AN opportunity for the religious to provide their evidence

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Sword,

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

You've said it several times.

Then you will have no problem reproducing in full one of my exact quotes (instead of your paraphrase) and then we'll see if the assertion A implies B means that B implies A still holds.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

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.

First, even if there was a problem it would be the "organic from inorganic" problem, not the "something from nothing" problem.

Second, you complained earlier that it would be wrong to argue conceptually agains a designer god because you knew nothing about that god yet here you try the same tactic - evolutionary theory explains speciation perfectly well without needing to know anything about abiogenesis.

Third, inroads are being made all the time into the abiogenesis question and moreover statistical models tell us that it wasn't nearly as unlikely an event (or perhaps multiple events) as creationists would have you believe.

Apart from that though...

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

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.

Again, torridon, I respect the fact that you are able to defend your position in its own right.

All I'll say from my perspective is that my conclusion that X is designed is based independent of whatever the designer of X may be. I can understand that this may be a problem for some, but it is not a case of avoiding the question of what the designer of X may be (if that is the conclusion). As I have a religious belief, I see God as the designer. If I didn't have a religious belief, I would be looking from some other explanations, because all of the assertions I've made on this (on this thread and on other threads previously) are independent of religious belief.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

No, I don't see that this works this way since you take the position that simplicity can give rise to complexity. Further I don't think you can add in something to SOTS' position that they don't argue. He may well believe that the designer is more complex but he's not stating there must be a designer because of the complexity.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

Then you will have no problem reproducing in full one of my exact quotes (instead of your paraphrase) and then we'll see if the assertion A implies B means that B implies A still holds.

That was your assertion, not mine. Mine was the simple observation that, if you think A resembles B, then B must resemble A. In your Reply 812 for example you said:

"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."

If you think there are "similar characteristics seen" in nature as those seen in designed products, you can equally express the sentiment in the other direction too.

Incidentally, any chance of you finally providing that method to get you from assertion to evidence? I'd hate for someone to nip in and nab that Templeton prize from under your nose just because of your tardiness!   

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Second, you complained earlier that it would be wrong to argue conceptually agains a designer god because you knew nothing about that god

Again, citation please. Reproduce what I said and then I'll defend it. I'm not going to counter your paraphrase of what I said.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Sword,

That was your assertion, not mine. Mine was the simple observation that, if you think A resembles B, then B must resemble A. In your Reply 812 for example you said:

"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."

And what similar characteristics was I referring to? Feel free to use other posts I've written.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

He may well believe that the designer is more complex but he's not stating there must be a designer because of the complexity.

To be fair though, it's hard to know why he thinks there must be a designer. So far as I can tell he's religious, but then using his (mis)understanding of evolution to demonstrate "God" is just circular reasoning (and a god of the gaps/argument from personal incredulity to boot). Apart from that though, it just seems to look designed to him but he's given no clues about why it seems that way. If not for complexity, then what?

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

To be fair though, it's hard to know why he thinks there must be a designer. So far as I can tell he's religious, but then using his (mis)understanding of evolution to demonstrate "God" is just circular reasoning (and a god of the gaps/argument from personal incredulity to boot). Apart from that though, it just seems to look designed to him but he's given no clues about why it seems that way. If not for complexity, then what?

He seems fairly clearly to me to be arguing that things look like they are designed by comparing them to things we know are designed. Indeed you have been arguing against him along that line with no problems, and no mention of complexity.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

Again, citation please. Reproduce what I said and then I'll defend it. I'm not going to counter your paraphrase of what I said.

Look it up for yourself - it was only a few posts ago, and besides you don't need to defend it in any case. I agreed with you: if the logic leads to "designer" then it leads to designer even if you know nothing whatever about that designer. The point I was actually making though was that it's hypocritical to use the very tactic of which you complain: evolutionary theory explains speciation perfectly well even if you know nothing at all about abiogenesis, so dragging something from nothing" into it is a red herring.   

[Nearly Sane]

No surprise here, even Dawkins suggests the apparentness of design is understandable.
Mechanisms are designed and living things resemble mechanisms.

What surprises me is your faux surprise at this.

what surprise have I expressed?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

And what similar characteristics was I referring to? Feel free to use other posts I've written.

No idea because you didn't tell us what you think those similar characteristics to be. The point in logic stands though: if a porpoise has similar characteristics to a dolphin, then axiomatically a dolphin has similar characteristics to a porpoise. If things in nature have similar characteristics to designed good, then designed goods have similar characteristics to things in nature.

