Intelligent Design, the designer and the process
Intelligent design begins with a seemingly innocuous question: Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause? Wm. Dembski
Yes, they can.
Most, if not all, anti-IDists always try to force any theory of intelligent design to say something about the designer and the process involved BEFORE it can be considered as scientific. This is strange because in every use-able form of design detection in which there isn’t any direct observation or designer input, it works the other way, i.e. first we determine design (or not) and then we determine the process and/ or designer. IOW any and all of our knowledge about the process and/ or designer comes from first detecting and then understanding the design.
This is a virtue of design-centric venues. It allows us to neatly separate whether something is designed from how it was produced and/ or who produced it (when, where, why):
“Once specified complexity tells us that something is designed, there is nothing to stop us from inquiring into its production. A design inference therefore does not avoid the problem of how a designing intelligence might have produced an object. It simply makes it a separate question.”
Wm. Dembski- pg 112 of No Free Lunch
Stonehenge- design determined; further research to establish how, by whom, why and when.
Nasca Plain, Peru- design determined; further research to establish how, by whom, why and when.
Any artifact (archeology/ anthropology)- design determined; further research to establish how, by whom, why and when- that is unless we have direct observation and/ or designer input.
Fire investigation- if arson is determined (ie design); further research to establish how, by whom, why and when- that is unless we have direct observation and/ or designer input.
An artifact does not stop being an artifact just because we do not know who, what, when, where, why and how. But it would be stupid to dismiss the object as being an artifact just because no one was up to the task of demonstrating a method of production and/ or the designing agent.
And even if we did determine a process by which the object in question may have been produced it does not follow that it will be the process used.
As for the people who have some "God phobia":
Guillermo Gonzalez tells AP that “Darwinism does not mandate followers to adopt atheism; just as intelligent design doesn't require a belief in God.”
(As a comparison no need to look any further than abiogenesis and evolutionism. Evolutionitwits make those separate questions even though life’s origin bears directly on its subsequent diversity. And just because it is a separate question does not hinder anyone from trying to answer either or both. Forget about a process except for the vague “random mutations, random genetic drift, random recombination culled by natural selection”. And as for a way to test that premise “forgetaboutit”.)
For more information please read the following:
Who Designed the Designer?
(only that which had a beginning requires a cause)
The Designer's Identity:
Suffice it to say, I have little patience with the "identify the designer" rhetoric. It's not just an example of sloppy thinking. It's a form of sloppy thinking that gunks up any sincere interest in design. It turns an attempt to adhere to logical, responsible thinking into a sinister motive. So perhaps, there is a better question to ask. Why do ID critics refuse to publicly acknowledge that it is illogical to identity the designer using the criteria of mainstream ID (IC and CSI)?
ID and Mechanisms
posted by Joe G @ 9:13 AM
55 Comments:
At 1:39 PM,
Steve said…
Most, if not all, anti-IDists always try to force any theory of intelligent design to say something about the designer and the process involved BEFORE it can be considered as scientific.
Why not? This is how things work for any and all scientific theories. In the abstract the theory/hypothesis is postulated, from this are derived predictions that can be used to test the theory/hypothesis.
For example in economics, the consumer is assumed to be a welfare/utility maximizer subject to a set of constraints. Additional assumptions are made as to the nature of the consumers welfare and from this are derived demand curves which can be checked against real world data. In this case, you look at the slopes of things like changes in price (negative), income (positive), and so forth.
IDC does none of this. There is no process by which predictions can be generated. As already noted IDC makes no prediction about junk DNA one way or the other (hence its immunity to whatever is learned about junk DNA). To show that this is wrong, name one prediction generated by the IDC hypothesis.
At 2:13 PM,
Joe G said…
Most, if not all, anti-IDists always try to force any theory of intelligent design to say something about the designer and the process involved BEFORE it can be considered as scientific.
Steve:
Why not? This is how things work for any and all scientific theories.
The OP demonstrates that you are a liar.
Steve:
IDC does none of this.
IDC only exists in the minds of the mentally retarded- like you, for example. Therefore IDC doesn't really need to do anything, now, does it?
As for predictions- Does evolutionism have any predictions? It appears all of its "predictions" are shared by other evolutionary scenarios.
And one more time- both IC and CSI are testable.
At 2:19 PM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: " This is strange because in every use-able form of design detection in which there isn’t any direct observation or designer input, it works the other way, i.e. first we determine design (or not) and then we determine the process and/ or designer."
That is simply incorrect. The guiding principle of forensic science is that 'Every contact leaves a trace.' It is manufacture and artifice that are the keys to understanding the origin of an object. That understanding comes from comparing the object or event to others observed in the past and with known actors.
At 2:26 PM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "Does evolutionism have any predictions?"
The Theory of Evolution makes a wide variety of predictions in many different fields of study; from the placement of fossils in the geological strata, to the possible characteristics of new species, both extinct and extant. E.g., you will not find a rabbit in Precambrian strata. You will not find a mammal with feathers. On the other hand, you will find non-human hominids in relatively recent strata, a million years or so, but no older.
At 3:12 PM,
Steve said…
CSI is not testable. For example, which string is specified:
ME THINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
AFHGHAH;DGHAL LAHG ALIEHL LEL
By the way Joe, care to comment on my latest post on Dembski?
http://debunkers.org/intro/index.php?p=126
I'd love to get your reaction.
At 3:14 PM,
Steve said…
By the way, I see you can't name a prediction made by Intelligent Design. Par for the course as usual.
At 8:52 AM,
Joe G said…
Steve:
CSI is not testable.
Yes it is. Only someone who is ignorant of CSI would say it isn't testable.
Anyone interested, really interested in CSI, please read "No Free Lunch" by Wm. Dembski.
Steve:
For example, which string is specified:
ME THINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
AFHGHAH;DGHAL LAHG ALIEHL LEL
Neither one exhibits CSI.
At 9:00 AM,
Joe G said…
joe g: " This is strange because in every use-able form of design detection in which there isn’t any direct observation or designer input, it works the other way, i.e. first we determine design (or not) and then we determine the process and/ or designer."
Zachriel:
That is simply incorrect.
Reality demonstrates I am correct. We will see what you say and if it has any relevance at all:
Zachriel:
The guiding principle of forensic science is that 'Every contact leaves a trace.'
Yes I know. IDists look for those traces.
