PM>Of course the problem then arises how to distinguish apparant
>design from intelligent design.
SJ: According to Dennett, it is not possible to "distinguish apparent
design from intelligent design":
That's sort of a problem for those who are trying to find evidence of
intelligent design then would you not agree ?
SJ: As Dennett's final "implausible fantasy" comment shows, "intelligent
design" is simply ruled out on naturalistic philosophical grounds.
For good reasons, science does not deal with unprovable hypotheses like
invoking a supernatural designer.
>SJ>"Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not
>see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet
PM>A design need no purpose.
SJ: Dawkins' point that naturalistic evolution has no "purpose", so it's
"results" have only the "appearance of design", "the illusion of
design". But perhaps you could give an example of a "design" that
has 'no purpose"?
I was merely pointing out the obvious namely that what we see as a purpose
need not be and that our need for a purpose might be unnecessary.
PM>So indeed this 'apparant' design is often mistaken for intelligent
>design.
SJ: A theist would say that this "apparent design" is in fact *real*
"intelligent design":
Of course this is an provable assumption and unnecessary as well.
SJ: "Richard Dawkins begins The Blind Watchmaker with the statement
"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance
of having been designed for a purpose." A theistic realist finds the
appearance of design unsurprising, because living things really are
the product of a designer." (Johnson P.E., "Reason in the Balance",
1995, p209)
Of course this is a highly circular argument.
PM>The first step is to show that it can be the result of random
>change and natural selection, the second step is proving that this
>is the case. The fossil record does support this fully naturalistic
>hypothesis quite well. But perhaps you can share with us why you
>believe the contrary?
SJ: "Because Darwinism is assumed to be a purposeless, undirected
process, it could not proceed from a starting point to a destination.
A better description would be that for evolution in the darwinian sense
there is no predetermined destination. Destination is decided by chance
and by selection.
SJ: The expectation is that instead of lines of descent you would have a
thick bush with branches going off on each side and to failing and
extinct organs. And so one has to imagine a whole *forest* of
intermediates between the hypothetical animals and each of the later
groups that emerges. As Darwin himself put it, if Darwinism is true
the Precambrian world must have `swarmed with living creatures' many
of them ancestral to the Cambrian animals." (Johnson P.E., "The
Blind Watchmaker Thesis" , tape 2 of 3, Trinity Founders Lectures,
Access Research Network, Colorado Springs CO, 1992)
Several comments. First of all the assumption that there had to be a
forest of intermediates does not necessary require such intermediates to
be identifiable in fossil records. Only when there are morphological
changes in organs which are preserved by fossilization would we expect to
find them.
SJ: Darwin's insistence that gradual evolution by natural selection would
require inconceivable numbers of transitional forms may have been
something of an exaggeration but it is hard to escape concluding that
in some cases he may not have been so far from the mark. Take the
case of the gap between modern whales and land mammals. All known
aquatic or semi-aquatic mammals such as seals, sea cows (sirenians)
or otters are specialized representatives of distinct orders and none
can possibly be ancestral to the present-day whales. To bridge the
gap we are forced therefore to postulate a large number of entirely
extinct hypothetical species starting from a small, relatively
unspecialized land mammal like a shrew and leading successfully
through an otter-like stage, seal-like stage, sirenian-like stage and
finally to a putative organism which could serve as the ancestor of
the modern whales. Even from the hypothetical whale ancestor stage
we need to postulate many hypothetical primitive whales to bridge the
not inconsiderable gaps which separate the modern filter feeders (the
baleen whales) and the toothed whales. Moreover, it is impossible to
accept that such a hypothetical sequence of species which led
directly from the unspecialized terrestrial ancestral form gave rise
to no collateral branches. Such an assumption would be purely ad
hoc, and would also be tantamount to postulating an external unknown
directive influence in evolution which would be quite foreign to the
spirit of Darwinian theory and defeat its major purpose of attempting
to provide a natural explanation for evolution. Rather, we must
suppose the existence of innumerable collateral branches leading to
many unknown types. This was clearly Darwin's view and it implies
that the total number of species which must have existed between the
discontinuities must have been much greater than the number of
species on the shortest direct evolutionary pathway...
I am glad that you bring up the whale given the recent finds providing
data for exactly what you are looking for.
SJ: It is for these reasons that Darwinists have largely abandoned the
fossil record as evidence for Darwinism. For example, Dawkin's
colleague, Oxford zoologist Mark Ridley:
Again this is misleading as well as incorrect. Fossil evidence does
support darwinian evolution.
"This is a terrible mistake; and it springs, I believe, from the
false idea that the fossil record provides an important part of the
evidence that evolution took place. In fact, evolution is proven by
a totally separate set of arguments-and the present debate within
palaeontology does not impinge at all on the evidence that supports
evolution...One reason that keeps on betraying itself is that a lot
Of course that evolition is proven by a seperate set of arguments only
strengthens the findings.
Nothing revealing in this argument.
