Bio… I don’t think anyone cares to argue that Evolution is NOT the device. It is the process. The DEVICE is genetic molecules that record developmental history.
Bio,
You may be on to something, but there i9s still a big problem when one looks at evolution without considering the impact of ecology. Ecology guides evolution. That is pure and simple. Biosemiosis may be involved, but this is not a physical thing, but an organic thing.
One serious problem which science has is that it wants to treat organic living creatures just like inorganic dead things, when clearly they are not. Organisms like humans follow organic laws, while inorganic things follow natural physical laws.
Roger … If you are going to be particularly harsh with poorly articulated discussions of evolution … then you should live by the same standards.
This sentence is terribly awkward. You are saying that “physical things” cannot be “organic”… and you can’t possibly mean that.
Forgive me if I am not clear. What I am saying is that something that is not living is different from that which is. Yes, both are affected by gravity, but the living creature can fight against gravity or use gravity.
Evolution which is an organic process is not mechanistic as is gravity. That is the reason that evolution is not determinant is the same way that gravity is. It is the reason why Gould was right when he said that is we rewound the tape and did it all over again, the result would be different.
I was reacting against he use of the phrase “inexorable laws of nature” which do not apply to organic processes. Scientists try to make organic nature mechanistic, which it is not. Darwin himself tried to compare his law to Newton’s.
Roger, I would say the “inexorable laws of nature” apply even more to the organic process of making of yogurt, or the making of vodka, than, say, the behavior of electrons or neutrinos (though some would argue they are equally applicable).
If you want to make a case for animal VOLITION being outside the realm of laws of nature … there may well be people who agree with you on that.
George we are talking about evolution which means about living plants and animals, not about food. However they say cooking more of an art than a science. Certainly not all apples or sides of beef or grapes are the same like gold is.
While animals do not have volition, they have the ability to adapt and “learn.” They are not stuck in doing the same thing in the same way all the time as do metals.
Yes. And very usefully, we’ve had an IDer in here acknowledging that he cannot tell if these structures were intelligently designed or not, and acknowledging that there is still no robust model of ID. In contrast, a scientist could tell just from the photos.
1 Like
That is exactly correct. And that’s why this thread is relevant. This thread shows us that natural processes resulting from natural laws, can form structures which look incredibly like structures resulting from intelligent design, specifically structures made by humans. The same applies to evolution; it can form biological organisms which look incredibly like they’ve been specifically designed by an intelligence.
I mean that we must find evidence that it is not the product of a natural process unguided by an intelligence.
A “god of the gaps” mentality says that what we can’t explain by nature must be explicable by God. What I am doing is the opposite.
As a generalization I think it’s fairly solid. I’m not even a scientist, and I was able to tell that none of these were the product of intelligent design, just from the photos.
Please leave the personal attacks out of this.
This is not bait. It’s an opportunity for people to demonstrate a robust model of ID. Eddie has already acknowledged there isn’t one, and that he would need more information before being able to make a judgment.
Please address what I actually write, as opposed to what you think I mean. As for “the difference between physical and biological reality”, I would like to remind you that biological reality is actually physical reality.
Agreed.
No I didn’t. I pointed out that precisely because nature can produce artefacts which look very much like the product of intelligent design, we need a robust method of detecting intelligent design. You helpfully acknowledged such a method does not yet exist. The ID movement will have a scientific basis when such a method exists.
When you accuse me of being given to incautious overstatement, that’s precisely what you’re doing. It’s just empty rhetoric, a debating tactic to try and discredit the opponent. Stick to the facts please.
More rhetoric. I have never implied you are insincere or that you are a closet creationist. On the contrary, you’ve been open about the fact that you’re a creationist. You just don’t like being called one.
how do you know thta a watch was designed? and what in a case with a self replicating watch with dna?
ID proponents don’t infer design because something “looks” designed. Your OP is a strawman.
This seems to mean “according to my personal definition”. If you believe that God created humans in His image (as I do), then you’re a creationist, just as I am.
You mean “ID proponents don’t infer design just because something “looks” designed, but they certainly infer design when something has the appearance of design, especially when it appears significantly analogous to human constructions”.
You mean "ID proponents don’t infer design just because something “looks” designed, but they certainly infer design when something has the appearance of design
This sentence contradicts itself.
If I think something “looks” designed, but I infer that it was designed because it meets empirical criteria A, B and C, then I did not infer it was designed based on the way it “looks”. This should be obvious.
No it doesn’t. I’m using the word “looks” to refer to what is simply seen visually by the eye, but the word “appearance” to describe features which are detected non-visually. For example, if one of my criteria for ID is “irreducible complexity”, that is a feature which is not detected visually simply by looking at an artefact, it’s detected through a process of deduction based (among other things), on the components of the artefact and the functions they perform.
Thanks, that’s what I have said. Since it meets criteria A, B, and C, it has the appearance of design.
Then I question the intent of an OP that states: “Intelligent Design, You always know it when you see it”