Zachriel:
It is manufacture and artifice that are the keys to understanding the origin of an object.
But all I am talking about is the design detection and understanding of the object in question.
As my OP states- we did NOT have to know how Stonehenge was built BEFORE we determined it was an artifact. That is a fact of life.
Zachriel:
That understanding comes from comparing the object or event to others observed in the past and with known actors.
That is a stupid way to conduct design detection- that we had to know something- and also you twisted the OP-
What do we do if we don't have any direct observation?
I will say it again:
Without direct observation or designer input the ONLY way to make ANY inference about the designer or the process is by studying the design in question.
School-age kids understand that much.
At 9:05 AM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "Does evolutionism have any predictions?"
Zachrie:
The Theory of Evolution makes a wide variety of predictions in many different fields of study; from the placement of fossils in the geological strata, to the possible characteristics of new species, both extinct and extant. E.g., you will not find a rabbit in Precambrian strata. You will not find a mammal with feathers. On the other hand, you will find non-human hominids in relatively recent strata, a million years or so, but no older.
As I have already stated, those alleged "predictions" (they aren't real predictions) can also be given by ID evolution as well as theistic evolution.
Please provide a real prediction based on some blind watchmaker-type mechanism.
However that will not be done for the reason Dennett gave us- "There is no way to predict what will be selected for at any point in time."
ID predicts we will observe CSI and/ or IC- ie counterflow.
At 9:09 AM,
Joe G said…
Steve:
By the way, I see you can't name a prediction made by Intelligent Design.
You didn't ask for one. And if evolutionism is an example predictions are not required...
At 9:34 AM,
Zachriel said…
ME THINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
AFHGHAH;DGHAL LAHG ALIEHL LEL
joe g: Neither one exhibits CSI.
The first phrase is Shakespeare.
HAMLET: Do you see yonder cloud that's almost in shape of a camel?
LORD POLONIUS: By the mass, and 'tis like a camel, indeed.
HAMLET: Methinks it is like a weasel.
LORD POLONIUS: It is backed like a weasel.
HAMLET: Or like a whale?
LORD POLONIUS: Very like a whale.
http://tinyurl.com/k28p2
It is not only well-specified, but is a complex and multifaceted indication of Hamlet's psychological state.
So much for the ability of CSI to make valid predictions.
--
As to your replies to my comments, they were non-responsive and unconvincing. Even a cursory understanding of how forensics is actually done shows that you are ignorant of that aspect of science, as well.
At 9:49 AM,
Steve said…
Joe,
Well Dembski sure seems to think that the first one exhibits CSI, while the other does not. So there you are wrong. In any case both exhibit CSI since merely writing a string of characters down suffices to "specify" something. Which makes Behe wrong when we refers to strings similar to the second one as not being CSI. In fact, if memory serves Behe wrote something like that in one of the forwards to on of Dembski's books No Free Lunch IIRC.
You didn't ask for one.
Yes I did, in the last sentence of my first post.
And if evolutionism is an example predictions are not required...
As Zachariel points out this is quite false.
But all I am talking about is the design detection and understanding of the object in question.
Yeah, and forensic science does this via contrast. They look at the evidence from the prespectives of say murder, accident, natural deaths. Then they evaluate underwhich scenario the evidence is most likely. Then using past experience they can rank the explanations of murder, accident, natural. Dembski on the other hand says that all we need look at is the likelihood of the data given nature and accident and if small enough conclude murder. The problem is that if the evidence has an even smaller likelihood given murder, then Dembski's method is unsound.
That is a stupid way to conduct design detection...
No it isn't stupid, as any school age kid can tell you. Do human's design things? Yes. Do humans design other things similar to Stonehendge? Yes. Given this kind of past evidence and the new evidence of Stonehendge the likelihood of Stonehendge being a product of design is very high vs. all other explanations. So concluding design via a comparative approach that relies on past information is very, very useful. This is why Dembski spends so much time trying to refute this approach and gins up all these dopey examples with black and white balls, urns, and coin tosses.
At 10:11 AM,
Joe G said…
ME THINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
AFHGHAH;DGHAL LAHG ALIEHL LEL
joe g: Neither one exhibits CSI.
Zachriel:
The first phrase is Shakespeare.
Yes, I know. So what? The phrase itself does NOT exhibit CSI.
Do you know what CSI is defined as?
500 bits of information.
Zachriel:
As to your replies to my comments, they were non-responsive and unconvincing.
If reality doesn't convince you then nothing will.
Zachriel:
Even a cursory understanding of how forensics is actually done shows that you are ignorant of that aspect of science, as well.
I know how forensics is actually done. I know for a fact that the method and the perp are found AFTER the data is gone through.
Only a complete imbecile would think we need to know the method and the perp BEFORE we infer design (ie an intenytional crime).
At 10:27 AM,
Joe G said…
Steve:
Well Dembski sure seems to think that the first one exhibits CSI, while the other does not.
No he does not. The first does not fit his definition.
Steve:
In any case both exhibit CSI since merely writing a string of characters down suffices to "specify" something.
You are truly clueless. And that is the crux of the problem- you don't know what you are talking about.
You didn't ask for one. (an ID prediction)
Steve:
Yes I did, in the last sentence of my first post.
That is a lie:
The sentence Steve references:
To show that this is wrong, name one prediction generated by the IDC hypothesis.
Nothing about ID in that sentence.
And if evolutionism is an example predictions are not required...
Steve:
As Zachariel points out this is quite false.?
And I as pointed out, AGAIN, Zachriel is quite mistaken.
But all I am talking about is the design detection and understanding of the object in question.
Steve:
Yeah, and forensic science does this via contrast.
Right they know what nature, acting alone, is capable of and they couple that with what intelligencies are capable of. There is the contrast.
Steve:
Then using past experience they can rank the explanations of murder, accident, natural.
What if they don't have any past experiences? THAT is what the OP is about. TRY to stay in context.
That is a stupid way to conduct design detection- that we had to know something- and also you twisted the OP-
What do we do if we don't have any direct observation?
Steve:
No it isn't stupid, as any school age kid can tell you. Do human's design things?
Yes they can. But so can other animals. Then there is nature, which can make things that on first take, look designed.
Steve:
Do humans design other things similar to Stonehendge?
Humans have copied Stonehenge, but that is irrelevant.
What prevents Stonehenge from being a naturally occurring (not ID) formation?
