Stonehenge without Intelligent Design
Stonehenge- built from stones. Big stones. Stones made by mother nature. Thanks mom.
Now if we follow the evolutionary logic- the only reason we infer that Stonehenge was designed is because we couldn't imagine how mother nature could have built such a thing.
That would mean that if someone could imagine how mother nature could have "built" it, then the design inference fails.
OK so we know that mom can build stones, big stones. Check.
We know that glaciers can carry stones, even big stones.
Mom makes glaciers. Check.
Glaciers can also carve out stones and shape them.
Glaciers melt and the stones fall. Some may be carried back a little before being deposited.
So a glacier forms, carving out big pieces of stone and deposit them in England. Some of the massive stones are verticle and the wet, muddy ground was soft enough to let them sink in a bit such that they stood upright once the glacier had passed.
The horizontal pieces could be deposited during that same glacial period or during a later one.
Then primitive man, just out of his apeskin suit, saw the structure and set up camp.
The rest is history.
That scenario is more likely than the origins of living organisms from non-living matter via mother nature and father time.
Now if we follow the evolutionary logic- the only reason we infer that Stonehenge was designed is because we couldn't imagine how mother nature could have built such a thing.
That would mean that if someone could imagine how mother nature could have "built" it, then the design inference fails.
OK so we know that mom can build stones, big stones. Check.
We know that glaciers can carry stones, even big stones.
Mom makes glaciers. Check.
Glaciers can also carve out stones and shape them.
Glaciers melt and the stones fall. Some may be carried back a little before being deposited.
So a glacier forms, carving out big pieces of stone and deposit them in England. Some of the massive stones are verticle and the wet, muddy ground was soft enough to let them sink in a bit such that they stood upright once the glacier had passed.
The horizontal pieces could be deposited during that same glacial period or during a later one.
Then primitive man, just out of his apeskin suit, saw the structure and set up camp.
The rest is history.
That scenario is more likely than the origins of living organisms from non-living matter via mother nature and father time.
posted by Joe G @ 10:59 AM
2 Comments:
At 10:54 AM,
Kierra said…
The reason we can infer that Stonehenge was designed is that we know something about the intelligence that designed it.
We know that humans were present in England at the time when Stonehenge was built. We also know about the types of things that people construct. Post-and-lentel architecture is extremely common in human constructions throughout history, so it is not a stretch to assume that the humans that were present in England built Stonehenge.
Archeologists do not assume intelligent agency unless there is additional evidence that an intelligent agent (ie a human) was present at the given time.
Demsky raises the point of inductive regress as an argument against the independent knowledge requirement in the article you posted a few days ago (Specification: The Pattern That Signifies Intelligence, William A. Dembski, August 15, 2005, pg 29). His question is how one would deduce that any arrowhead was made by intelligent agency if independent knowledge was needed. The answer is that we know what modern arrowheads look like and we know that humans designed those. We can then work backwards from that knowledge to see the similar design elements in ancient and prehistoric arrowheads.
At 12:00 PM,
Joe G said…
The reason we can infer that Stonehenge was designed is that we know something about the intelligence that designed it.
The reason we infer Stonhenge was designed is because it we think it contains counterflow.
Is there any law of nature that would orevent nature, operating freely, from producing it?
We only think we know something about the intelligence that designed it.
We know that humans were present in England at the time when Stonehenge was built.
Only via investigation.
And as far as we know space aliens designed it and helped the early humans build it.
We also know about the types of things that people construct.
Via observation and investigation. We also "know" what nature, operating freely, can produce.
Archeologists do not assume intelligent agency unless there is additional evidence that an intelligent agent (ie a human) was present at the given time.
Reference please. Are you saying that if I saw an etching in a wall of a cave, and no other alleged artifacts, that I couldn't infer the etching was put there by an intelligent agent?
And are you also saying that weathering, erosion and chipping could never make an arrowhead type stone?
We know that only life begets life. So from that we can work backwards to infer that living organisms did NOT arise from non-living matter via non-telic processes.
We also know that only intelligent agencies can create irreducible complexity and complex specified information. So from that we can work backwards to infer that every time we observe IC and/ or CSI we can infer an intelligent agency was involved.
Post a Comment
<< Home