AN opportunity for the religious to provide their evidence

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

#794

Sword of the Spirit

As always, you fail to notice the elephant in the room, which is the entity you call a designer; you fail to explain who designed it and so on through the infinite regression question.

I agree with what Nearly Sane said in their #795 SusanDoris

I'm not sure there is an infinite regress here. There would be if the argument was nothing as complex as the universe could exist without a designer but if it is rather that the universe has the appearance of something designed then there is not necessarily a regress.

And I would also add that there is no regress imo because we know that human beings design and make things. Therefore, whether or not something is designed can be assessed in its own right without having to involve the nature of the designer.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

Therefore, whether or not something is designed can be assessed in its own right...

Aside from the false reasoning of, "stuff people make looks designed, stuff in nature looks designed to me, therefore stuff in nature must have a designer too" how would you propose to do that?

[torridon]

And I would also add that there is no regress imo because we know that human beings design and make things. Therefore, whether or not something is designed can be assessed in its own right without having to involve the nature of the designer.

We've already covered this ground.  If your contention is that reality requires a superior being to design in then it is incumbent to follow through with an explanation of how the superior being came to be designed.  This is a bigger problem than merely trying to understand our reality on its own terms without recourse to superior beings. This attitude seems either lazy or disingenuous to me.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

#797

From Wikipedia about DNA:

DNA) is a molecule that carries the genetic instructions used in the growth, development, functioning and reproduction of all known living organisms and many viruses.

and

DNA stores biological information.

So why couldn't an entity use DNA as the blueprint for life in the same way that notes are the blueprint for music, or letters are the blueprint for alphabets, which in turn are used for written text?

Burden of proof shifting.

No burden of proof shifting. I am not inviting my assertion to be disproved and claiming that failure to do so means my point is therefore true. What I have said can be assessed in its own right.

It is the claim of such an entity that needs to be justified.

What is the evidence for this entity, and why would it need to use DNA ?

What we know of DNA is that it is the blueprint for all living organisms, in the same way that an alphabet in a language is a blueprint for all spoken and written text, or notes for music, or even computer code for computer software. That, in my opinion suggests a designer. I also noted the use of the words instructions and storage of information in the Wikipedia article which again, when compared with things human beings make that have similar characteristics, shows forethought and intent, in addition to design.

[SusanDoris]

Sword,

Aside from the false reasoning of, "stuff people make looks designed, stuff in nature looks designed to me, therefore stuff in nature must have a designer too" how would you propose to do that?

Every day, at random times, my computer comes up with 'this page can't be displayed' for this forum - others work perfectly well - but I don't think I shall accidentally miss an answer to your post from Sword of the Spirit!!

I am, though, forever the optimist!

[Nearly Sane]

We've already covered this ground.  If your contention is that reality requires a superior being to design in then it is incumbent to follow through with an explanation of how the superior being came to be designed.  This is a bigger problem than merely trying to understand our reality on its own terms without recourse to superior beings. This attitude seems either lazy or disingenuous to me.

I don't think that is his contention. It's not that it needs a superior being but that it looks like it is designed, therefore there is a designer.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Aside from the false reasoning of, "stuff people make looks designed, stuff in nature looks designed to me, therefore stuff in nature must have a designer too" how would you propose to do that?

There you go again! Asking a question whilst trying to deny the person the method whereby to answer your question.

Stuff people make looks designed: Do human beings design things or not? Do human beings make things or not?

stuff in nature looks designed: Is DNA the blueprint for living organisms, or not?

Can the characteristics of what human beings make (blueprints, instructions, storage of information) be compared with what we know of DNA (blueprint, instructions, storage of information)?

If not, why not?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sword,

Aside from the false reasoning of, "stuff people make looks designed, stuff in nature looks designed to me, therefore stuff in nature must have a designer too" how would you propose to do that?

The trouble is though you make the same type of reasoning when you suggest that the universe looks as if there is no God.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

What we know of DNA is that it is the blueprint for all living organisms, in the same way that an alphabet in a language is a blueprint for all spoken and written text, or notes for music, or even computer code for computer software. That, in my opinion suggests a designer. I also noted the use of the words instructions and storage of information in the Wikipedia article which again, when compared with things human beings make that have similar characteristics, shows forethought and intent, in addition to design.

Oh dear. You really do need at least to try to grasp the difference btween an evolved "blueprint" (like DNA), and a designed one (like a computer programme). I think perhaps it might help too if you read up a little on information theory. Try here to get you started:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory

[Walt Zingmatilder]

as for that matter is why "He'd" choose a method that looks precisely as you'd expect it to look if there was no god there at all. 
 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

There you go again! Asking a question whilst trying to deny the person the method whereby to answer your question.

What method? So far as I'm aware, you've never managed even to suggest one despite being asked to do so many times.

Stuff people make looks designed: Do human beings design things or not? Do human beings make things or not?

Er yes, as indeed do other animals make things. That wasn't though the point.

stuff in nature looks designed: Is DNA the blueprint for living organisms, or not?

Not in the analogous sense you're attempting to elide the term "blueprint" into it isn't, no. 

Can the characteristics of what human beings make (blueprints, instructions, storage of information) be compared with what we know of DNA (blueprint, instructions, storage of information)?

No - one is designed, the other is evolved. They're also qualitatively different for reasons you'd understand if you knew something of information theory.

If not, why not?

See above.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

We've already covered this ground.  If your contention is that reality requires a superior being to design in then it is incumbent to follow through with an explanation of how the superior being came to be designed.

I'm more than happy to go where the evidence leads. To say that one must know all about the designer before concluding design is, in my opinion introducing bias, which can only prejudice an objective investigation.