Again I remind everyone:
Without direct observation or designer input the ONLY way to make ANY inference about the designer or the process is by studying the design in question.
So far all Zach and Steve have done is use examples in which we have direct obsrvation at some time. And we know from reality that one can detect design without knowing the designer or the process used.
Counterfeit money is a perfect example. I can spot a counterfeit bill just by knowing the characteristics of the real deal. THEN and only then can I inquire into the process and the perp. That is reality folks.
It figures that anti-IDists want to go against reality seeing that is what evolutionism does...
At 2:28 PM,
Zachriel said…
Steve: Then using past experience they can rank the explanations of murder, accident, natural.
joe g: "What if they don't have any past experiences?"
If you had no knowledge whatsoever, then you would probably have a great deal of difficulty understanding any phenomena. For instance, you might assume that lightning was hurled by an angry Sky-God to punish the wicked, that angels push the planets about on crystal spheres, or that evil spirits cause disease.
In fact, forensic science is primarily the study of past examples and the application of this knowledge to novel situations. Archaeology uses a similar process.
You can't tell in a vacuum whether a chipped stone is a tool, but if found with a pile of flakes, a firepit, and bones with scrap marks, then a reasonable inference can be made. Later when finding similar stones, it might be reasonable to surmise it was manufactured too. Scientists go so far as to recreate the process of manufacturing stone tools to see exactly how it was done and what evidence it would leave. They don't assume it was done by an unknown and unknowable intelligent designer. Rather, they use the process of discovery to make that determination in conjuntion with the body of evidence.
Remember: The guiding principle of forensic science is that 'Every contact leaves a trace.'
joe g: "Counterfeit money is a perfect example. I can spot a counterfeit bill just by knowing the characteristics of the real deal."
This is a typical example of using prior knowledge to make a reasonable determination. We know that people make counterfeit money. We also know the properties of genuine currency. When detecting a counterfeit, we immediately infer that a human being manufactured the phony and even reasonably infer the person's motives. That's because we have knowledge of the purported designer. It fits a typical category of behavior. And that's how all forensic science works, by categorizing actors and their artifacts.
--
By the way, did you ever suggest any specific empirical predictions based on the so-called science of Intelligent Design?
At 2:52 PM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "And we know from reality that one can detect design without knowing the designer or the process used... THEN and only then can I inquire into the process and the perp. That is reality folks."
Just out of curiousity, what have you been able to determine about the designer of biology now that you have "detected" the design?
At 9:10 AM,
Joe G said…
Steve: Then using past experience they can rank the explanations of murder, accident, natural.
joe g: "What if they don't have any past experiences?"
Zach:
If you had no knowledge whatsoever, then you would probably have a great deal of difficulty understanding any phenomena.
Try to say "in context". I was not talking about "no knowledge whatsoever".
Archaeologists can determine an artifact by observing counterflow. They don't have to know how that counterflow occurred BEFORE making that determination.
Archaeologists do not have to know the designer nor the process BEFORE the can make a determination of design and then start to study the design in question.
Only by studying the design in question can archaeologists come up with a process. Therefore neither the process nor the designer are required to first detect and then attemt to understand the design via research.
Zacriel:
We know that people make counterfeit money.
Yeah that narrows it down. How pathetic.
What about the first case?
Can you stay in context of the OP? Obviously not.
Zachriel:
By the way, did you ever suggest any specific empirical predictions based on the so-called science of Intelligent Design?
Yes I did. I noticed no one has presented any predictions based on the mechanism of some blind watchmaker. Go figure...
Zachriel:
Just out of curiousity, what have you been able to determine about the designer of biology now that you have "detected" the design?
That the designer is smarter than we are. And I see again you take me out-of-context. Is that the MO of anti-IDists? It appears so...
At 9:49 AM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "Archaeologists can determine an artifact by observing counterflow."
In fact, it is very difficult when examining a stone whether particular marks are due to manufacture or otherwise. And it is because of our knowledge of hominids and natural processes that we can make tentative determinations. I would note that stone tools are not complex but are examples of artifice.
joe g: "Archaeologists can determine an artifact by observing counterflow."
Yes, by knowing what hominids do and what rocks do, reasonable inferences can be made. But it is not some unnamed unspecified unarticulated designer that is being considered. Rather, identifying the manufacturer is the whole point, of course.
Zachriel: By the way, did you ever suggest any specific empirical predictions based on the so-called science of Intelligent Design?
joe g: "Yes I did."
Well, I have my magnifying glass and notepad at the ready. What are those empirical predictions that distinguish your specific hypothesis from all the other plausible explanations?
At 10:08 AM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "Can you stay in context of the OP? Obviously not."
From original post:
Dembski: "Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause?"
Artifice in a purported artifact is detected by comparing the artifact to what is already known. This might include humans or natural processes. Then additional evidence is collected to support whatever tentative conclusion was made. If there is not enough evidence, the answer is not to fill in the gap with God, I mean some unnamed unarticulated unspecified Intelligent Designer. Artifice and manufacture are the relevant issues.
That's how it is done in forensics. That's how it is done in archaeology. That's how it is done in all science.
At 10:34 AM,
Zachriel said…
Zachriel: Just out of curiousity, what have you been able to determine about the designer of biology now that you have "detected" the design?
joe g: "That the designer is smarter than we are."
Is that it? You might want a separate post on that subject.
At 8:51 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel: Just out of curiousity, what have you been able to determine about the designer of biology now that you have "detected" the design?
joe g: "That the designer is smarter than we are."
Zachriel:
Is that it? You might want a separate post on that subject.
Well Zach, as I have been trying to tell you for weeks, the designer is irrelevant to ID. I am interested in ID (only) at this point in time.
Why is that? Because I know, as most educated people do, that the ONLY way to make ANY determination about the designer in the absence of direct observation or designer input is by studying the design in question.
At 8:56 AM,
Joe G said…
Dembski: "Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause?"
Zachriel:
Artifice in a purported artifact is detected by comparing the artifact to what is already known.
Right. As I said all we need to know is what intelligent agencies are capable of and what nature, acting alone, is capable of.
The process is always AFTER the detection and undertsanding in the scenario I am relating to- ie the absence of direct observation or designer input.
Therefore neither the designer nor the process are required BEFORE making a design inference. Those are separate questions to be asked only AFTER the design is deyected and attemtping to understand it.
Logic & reasoning 101.
