Re: Mammalian eyes...

Steve Clark (ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu)
Fri, 08 Nov 1996 13:28:06 -0600

Randy Landrum invokes Paley's analogy in which the complexity of a watch,
known to be created by an intelligent agent, should logically convince us
that the complexity of living organisms should also be ascribed to ID.

>The human eye is so much more complex than the camera yet 25 years of
>education says that if you find a camera in the wilderness (or a
>hasselblad) on the moon only the greatest illogical and indoctrinated
>faith would imagine evolution without a designer. Even Hasselblad's cannot
>fix themselves. For that matter very few camera repair people can either.

The analogy goes something like this:

Watches are the product of intelligent design.
Watches and living organisms are both complex.

Therefore, organisms are the product of intelligent design.

First, note that this is a probability argument and is not deductively valid
(deductive validity would mean that the premises would guarantee that the
conclusion is absolutely true). This, then, begs the question of how well
the premises support the conclusion. Consider two examples, one that is
very probable and one that is not:

1.
Blood circulates in humans.
Humans and dogs are similar.

Therefore, blood must circulate in dogs.

2.
Blood circulates in humans.
Humans and plants are similar.

Therefore, blood must circulate in plants.

I don't think that anyone can logically assert whether Paley's argument is
more like example 1 or 2.

Cheers,

Steve

____________________________________________________________
Steven S. Clark, Ph.D . Phone: 608/263-9137
Associate Professor FAX: 608/263-4226
Dept. of Human Oncology and Email: ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu
UW Comprehensive Cancer Center
CSC K4-432
600 Highland Ave.
Madison, WI 53792

"It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, but the glory of kings to
search out a matter." Proverbs
____________________________________________________________