The nature of the designer is not being avoided, by the way. For those of a religious belief, I would suggest that it may be a theological question.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

I don't think that is his contention. It's not that it needs a superior being but that it looks like it is designed, therefore there is a designer.

In terms of the looks like it is designed, more specifically, where there are similar characteristics seen that are present in the things human beings design and make.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

I'm more than happy to go where the evidence leads.

Well that's new. I can suggest a few books on evolutionary theory to get you started if that helps?

To say that one must know all about the designer before concluding design is, in my opinion introducing bias, which can only prejudice an objective investigation.

That's a straw man - I've done no such thing. If there was logic of any kind that led to the conclusion "designer" then it would stand on its merits whether or not you knew anything about that designer. The point though is that there is no such logic - or at least none that anyone has ever been able to produce.

The nature of the designer is not being avoided, by the way. For those of a religious belief, I would suggest that it may be a theological question.

It may be, but it's still an irrelevant (and probably meaningless) one as there's no cogent reasoning that produces the outcome "designer".

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Sword,

Oh dear. You really do need at least to try to grasp the difference btween an evolved "blueprint" (like DNA),

You are assuming that DNA evolved. If you believe that from something else, DNA evolved to have the ability to to be the blueprint for all living organisms, including the ability to store information and the forethought to hold instructions, fair enough. I don't.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

In terms of the looks like it is designed, more specifically, where there are similar characteristics seen that are present in the things human beings design and make.

So people design and make things that have similar characteristics to things found in nature, therefore nature was designed too?

Did you really mean to say that?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

You are assuming that DNA evolved.

Well that, "I go where the evidence leads" didn't last long did it. Oh well.

If you believe that from something else, DNA evolved to have the ability to to be the blueprint for all living organisms, including the ability to store information and the forethought to hold instructions, fair enough. I don't.

That'll be because you've failed to go where the evidence leads.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

So people design and make things that have similar characteristics to things found in nature, therefore nature was designed too?

Did you really mean to say that?

perhaps you'll do better to stick to what I said. If that is what you want to believe, fair enough.

On the subject of DNA, Wikipedia says this:

DNA) is a molecule that carries the genetic instructions used in the growth, development, functioning and reproduction of all known living organisms and many viruses.

Care to outline how something that evolved had the forethought to 'evolve' instructions (a characteristic usually seen in something that is designed, therefore having purpose?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Sword,

Well that, "I go where the evidence leads" didn't last long did it. Oh well.

So your evidence that DNA evolved is...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

perhaps you'll do better to stick to what I said. If that is what you want to believe, fair enough.

That is what you said. If you want to express the thought, "stuff in nature looks to me like stuff people design and make" then you can express it equally as, "stuff people design and make looks to me like stuff in nature".

On the subject of DNA, Wikipedia says this:

Quote
DNA) is a molecule that carries the genetic instructions used in the growth, development, functioning and reproduction of all known living organisms and many viruses.

Care to outline how something that evolved had the forethought to 'evolve' instructions (a characteristic usually seen in something that is designed, therefore having purpose?

Ah, the old argument from personal incredulity combined with the ignorance of thinking that evolutionary processes are intended to reach predetermined outcomes. As it happens there are various theories about the evolution of DNA - here's one to get you started:

http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/probability-life

   

[torridon]

So your evidence that DNA evolved is...

We have precursor molecules to DNA.  They didn't just appear by magic out of nowhere.  Maybe you imagine RNA, for example, was God's first attempt at designing life processes, perfected later in DNA ?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Sword,

That is what you said. If you want to express the thought, "stuff in nature looks to me like stuff people design and make"

citation please

then you can express it equally as, "stuff people design and make looks to me like stuff in nature".

Erm...no

A implies B does not always mean B implies A.

Again, you are doing your classic bluehillsiding instead of countering directly the point being made.

Ah, the old argument from personal incredulity

Now who is ignoring the evidence!

[torridon]

I don't think that is his contention. It's not that it needs a superior being but that it looks like it is designed, therefore there is a designer.

And a designer is superior, in some sense, to that which is designed. A termite is a more complex thing than an insentient termite mound but I think it flawed reasoning to extrapolate from examples like that to a justification in principle that something seemingly designed probably has a designer because that sanctions an eternal regress of designers in principle. In reality, both termite and termite mound are products of inferior insentient processes, and we have simply a case of pockets of varying complexity within the overarching scheme of things in which complexity arises fundamentally from complex combinations of simpler constituents, not the reverse.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

citation please

For what - the statement that stuff in nature shares characteristics with stuff people design?

You've said it several times.

Erm...no

A implies B does not always mean B implies A.

Erm...yes - resemblance cuts both ways. If dolphins resemble porpoises, then porpoises resemble dolphins. If butterflies resemble moths, then moths....etc

Again, you are doing your classic bluehillsiding instead of countering directly the point being made.

No, I was doing the "classic bluehillsiding" of falsifying your reasoning - see above for an example.

Now who is ignoring the evidence!

You are. That something happens to stretch your personal incredulity is in evidential terms neither here nor there, and yet again you make your repeated mistake of assuming that DNA as we know it must have been the intended outcome all along.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Maybe you imagine RNA, for example, was God's first attempt at designing life processes, perfected later in DNA ?

At least you attempted to answer my question torridon...

On your question, no I don't see RNA as God's first attempt at designing life processes. Reading what Wikipedia has to say about RNA, it seems to have its own purpose, but even just taking the first sentence:

Ribonucleic acid (RNA) is a polymeric molecule essential in various biological roles in coding, decoding, regulation, and expression of genes.

Coding, decoding?

On the wider question being raised: I'm more than happy to accept evolutionary explanations that explain adaptation. From what I have seen (and it is observable), adaptation works with what is already present. My opinion is that extrapolation has been used to take what is observed here and explain origins, and however it is presented, it results in a something from nothing problem.