At 9:06 AM,
Joe G said…
Joe wrote: As my OP states- we did NOT have to know how Stonehenge was built BEFORE we determined it was an artifact. That is a fact of life.
RH:
Agreed. But in order to determine whether Stonehenge was designed or not you needed to understand the current processes in nature to see if the way the stones were organised and locked together could have come about by a natural process. When it was concluded to be too complex and too unlikely, design was concluded.
I already covered that.
RH:
When talking about if the universe has been designed or not, the same principle applies. You need to understand the environment within which the universe exists and determine whether it could have come about naturally from within that environment. If you conclude that the universe could not have come about naturally from the environment in which it is located, then you can infer design.
I already covered that also. We know the origin of nature requires something outside of nature.
RH:
...it clearly demonstrates, from your own words, that you need a point of reference to be able to determine design.
TRue. All we need is to know what intelligent agencies are capable of coupled with the knowledge of what nature, acting alone, is capable of. We have been over this already.
RH:
If you do not have a full understanding of the natural processes in which the object is located, then you may infer design incorrectly due to a lack of understanding of those natural processes.
That is why it is called an inference. And like all scientific inferences it can be either confirmed or falsified with future data.
RH:
Human Beings know nothing about the natural processes within the environment in which our universe exists, so how can we discount natural cause for the universes existence and infer design?
Because natural causes only exist in nature and therefore could not have been responsible for its origins.
RH:
From a scientific perspective, surely all natural causes / processes need to be fully understood and discounted before we conclude design.
LoL! That is asking for proof! Which means if that is what you require you are not interested in science. Which I already knew...
At 10:39 AM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "Because I know, as most educated people do, that the ONLY way to make ANY determination about the designer in the absence of direct observation or designer input is by studying the design in question."
You already claim to have detected design with certainty. So, what are your detailed empirical conclusions about the designer. The Theory of Evolution predicts where to find fossils of transitional organisms, the possible characteristics of new species, and when I look, that's what I find. I have my magnifying glass and notepad at the ready. Your Nobel Prize awaits!
In fact, you have never offered any specific empirical predictions, just arguments from incredulity and ignorance. You have suggested the entire universe is designed — including plantary orbits which the vast majority of astronomers believe are due to contingency and natural law — because it fits your own metaphysical beliefs. That's the long and the short of it. There is no scientific justification for such an assertion.
At 1:49 PM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "Because natural causes only exist in nature and therefore could not have been responsible for its origins."
That's just begging the question. You have defined anything outside the known natural universe to be non-natural. That is not necessarily the case. It is very possible that plausible scientific explanations may become available to describe and explain the origin of the universe as we currently observe it.
At 7:06 PM,
Steve said…
Right. As I said all we need to know is what intelligent agencies are capable of and what nature, acting alone, is capable of.
Bzzzt! Wrong. And thanks for playing "Let Me Demonstrate My Ignorance of ID!"
Really Joe, come on. The above is precisely what I've been arguing. We use our prior knowledge about humans designing things and the Bayesian method to infer design.
The Explanatory Filter (EF) on the other hand does no such thing. It merely compares the likelihood of the evidence (Stonehendge or some other archeological evidence) under the hypotheses of nature and chance to a really, really small probability number along with this vague ill-defined notion of specification (which seems to be "a recognizable pattern"). There is no "know is what intelligent agencies are capable of" with regards to the EF.
You can't or wont even use the ID methods yourself. What a joke.
At 10:19 AM,
Joe G said…
Right. As I said all we need to know is what intelligent agencies are capable of and what nature, acting alone, is capable of.
Steve:
Bzzzt! Wrong.
Reality again demonstrates what I stated is correct. Try readin Del Ratzsch.
Steve:
And thanks for playing "Let Me Demonstrate My Ignorance of ID!"
That you wear your ID ignorance as a badge of honor just further exposes your anti-ID agenda.
Steve:
The Explanatory Filter (EF) on the other hand does no such thing.
Indeed it does. We need to know what intelligent agencies are capable of as well as what nature, operating freely, is capable of BEFORE we can make any probability calculations.
Just because you are totally clueless doesn't mean everyone is...
At 10:43 AM,
Joe G said…
RH:
You have taken the term "infer" to effectively mean the same as "blind faith" -
Perhaps in your mind, but I certainly did no such thing.
RH:
Why does the inference of design not require any proof and any consideration of the process involved, whereas inference of evolution does?
The confusion is all yours. We have proof, ie direct observations, of what designing agencies are capable of. With evolutionism we don't even have that. IOW we don't know what blind watchmaker-type processes are capable of.
To clear this up I would love for ANYONE to tell me how to get the design process or the identity of the designer just by the designed object being studied. For example can we, by just studying the jets of today, tell anything about how the Wright brothers designed and built their plane or about the brothers themselves? I say we cannot.
And if evolutionism can make abiogenesis a separate question, even though how life originated directly impacts its subsequent evolution, then ID can make the designer and the process separate questions because neither are required to first detect and then to study the design. And anyone familiar with ID knows ID is all about the detection and study...
BTW I don't want ID taught in schools as there aren't any teachers prepared to do so.
At 11:54 AM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "Because natural causes only exist in nature and therefore could not have been responsible for its origins."
Zachriel:
That's just begging the question.
What question?
Zachriel:
You have defined anything outside the known natural universe to be non-natural.
That is how the accepted definition defines it. IOW that is how everyone defines it.
Zachriel:
That is not necessarily the case.
Then let's hear your scenario.
Zachriel:
It is very possible that plausible scientific explanations may become available to describe and explain the origin of the universe as we currently observe it.
That has nothing to do with what I posted. Also science is NOT conducted with promissory notes- except if you are an anti-IDist.
And anyone who thinks "sheer-dumb-luck" is a scientific explanation requires serious help.
At 2:37 PM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "Because I know, as most educated people do, that the ONLY way to make ANY determination about the designer in the absence of direct observation or designer input is by studying the design in question."
Zachriel:
You already claim to have detected design with certainty.
Given the alternatives that is what any objective person would infer.
Zachriel:
So, what are your detailed empirical conclusions about the designer.
Why do I have to have any?
Zachriel:
The Theory of Evolution predicts where to find fossils of transitional organisms, the possible characteristics of new species, and when I look, that's what I find. I have my magnifying glass and notepad at the ready. Your Nobel Prize awaits!
