed?

Link *whistles nonchalantly*

I had read that thread but I never saw an answer to my question. Perhaps I missed it, if so, could you point it out?

Dizredux

 

[Loudmouth]

Yeah Loudmouth, but what you say is a cloud, is really a pig. You're just not looking at this objectively. I mean, there really is no way one can really know, but from where I'm sitting, a pig. Besides, I called my neighbor Bob, and he says pig, so pig.

Perhaps this is Rasputin reincarnated as a kitten's ear.

Or is this just an illusion?

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

I had read that thread but I never saw an answer to my question. Perhaps I missed it, if so, could you point it out?

Self-promotion aside, I think the answer (whether you could tell if an organism was designed or not) seemed to be down to the individual. One user said designed organisms would have a lower extinction rate, presumably because they would have optimally adaptated to their environment. I on the other hand believe that designed organisms would have a higher rate of extinction, because of the high number harmful mutations each generation would inherit.

As far as I'm aware, there is no reliable way to tell if an organism is designed. It all seems pretty subjective.

 

[Loudmouth]

We can also show that the lottery has the "appearance of design", in that the Powerball lottery has been designed so that specific people win.

Let's do the simple math. Let's say that the odds of winning the Powerball are 1 in 150 million. For each drawing we have 150 million people buy a single ticket, and for each drawing there is a single winner. Again, this is just to keep the math simple.

Let's say that John, Susan, and Ralph are the last 3 winners of the Powerball lottery. Using the design argument, we can only conclude that the Powerball lottery had to be intelligently designed in order for those specific 3 people to win due to the astronomical odds of them winning. The odds of those 3 people winning are 150 million to the 3rd power, or 1 in 3,375,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. According to ID proponents, that is fine tuning.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Perhaps this is Rasputin reincarnated as a kitten's ear.

*squints* ... Heh, I almost didn't see that.
Must be the evolutionist in me.

 

[Dizredux]

As far as I'm aware, there is no reliable way to tell if an organism is designed. It all seems pretty subjective.

Which was my point.

Thanks for the response

Dizredux

 

[Loudmouth]

*squints* ... Heh, I almost didn't see that.
Must be the evolutionist in me.

It helps if you are shown a picture of Rasputin first:

And then the kitten:

Humans are much more likely to make associations when they are told to, like on Sundays in a building with hard pews.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

You are wrong. I apply decision theory to my every day life. When I get to an intersection late at night and the light is red, I do not say "Well, I've never seen cross traffic here this late at night so I might as well just run the red light." Rather I wait for the green light even when I can't see cross traffic or a police officer waiting for me. The gain if I'm right is outweighed by the potential loss if I'm wrong.

P.S. Even if it could be proved that I engaged in parsimony or something else, that means nothing. The question is not whether people do so but whether such an action or belief is the correct action to take. Arguing that people commit logical fallacies every day is like arguing that drinking and driving is acceptable because there are people who do so.

I am not wrong. You apply parsimony to every decision you make and your brain applies parsimony to every interpretation it makes about your sensory input. When you cross with the green light in the middle of the night you are making the parsimoniously-justified assumption that there is not a silent, invisible truck hurtling towards the intersection. When you hear footsteps in your house you likely assume it is your girlfriend rather than an intruder. When you see your girlfriend you assume that it is her and not a gun-toting murderer who looks exactly like her. When you choose to take pills for your headaches, you are assuming that you are experiencing a minor ailment rather than the beginning of a brain aneurysm for which you should seek immediate medical care. That doesn't fit your decision theory rational; the potential cost of having an aneurysm far outweighs the cost of going to the doctor with what turns out to be a headache (I don't know what Peruvian healthcare is like, so let's imagine that you live in Canada where such a trip would be free). Same for a what seems to be a cold or flu. You could have these minor ailments, or you could have something much more dangerous (many very serious conditions have symptoms similar to cold or flu). According to decision theory as you've outlined it, you should be going to the doctor in case you are suffering from something very serious and the cost of going to the doctor is negligible. But you don't. Why? Because you are aware that a headache is unlikely to signal an aneurysm and that flu-like symptoms are more likely to be the flu than something very serious.

And to address your postscript, I am not arguing that parsimony is a valid way to approach things because people do it literally all the time, I'm saying that it is a valid way to approach things because people do it all the time and it works quite well.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yep, just like the pig in this cloud is an illusion:

I would say that the cloud is not a pig. What about you?

I never felt it looked that much like a pig in the first place. However, do you equate the precise constants of the universe to fluffy clouds? Do you equate DNA and its complexity to fluffy clouds?