Majestyk

I'd say that this is a mischaracterization of rational thinking. Basically it states that it would be rational to assume something without supporting evidence while discarding contradictory evidence.

However, since we do not know, we have to concede that there is the possibility, however improbable, that an intelligence was involved in the origin of space/time. That intelligence, using the same rational method, required to design and implement all that we are aware of, on the scale that we perceive, would be so far beyond our comprehension that it would be extremely irrational to think that we were the intended product of its effort.

If, there were, an intelligence, whether it be singular or plural, that was the impetus of existence then, life on this planet would be rationally construed as inconsequential. Analogous to a innocuous patch of mold on a small part of a enormous machine.

Only ego and denial could enable us to conceive of both an intelligent designer and ourselves as the designers purpose.

Doubting Didymus

Would someone mind telling me where this conversation came from? It seems to have sprung fully formed from the head of zeus, but I am confident that it gradually evolved from someplace. Is it a christianforums thread? EvC? ARN?

Oolon Colluphid

And you would therefore characterise eyes that do not work in creatures that do not need them, since they live in total darkness, as what, exactly?

In the countless examples of these (just ask!), we have “numerous, corroboratively integrated systems / subsystems, features, or structures” that do not, cannot, perform a specific function. A function they have most of the characteristics of being able to perform (seeing), and which other creatures, with all the bits functioning, are able to perform.

It makes for interesting definition of 'intelligent design', don't you think?

DT

Wounded King

I cant believe that no one has explicitly mentioned irreducible complexity yet. Has that gone out of fashion with ID/creationist dogma? Lets have some good old mousetrap and biochemical pathway arguments, those were always convincing.

Arthwollipot

Here's something I posted over in Creationtalk.com:

Creationists love to cite the eye as evidence for 'Intelligent Design'. It is not - it is a stupid design. A very stupid design. A design that no sane designer would use.

Go find a detailed diagram of the cross-section of a human eye. There's one on p.21 of The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins, Penguin Paperback edition, 1991 reprint. As no self-respecting creationist would have a copy of this heretical book, this link provides a diagram of the retina:

http://www.yorku.ca/eye/retina2.htm

This link provides more information about eyes than you could ever want:

http://www.eyedesignbook.com/

The thing that you will notice about the structure of the retina is that the photoreceptors are in backwards! Light entering the eye must first pass through the mess of nerves crossing the retina, then through the ganglion cells, then through the bistratified ganglion cells, the midget bipolar cells, the gap junctions, etc, before finally being caught by the photoreceptors at the very back of the retina. The bioelectrical signal then passes back up the nerve and crosses over the surface of the retina over the top of all the other photoreceptors before diving down through the 'blind spot' and joining the optic nerve, which I might add goes right to the back of the brain.

Now I ask you - is this the work of an intelligent designer?

What clinches the argument is the eye of an octopus. The octopus' eye is almost exactly the same as ours - except that the photoreceptors are the right way around! They go the way you'd expect - photoreceptors nearest the surface of the retina towards the light, nerve diving down and connecting straight to the optic nerve. The octopus has no 'blind spot'.

It's almost like God said "Hmm, I made a bit of a boo-boo with the human eye, which after all is in my own image. I'd better correct the mistake. But Adam is already up and walking about! I can't very well change it now. Darn, I'd better make do with the octopus then."

Sorry Duane, the eye does not prove intelligent design. The designer of the eye must have been either an absolute lunatic or a mindless force which adapts preexisting structures to the current circumstances without any view to the future.

Oolon Colluphid

Nicely put, Arthwollipot.

You -- and anyone proposing 'intelligent design' -- might like to take a look at this thread too...

DT (Oolon)

HRG

That's one way of looking at it.

I think that the "laws of science" should be regarded as our approximate description of the patterns, regularities and mechanisms we found in the universe. We made them, and they are descriptive, not prescriptive.

So Ohm's law (valid for many solid conductors, as long as the current is not too large) was created by Georg Simon Ohm.

During the first three minutes of the universe (S. Weinberg) there certainly were no solid conductors at all. Where was Ohm's law then ?

Regards,
HRG.

Principia

The reason is that even the IDiots aren't convinced of irreducible complexity as a smoking gun argument against evolution -- Behe's own silence in the last couple of years being especially telling. For one thing, they can't even decide amongst themselves exactly what irreducible complexity really means or entails. Check out this thread, or this thread to see just how mind-numbing these definitional arguments can get.

Mageth

Doubting Didymus:

Would someone mind telling me where this conversation came from? It seems to have sprung fully formed from the head of zeus, but I am confident that it gradually evolved from someplace. Is it a christianforums thread? EvC? ARN?

The OP was extracted from the On the existence of god(s) thread in EoG. IIRC this bit started on the last couple of pages, but there may have been some earlier similar stuff (it's a long thread).

Refractor

Yes, that proves that *human* intelligent designers are not able to account for this complexity. ("Human" being the operative word)


No, ID is not an argument from ignorance. It is inductive argument that is based on the evidence of the inherent characteristics we observe in all "already-known-to-be" ID products. So it is an inductive argument based on knowledge.


"Principles" don't have any scientific meaning unless they are backed up by empirical observation. What you need to do is prove there is such a thing as an actual self-organizing *process* that has the ability to transform non-living matter into complex, living organisms. No such process' existence has ever been demonstrated. Such a process only exists in the realm of naturalistic speculation.

If we have observed anything about ID products, it is that all complex ID products come from complex intelligent designers (humans). Simplicity is not always a viable, or superior solution when inducing the cause of complex systems. For example, the act of shaking is very simply. If I took the 50 essential components of a blender and put them into a bag, and began "shaking" the components around in the bag continuously for millions of years, at no point would the indefinite shaking result in a fully-assembled, working blender. Why? Because the simple act of shaking parts around in a bag is an insufficient mechanism for assembling a blender! So simplex causes are actually less plausible than complex causes when we are talking about complex systems. Assembly of complex systems (such as blenders) require guidance, and intelligent activity.

My arguments on this issue can be summarized as follows:

(i) We have never seen mindless natural forces assemble complex systems. Living organisms are complex systems, therefore, we have no reason to assume living organisms were assembled by mindless natural forces.

(ii) We have seen intelligent designer(s) assemble complex systems. Living organisms are complex systems, therefore, we have good reason to assume living organisms were assembled by intelligent designer(s).


Refractor