The theory of evolution does not make that/ those predictions. It is amazing how little proponents know about what they are protecting.
Zachriel:
In fact, you have never offered any specific empirical predictions, just arguments from incredulity and ignorance.
The ignorance is all yours. THAT is the point. IDists know what intelligent agencies are capable of.
Zachriel:
You have suggested the entire universe is designed —
That is what the data suggests. And given the alternative who would doubt it?
Zachriel:
including plantary orbits which the vast majority of astronomers believe are due to contingency and natural law —
Ummm, from whence the "natural law" in your scenario?
Zachriel:
There is no scientific justification for such an assertion.
There isn't ANY justification for your "sheer-dumb-luck" sceanrio but that doesn't stop you from spewing it.
At 10:39 PM,
Zachriel said…
Zachriel: You have defined anything outside the known natural universe to be non-natural.
Joe G: "That is how the accepted definition defines it. IOW that is how everyone defines it."
The currently unknown aspects of the universe is not equivalent to being non-natural. If that were so, the back side of the Moon was non-natural until the 1960's.
Joe G: "And anyone who thinks "sheer-dumb-luck" is a scientific explanation requires serious help."
Quite a strawman. Ecological and sexual selection is not random.
Zachriel: So, what are your detailed empirical conclusions about the designer.
Joe G: "Why do I have to have any?"
You don't. But then no one has to take your assertions seriously if you refuse to answer even the most basic questions concerning this designer. We could start with "intelligent".
Zachriel: You already claim to have detected design with certainty.
Joe G: "Given the alternatives that is what any objective person would infer."
And yet the vast majority of scientists working in the relevant sciences disagree with you.
NATIONAL ACADEMY of SCIENCES: "The theory of evolution has become the central unifying concept of biology and is a critical component of many related scientific disciplines. In contrast, the claims of creation science lack empirical support and cannot be meaningfully tested."
Joe G: "The theory of evolution does not make that/ those predictions."
Of course it does. Or do you think scientists just happened to be camping in the Arctic for several years enjoying the climate and stumbled across Tiktaalik.
At 8:36 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
The currently unknown aspects of the universe is not equivalent to being non-natural.
Umm it is a foregone conclusion that natural processes only exist in nature and therefore canNOT be responsible for its origins. What part of that don't you understand?
Joe G: "And anyone who thinks "sheer-dumb-luck" is a scientific explanation requires serious help."
Zachriel:
Quite a strawman.
Reality is not a strawman.
Zachriel:
Ecological and sexual selection is not random.
In the absence of ID the materialistic scenario of how those came to be is still "sheer-dumb-luck".
Proclamations by the NAS are meaningless. Also those allged "vast majority" most likely also deny the materialistic alternative to ID is "sheer-dumb-luck". IOW they cannot face reality.
And it also appears you are conflating the theory of evolution with common descent or the history of life. That is very typical for someone who really doesn't understand evolutionism.
Ya see Zachriel, evolutionism doesn't predict fish- that came from the alleged history of life.
And anyone who thinks Tiki is a "transitional" really needs a reality check.
At 8:44 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
But then no one has to take your assertions seriously if you refuse to answer even the most basic questions concerning this designer.
You just don't get it. The designer is a separate question. What part of that don't you understand?
Here, choke on this again:
Because I know, as most educated people do, that the ONLY way to make ANY determination about the designer in the absence of direct observation or designer input is by studying the design in question.
It is so sad that evolutionism can make abiogenesis a separate question even though life's origins DIRECTLY impact its subsequent diversification, but when ID makes the designer a separate question, even though the designer's identity is meaningless to the detection and study of the design, evolutionitwits have a conniption (fit).
And I repeat (from the OP):
Suffice it to say, I have little patience with the "identify the designer" rhetoric. It's not just an example of sloppy thinking. It's a form of sloppy thinking that gunks up any sincere interest in design. It turns an attempt to adhere to logical, responsible thinking into a sinister motive. So perhaps, there is a better question to ask. Why do ID critics refuse to publicly acknowledge that it is illogical to identity the designer using the criteria of mainstream ID (IC and CSI)?
Sloppy thinking indeed. It appears that is all anti-IDists can muster.
At 9:18 AM,
Joe G said…
Seeing that Zachriel either has not read the OP or didn't understand it, I will repost the main point so that others can see his folly:
This is a virtue of design-centric venues. It allows us to neatly separate whether something is designed from how it was produced and/ or who produced it (when, where, why):
“Once specified complexity tells us that something is designed, there is nothing to stop us from inquiring into its production. A design inference therefore does not avoid the problem of how a designing intelligence might have produced an object. It simply makes it a separate question.”
Wm. Dembski- pg 112 of No Free Lunch
Stonehenge- design determined; further research to establish how, by whom, why and when.
Nasca Plain, Peru- design determined; further research to establish how, by whom, why and when.
Any artifact (archeology/ anthropology)- design determined; further research to establish how, by whom, why and when- that is unless we have direct observation and/ or designer input.
Fire investigation- if arson is determined (ie design); further research to establish how, by whom, why and when- that is unless we have direct observation and/ or designer input.
An artifact does not stop being an artifact just because we do not know who, what, when, where, why and how. But it would be stupid to dismiss the object as being an artifact just because no one was up to the task of demonstrating a method of production and/ or the designing agent.
And even if we did determine a process by which the object in question may have been produced it does not follow that it will be the process used.
With that repeated can ANYONE tell me what I can determine about Edison just by studying the lightbulbs of today?
At 9:24 AM,
Joe G said…
the NAS proclaims:
"The theory of evolution has become the central unifying concept of biology and is a critical component of many related scientific disciplines."
That is funny because they don't even know what makes an organism what it is. And until then any theory pertaining to common descent (from some LUCA) is pure speculation.
Philip Skell is a member of the NAS:
"My essay about Darwinism and modern experimental biology has stirred up a lively discussion, but the responses still provide no evidence that evolutionary theory is the cornerstone of experimental biology."
He goes on to say:
"One letter mentions directed molecular evolution as a technique to discover antibodies, enzymes and drugs. Like comparative biology, this has certainly been fruitful, but it is not an application of Darwinian evolution – it is the modern molecular equivalent of classical breeding."
At 2:13 PM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "Umm it is a foregone conclusion that natural processes only exist in nature and therefore canNOT be responsible for its origins."