>SJ>Thirdly, even if "Naturalists" were able to "show how this apparant
>design" *was* "the result of random change and natural selection" it
>would not rule out "design". The Bible affirms that God can "design"
>even through events that are "random" to man:
PM>The bible is not scientific in any sense so should not be used as
>evidence of the existance of such a supernatural force.
SJ: This is what philosophers of science call the "genetic fallacy":
SJ: "`Creation science is a theory derived from the Bible and is
therefore not Scientific.' This criticism is frequently encountered
Strawman. Creation science is not scientific because it does not provide
with predictions and can not be disproven.
SJ: Even if "The bible is not scientific in any sense", there is no
reason whatsoever that "The bible" could not be used to support a
"scientific" theory.
Of course this would first require a scientific theory.
PM>[...] interesting but meainingless biblical story deleted.
SJ: How can it be *both* "interesting" and "meainingless"?
Quite easy.
>SJ>An Intelligent Designer may have designed all the laws and initial
>conditions of the universe in such a way that the design of living
>creatures is *real* not apparent:
PM>True but then again chance could have done this as well through
>naturalistic forces so this explanation would fail under the Occam razor.
SJ: That "chance could have done this as well through naturalistic
forces", would have to be independently demonstrated, *before* "Occam
razor" came into it.
If there are two hypotheses and one requires more unlikely steps then that
one is the one less likely to be relevant.
>SJ>More word-play. The question is not whether "complexity requires a
>designer" but whether *specified* "complexity requires a designer":
PM>The question is irrelevant since there is no 'specified'
>complexity. You are assuming that the end result was specified.
SJ: I could equally reply that "You are assuming that the end result was"
*not* "specified"! Origin-of-life specialist Orgel notes:
SJ: "Living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity.
Crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity;
mixtures of random polymers fail to qualify because they lack
specificity." (Orgel L.E., "The Origins of Life", 1973, p189, in
Thaxton C.B., Bradley W.L. & Olsen R.L., "The Mystery of Life's
Origin", 1992, p130).
And ? How does Orgel define specified complexity ?
SJ: Even Dawkins admits that living things have a "quality that is
specified in advance":
To what extent ?
SJ :In the case of living things, the quality that is specified in advance
is,
in some sense 'proficiency'; either proficiency in a particular
ability such as flying, as an aero-engineer might admire it; or
proficiency in something more general, such as the ability to stave
off death, or the ability to propagate genes in reproduction."
(Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker", Penguin: London, 1991, p9)
The only specification is one which can be determined only after the fact.
>SJ>specified but simple (snowflakes and crystals). A crystal fails
>to qualify as living because it lacks
PM>Specified ? How do you define specified? There is no designer
>here and no inherent specification in crystaline structure.
SJ: Your further comments below show that you *know* what "specified"
means.
I am confused about the use of specified. It appears to be implying a
purpose or something which was decided in advance.
PM>Just adherence to some basic physical laws.
SJ: No. The genetic code is *not* the consequence of "physical laws" any
more than ink writing on paper is a "consequence of `physical laws'".
Physical laws of ink on paper just create blobs:
Huh ? So an ink blob is not a consequence of physical laws ? But if the
ink blob were allowed to mutate under selective pressure it would be a
better comparison.
The appearance of 'design' need not point to one.
>SJ>The sequence of nucleotides in DNA or of amino acids in a
>protein is not a repetitive order like a crystal. Instead it is
>like the letters in a written message."
PM>Unfounded similarity implying design and actual intelligent
>design.
Why? Because a written message implies a designer, the sequence in
nucleotides does not.
PM>It is not used to prove a scientific theory but disprove the
>argument from design. The error of a dichotomy between
>evolution/abiogenesis and intelligent design is a common one but
>needless.
SJ: If the "dichotomy between evolution/abiogenesis and intelligent
design" is an "error', why then are you trying to "disprove the
argument from design"?
I am trying to show that the argument from design is not a scientific
argument.
>SJ>From "evolution's perspective" *no* "`design' makes" *any* "sense".
>That's why you have to put single quotes around it. But from a
>*mediate creation* "perspective the design" (no single quotations
>marks needed), indeed "makes perfect sense".
PM>Proof by assertion and word play without relevance.
SJ: No. It is a logical consequence of "evolution" claiming there
really is no Designer and "creation" claiming there really is.
Evolution does not make a claim about a designer one way or another. It is
creationism who tries to move their beliefs into a scientific realm
without providing for a scientific argument.
PM>You claim design where there need not be any. The poverty of the
>argument lies in the subjective assumption that complexity as
>observed in living organisms requires an intelligent designer.
SJ: It is not just a "subjective assumption". Naturalism has simply not
demonstrated its thesis that "living organisms" do not "require an
intelligent designer". Even non-theists like Hoyle and
Wickramasinghe admit this:
Steve, the assumption is very subjective, even the use of non-theists do
not support your view that the appearance of design versus actual design
is a subjective interpretation. Theists believe that what they see is
evidence for their assumption that a deity exists. Naturalism can never
demonstrate that living organisms require an intelligent designer since
such is beyond the realm of real science.