Why is this difficult for you?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

what surprise have I expressed?

many apologies I was trying to comment on the post you were responding to not your response. I shall remove the post.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

He seems fairly clearly to me to be arguing that things look like they are designed by comparing them to things we know are designed. Indeed you have been arguing against him along that line with no problems, and no mention of complexity.

Yes but I've also been arguing that it cuts both ways, and moreover he still hasn't told us what he means by "looks like". So far as I can tell it's just crude Paley's watch stuff, but if he has anything more sophisticated than that then it's only fair to allow him to tell us what it is. So far though, no luck.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Apart from that though, it just seems to look designed to him but he's given no clues about why it seems that way. If not for complexity, then what?

No surprise here, even Dawkins suggests the apparentness of design is understandable.
Mechanisms are designed and living things resemble mechanisms.

What surprises me is your faux surprise at this.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Yes but I've also been arguing that it cuts both ways, and moreover he still hasn't told us what he means by "looks like". So far as I can tell it's just crude Paley's watch stuff, but if he has anything more sophisticated than that then it's only fair to allow him to tell us what it is. So far though, no luck.

Whether it is sophisticated or not is irrelevant to the point that he isn't saying that complexity is the reason to think of a designer. Indeed as was pointed out by Jeremyp and to an extent agreed with by both torridon and SOTS, design is actually about simplicity.

[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. 

Hillside still hasn't told us what he means by "looks precisely as you'd expect". So far as I can tell it's just crude Dawkins ''Darwin made it intellectually respectable to be an atheist'' stuff, but if he has anything more sophisticated than that then it's only fair to allow him to tell us what it is. So far though, no luck.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

what surprise have I expressed?

No-one has expressed surprise, faux or otherwise. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Whether it is sophisticated or not is irrelevant to the point that he isn't saying that complexity is the reason to think of a designer. Indeed as was pointed out by Jeremyp and to an extent agreed with by both torridon and SOTS, design is actually about simplicity.

Yes, but if not for complexity (or simplicity) what then is it that he's relying on that over stretches his credulity about it occurring naturally? Paley's watch is a bad argument, long since discounted. If that's all he has, so be it; if though he has something else to bring to the table (whether or not you'd call that more sophisticated) then it would serve him better to do so.   

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Yes, but if not for complexity (or simplicity) what then is it that he's relying on that over stretches his credulity about it occurring naturally? Paley's watch is a bad argument, long since discounted. If that's all he has, so be it; if though he has something else to bring to the table (whether or not you'd call that more sophisticated) then it would serve him better to do so.

I don't think he's using an argument from incredulity either. He doesn't say it is that it is unbelievable that it could have occurred naturally. Rather all he attempts to do is say that the similarity he sees, and the similarity in how DNA is described, with things that are designed allow for the idea of a designer to be validated. Now I don't see it as a  particularly interesting argument, but I don't see that it is sensible to argue against points that he isn't making

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

I don't think he's using an argument from incredulity either. He doesn't say it is that it is unbelievable that it could have occurred naturally. Rather all he attempts to do is say that the similarity he sees, and the similarity in how DNA is described, with things that are designed allow for the idea of a designer to be validated. Now I don't see it as a  particularly interesting argument, but I don't see that it is sensible to argue against points that he isn't making

I'm not - I'm arguing against the conclusions he's drawing.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

I'm not - I'm arguing against the conclusions he's drawing.

You suggested he is using the argument by complexity and by incredulity, seems to me he isn't and that by suggesting it, you are precisely arguing against points he isn't making.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

You suggested he is using the argument by complexity and by incredulity, seems to me he isn't and that by suggesting it, you are precisely arguing against points he isn't making.

Actually he's certainly done the former ("how did DNA happen then?" etc) but what I was actually doing was trying to get him to tell us what it is about, say, an oak tree that he thinks shares characteristics with, say, a watch such that it leads him to conclude "designer" instead of evolution.   

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Actually he's certainly done the former ("how did DNA happen then?" etc) but what I was actually doing was trying to get him to tell us what it is about, say, an oak tree that he thinks shares characteristics with, say, a watch such that it leads him to conclude "designer" instead of evolution.

I don't have any issue with you asking him for the characteristics of similarity and haven't questioned that. And I don't think he's saying that because it's hard to believe that DNA happened naturally, rather he's asking why he should believe that it isn't a designer when it looks to have similarities to what he looks on as designed.

[SusanDoris]

Well, I just hope this page doesn't become unavailable on my computer before SotS responds!!