It's called assuming your conclusion.
joe g: "And anyone who thinks 'sheer-dumb-luck' is a scientific explanation requires serious help"
Fortunately, the Theory of Evolution includes specific non-random mechanisms.
joe g: "In the absence of ID the materialistic scenario of how those came to be is still 'sheer-dumb-luck'."
As no one has put forth a valid theory of abiogenesis, that would also be a diversion. The Theory of Evolution posits specific non-random mechanisms.
joe g: "And it also appears you are conflating the theory of evolution with common descent or the history of life."
The Theory of Evolution encompasses the Theory of Common Descent, and has since Origin of Species.
joe g: "And anyone who thinks Tiki is a 'transitional' really needs a reality check."
You're missing the point, of course. It is the ability of the Theory of Evolution to make these predictions that makes it such an important theory. Scientists made a predictions from theory that there would exist transitionals between fish and tetrapods about 375 million years ago, so scientists spent years looking in strata associated with tropical streambeds from that epoch (which due to continental drift just happened to be in the arctic). And eventually, they found an organism with scales, gills and limbs. Other features include a mobile neck, wrists, ribs indicating an expandable lung cavity, and a gill-slit called a spiracle predecessor of the tetrapod ear.
More interesting is your complete lack of interest or curiosity about this organism.
joe g: "The designer is a separate question."
According to the article you cited in a later thread, and according to even the most basic forensic or archaeological methods, the activity of manufacture is the causal link between the artisan and the artifact. The base principle of forensics is that "Every contact leaves a trace."
joe g: "It is so sad that evolutionism can make abiogenesis a separate question even though life's origins DIRECTLY impact its subsequent diversification..."
The difference is that biologists would very much like to unify abiogenesis with the Theory of Evolution but do not currently have the evidence to do so. You seem completely unwilling to even consider any plausible characteristics of the Intelligent Designer.
Dembski as quoted by joe g: "“Once specified complexity tells us that something is designed, there is nothing to stop us from inquiring into its production."
Please do. What have you discovered thus far?
At 3:34 PM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "Umm it is a foregone conclusion that natural processes only exist in nature and therefore canNOT be responsible for its origins."
Zachriel:
It's called assuming your conclusion.
It is actually a fact of life. And that you ccan't even understand that tells me this discussion is going nowhere.
joe g: "And anyone who thinks 'sheer-dumb-luck' is a scientific explanation requires serious help"
Zachriel:
Fortunately, the Theory of Evolution includes specific non-random mechanisms.
Whatever. the ToE/ MET still relies solely on unguided, purpose-less processes- ie sheer-dumb-luck.
joe g: "In the absence of ID the materialistic scenario of how those came to be is still 'sheer-dumb-luck'."
Zachriel:
As no one has put forth a valid theory of abiogenesis, that would also be a diversion.
Only an anti-IDist would consider reality to be a diversion.
joe g: "And it also appears you are conflating the theory of evolution with common descent or the history of life."
Zachriel:
The Theory of Evolution encompasses the Theory of Common Descent, and has since Origin of Species.
The two are separate.
joe g: "And anyone who thinks Tiki is a 'transitional' really needs a reality check."
Zachriel:
You're missing the point, of course.
You missed the boat.
Zachriel:
More interesting is your complete lack of interest or curiosity about this organism.
Stop with your projections. The way I learned how fish left the water was that they were scared out. Tiki sort of knocks that down.
joe g: "The designer is a separate question."
Zachriel:
According to the article you cited in a later thread, and according to even the most basic forensic or archaeological methods, the activity of manufacture is the causal link between the artisan and the artifact. The base principle of forensics is that "Every contact leaves a trace."
Yup- CSI and IC are such traces.
joe g: "It is so sad that evolutionism can make abiogenesis a separate question even though life's origins DIRECTLY impact its subsequent diversification..."
Zachriel:
The difference is that biologists would very much like to unify abiogenesis with the Theory of Evolution but do not currently have the evidence to do so.
Why would they? Biology is the study of living organisms.
Zachriel:
You seem completely unwilling to even consider any plausible characteristics of the Intelligent Designer.
I may seem unwilling to share my thoughts with you, but that is about it.
Dembski as quoted by joe g: "“Once specified complexity tells us that something is designed, there is nothing to stop us from inquiring into its production."
Zachriel:
Please do. What have you discovered thus far?
So far I have discovered that anti-IDists are bone-headed morons without a clue.
At 3:47 PM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "Umm it is a foregone conclusion that natural processes only exist in nature and therefore canNOT be responsible for its origins."
You have assumed your conclusion. Nature may have no beginning in time and hence no origin. Your inference is not valid.
--
Zachriel: The Theory of Evolution encompasses the Theory of Common Descent, and has since Origin of Species.
joe g: "The two are separate."
They were originally proposed as part of the same theory by Darwin in 1858. But we certainly can consider the history of life separately from the mechanisms of this change.
Do you accept Common Descent then and only disagree with the mechanism?
--
Zachriel: You seem completely unwilling to even consider any plausible characteristics of the Intelligent Designer.
joe g: "I may seem unwilling to share my thoughts with you, but that is about it."
Ah, it's a secret.
--
Dembski as quoted by joe g: "“Once specified complexity tells us that something is designed, there is nothing to stop us from inquiring into its production."
Zachriel: Please do. What have you discovered thus far?
joe g: "So far I have discovered that anti-IDists are bone-headed morons without a clue."
Well, I'm sure that will convince most of your readers of the vacuity of your arguments.
At 4:59 PM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "Umm it is a foregone conclusion that natural processes only exist in nature and therefore canNOT be responsible for its origins."
Zachriel:
You have assumed your conclusion. Nature may have no beginning in time and hence no origin. Your inference is not valid.
Umm ever hear of "the big bang"? Unless you are suggesting nature can exist outside of the universe science has told us that it indeed did have a beginning.
Zachriel:
Do you accept Common Descent then and only disagree with the mechanism?
If I accepted CD it obviously wouldn't be for scientific reasons. That is because the premise is un-scientific. It is un-scientific because we don't know what makes an organism what it is and therefore ANY CD "theory" is nothing but pure speculation.
joe g: "So far I have discovered that anti-IDists are bone-headed morons without a clue."
Zachriel:
Well, I'm sure that will convince most of your readers of the vacuity of your arguments.
I am sure most of my readers agree with me.
"Sheer-dumb-luck" as an alternative to ID? Only to the very gullible
At 10:08 PM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "Umm ever hear of "the big bang"? Unless you are suggesting nature can exist outside of the universe science has told us that it indeed did have a beginning."
Your argument made no reference to empirical evidence. As the conclusion depends on empirical evidence, the argument was fallacious.
Meanwhile, Hawking has proposed a Big Bang cosmology without a boundary in time. And there are other plausible models, as well.
joe g: "That is because the premise is un-scientific. It is un-scientific because we don't know what makes an organism what it is and therefore ANY CD 'theory' is nothing but pure speculation."
So much for genealogy.
Nevertheless, scientists can make accurate predictions of where to look for new fossil organisms and what plausible characteristics these fossils might have.
At 10:34 PM,
Zachriel said…
Just to be clear, common descent might apply to just within limited phylogenetic groups, such as hominids, mammals, or vertebrates. Do you reject the scientific evidence for even these limited assertions?
At 8:07 AM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: ""Sheer-dumb-luck" as an alternative to ID"
And try to refrain from this particular strawman. You have posted elsewhere a common definition of evolution as the "unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection". As the definition specifically includes a non-random component in natural selection, the definition is not equivalent to "Sheer-dumb-luck".
At 8:10 AM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "Umm ever hear of "the big bang"? Unless you are suggesting nature can exist outside of the universe science has told us that it indeed did have a beginning."
Zachriel:
Your argument made no reference to empirical evidence. As the conclusion depends on empirical evidence, the argument was fallacious.
Umm "the big bang" isn't based on empirical evidebce? Are you soft?
Zachriel:
Meanwhile, Hawking has proposed a Big Bang cosmology without a boundary in time. And there are other plausible models, as well.
When either Hawking or the other models are based on empirical evidence, as "the big bang" is you may have a point.
joe g: "That is because the premise is un-scientific. It is un-scientific because we don't know what makes an organism what it is and therefore ANY CD 'theory' is nothing but pure speculation."
Zachriel:
So much for genealogy.
You are a joke. You know very well that when people discuss CD they are discussing the premise that all of life's dicersity owing its collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms. To even suggest otherwise is deseption.
Zachriel:
Nevertheless, scientists can make accurate predictions of where to look for new fossil organisms and what plausible characteristics these fossils might have.
We know characteristics can arise via convergence. And with fossils we cannot tell divergence from convergence. And the way strata are dated anyone should be sceptical.
At 8:14 AM,
Joe G said…
ZAchriel:
Just to be clear, common descent might apply to just within limited phylogenetic groups, such as hominids, mammals, or vertebrates.
Just to be clear you are FoS. When discussing CD of that type it is agreed upon before the discussion that limited CD is being discussed. Otherwise it is as I ststed above.
Zachriel:
Do you reject the scientific evidence for even these limited assertions?
Seeing that we don't knopw what makes an organism what it is stating there is "scientific evidence for even these limited assertions" is a crock. Sure if one assumes CD (in any sense) I have no doubt that one can find what they is confirming evidence. But that is subjective not objective. Assuming the very thing you are trying to demonstrate is bassakwards.
At 8:21 AM,
Joe G said…
joe g: ""Sheer-dumb-luck" as an alternative to ID"
Zachriel:
And try to refrain from this particular strawman.
Reality is NOT a strawman. But I can see why you would want to portray it as such.
Zachriel:
You have posted elsewhere a common definition of evolution as the "unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection".
True- that is "sheer-dumb-luck".
Zachriel:
As the definition specifically includes a non-random component in natural selection, the definition is not equivalent to "Sheer-dumb-luck".
Natural selection cannot create anything. At best it can only preserve what works. Also the environment in which the population lives is subject to random events. Nature is not stagnant.
At 8:54 AM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "joe g: Umm it is a foregone conclusion that natural processes only exist in nature and therefore canNOT be responsible for its origins."
You are arguing here that, a priori, nature's origin cannot be found in nature. This is the fallacy Petitio Principii, or begging the question. You have assumed that nature has an origin.
Later, you bring up the empirical evidence of the Big Bang. This was not part of the original argument, emphasizing that the original argument was faulty as it made no reference to particulars.
And on the particulars, the Big Bang does not necessarily imply a beginning in time, as time itself seems to be involved in the process. Hawking and others have proposed models consistent with the evidence that has no boundary in time, no origin.
--
Zachriel: So much for genealogy.
joe g: "You are a joke."
In fact, you stated that we can't possibly know that people share ancestry unless we can understand what makes people what they are. As embryonics is still not completely understood, you are waving your hands at what is known. For instance, genetics can help determine common ancestry in widely disparate branches of the human tree either in conjunction with or independent of genealogical records. (Y-chromosomes and mtDNA form nested hierarchy patterns of descent.)
joe g: "You know very well that when people discuss CD they are discussing the premise that all of life's dicersity owing its collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms."
Actually not. Darwin himself suggested life may have more than one ancestral population. And, in fact, the Theory of Common Descent may not properly apply the origin and diversification of cellular life. However, the evidence strongly indicates that vertebrates share a common ancestry. Do you deny the scientific evidence for the common ancestry of mammals, for instance?
joe g: "We know characteristics can arise via convergence. And with fossils we cannot tell divergence from convergence."
Quite untrue. But it requires looking at the actual details of the organisms. For instance, though fish and dolphins have superficial resemblances, we can show that dolphins fit within the nested hierarchy that includes mammals.
joe g: "When discussing CD of that type it is agreed upon before the discussion that limited CD is being discussed."
Common Descent may not properly apply to the earliest epochs in evolution and the evolution of cellular life. Other processes, such as endosymbiosis, appear to be more fruitful at explaining the evidence. If that if your only point, then consider the issue settled.
Meanwhile, in more recent times, what about those vertebrates? The evidence seems rather conclusive that they have a common ancestor. Would you like to discuss this? Or would your prefer to wave your hands?
joe g: "Seeing that we don't knopw what makes an organism what it is stating there is 'scientific evidence for even these limited assertions' is a crock."
Ah, so you do have an opinion. So much for genealogy.
In any case, there is the succession of vertebrate fossils to indicate reproductive continuity over hundreds-of-millions of years. And each new feature is an adaptation of features in predecessor organisms. This creates a nested hierarchy of descent in time. Now, with modern genetics we can make some predictions. That extant organisms will show the same nested hierarchy in their genomes. And they do, of course.
I would be happy to discuss the evidence for the common descent of vertebrates or even hominids, in detail, if you like.
joe g: "Reality is NOT a strawman."
The strawman is misrepresenting your opponents argument, then refuting the misrepresentation and declaring victory. The Theory of Evolution proposes specific and strongly non-random mechanisms of evolutionary change.
joe g: "Natural selection cannot create anything. At best it can only preserve what works."
That's not the question. The question is your misrepresentation of the Theory of Evolution in order to create a strawman. The Theory of Evolution posits specific non-random mechanisms. In order to argue they are not effective, you have to argue what is posited, not a strawman version.
In any case, you can't rationally discuss the mechanisms of divergence from common ancestors if you reject common descent. So you have to start there.
At 9:11 AM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "Also the environment in which the population lives is subject to random events. Nature is not stagnant."
More properly, it's called contingency. However, certain distributions of events can be shown to be random. So? Life is full of surprises. A gambler may think God for winning, but the House knows that the results are statistically predictable.
At 11:14 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
You are arguing here that, a priori, nature's origin cannot be found in nature. This is the fallacy Petitio Principii, or begging the question. You have assumed that nature has an origin.
I didn't assume anything. Science tells me nature had a beginning.
Zachriel:
Later, you bring up the empirical evidence of the Big Bang. This was not part of the original argument, emphasizing that the original argument was faulty as it made no reference to particulars.
The fact that I HAD to bring it up demonstrates you are out of touch with reality.
Zachriel:
And on the particulars, the Big Bang does not necessarily imply a beginning in time, as time itself seems to be involved in the process. Hawking and others have proposed models consistent with the evidence that has no boundary in time, no origin.
So scientific consensus is OK when you agree with it but throw it out when you do not?
joe g: "You know very well that when people discuss CD they are discussing the premise that all of life's dicersity owing its collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms."
Zachriel:
Actually not. Darwin himself suggested life may have more than one ancestral population.
Darwin is irrelevant and I stated population(s). Got it?
Zachriel:
However, the evidence strongly indicates that vertebrates share a common ancestry. Do you deny the scientific evidence for the common ancestry of mammals, for instance?
The "evidence" we have assumes CD then looks to find what someone considers confirming evidence.
I know what the alleged evidence is. I also know it is very subjective.
joe g: "We know characteristics can arise via convergence. And with fossils we cannot tell divergence from convergence."
Zachriel:
Quite untrue.
Again you deny reality. Oh well.
Zachriel:
But it requires looking at the actual details of the organisms.
Umm we canNOT do that with fossils.
Zachriel:
For instance, though fish and dolphins have superficial resemblances, we can show that dolphins fit within the nested hierarchy that includes mammals.
Very superficial and only looking through blurry eyes.
joe g: "Reality is NOT a strawman."
Zachriel:
The strawman is misrepresenting your opponents argument, then refuting the misrepresentation and declaring victory. The Theory of Evolution proposes specific and strongly non-random mechanisms of evolutionary change.
Exposing the argument for what is should not be confused with misreprenting it.
Natural selection is BS. Just measuring it requires contortion.
With evolutionism it is "sheer-dumb-luck" that any particular mutation occurred and still "sheer-dumb-luck" that the particular environment said mutation found itself in didn't reject it.
But as for misrepresenting views, that appears to be all you have. Genealogy works in limited extents. Got it?
But anyway please tell us of these specific non-random mechanisms. Remember NS is blind and purpose-less, which seems to fit in very well with "sheer-dumb-luck"...
At 11:19 AM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "Also the environment in which the population lives is subject to random events. Nature is not stagnant."
Zachriel:
More properly, it's called contingency.
Did you know that a synonym of "contingent" is "accidental"?
Obviously not or you wouldn't have made that psot.
But thanks for confirming what I stated- that evolutionism is the equivilent of "sheer-dumb-luck".
At 1:08 PM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "Also the environment in which the population lives is subject to random events. Nature is not stagnant."
Zachriel: More properly, it's called contingency. However, certain distributions of events can be shown to be random. So? Life is full of surprises. A gambler may think God for winning, but the House knows that the results are statistically predictable.
joe g: "Did you know that a synonym of "contingent" is "accidental"?"
Yes, I did. You used the word random, not accidental. Random implies a particular distribution and complete variable independence. In complex systems, it is often more accurate to say contingent, as the events may have causes, but be chaotically unpredictable.
Nature has both contingent and non-contingent elements, as well as random and non-random elements. The Theory of Evolution is nothing special in this regard.
At 10:07 AM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "Did you know that a synonym of "contingent" is "accidental"?"
Zachriel:
Yes, I did. You used the word random, not accidental.
Obviously you cannot follow a discussion. "Accidental" falls neatly into the "sheer-dumb-luck" category.
Also contigency has been found wanting:
Unified physics theory explains animals' running, flying and swimming:
"The findings may have implications for understanding animal evolution, Marden said. One view of evolution holds that it is not a purely deterministic process; that history is full of chance and historical contingency. It is the idea purported by Steven Jay Gould and others that if you were to "rewind the tape" and run it again, evolution would proceed down a different path, Marden said.
"Our finding that animal locomotion adheres to constructal theory tells us that -- even though you couldn't predict exactly what animals would look like if you started evolution over on earth, or it happened on another planet -- with a given gravity and density of their tissues, the same basic patterns of their design would evolve again," Marden said."
At 11:03 AM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "'Accidental' falls neatly into the 'sheer-dumb-luck' category."
Sorry, that is not necessarily true. Accidents often have specific causes that can be investigated. It's common in forensics.
joe g: "Also contigency has been found wanting:"
The Theory of Evolution doesn't claim that evolution occurs due to 'sheer-dumb-luck', but posits specific non-random mechanisms as well as contingency, such as comets slamming into the Earth, or the vagaries of plate tectonics and climate change.
Ironically, you cite an article that considers mechanisms, "that guide evolution by suggesting that many important functional characteristics of animal shape and locomotion are predictable from physics," a very reasonable hypothesis of how the physical nature of the world leads to convergence.
At 11:52 AM,
tweety56 said…
are you the designer for the stonehenge??
At 12:05 PM,
tweety2 said…
are you the disigner for the stonehenge?
At 7:26 AM,
Joe G said…
are you the designer for the stonehenge??
No. No one knows who designed Stonehenge.
Post a Comment
<< Home