Re: 3 Notorious Evo Strawmen


>
> Interesting thing Ray, humans cannot design and manufacture as complex
> creations as can nature.

Do you realize that you just assigned nature sentience ?

You have replaced God with Nature; this is a recognition that
intelligence is responsible for the complexity of nature. We know
complexity is the m.o. of bright persons/God.


> The IDists are basing their concept of
> intelligent design on known human design methods that result in much
> simpler creations than that of nature.

Yes, it becomes a contrast to appreciate the brilliance of the IDer - a
gauge.

> They make the assumption that an
> intelligent designer would design as we do, except of course to a
> greater, and in their mind, more complex degree; yet the design they see
> in nature only superficially resembles human design. From that
> superficial similarity they jump to the conlusion that nature is the
> result of human-like intelligence.
>

Perfectly logical.


> There is another possibility that IDists refuse to entertain because it
> does not mesh with their desire to see God in places where science tends
> to show otherwise. That other possiblity is that human design takes much
> of its inspiration from nature. Couple that with the trial and error
> methods that *both* nature and human designers use and you'll see that
> IDists have it essentially backwards.
>

Your judgements do not make sense. How is it that we have it backwards
? Because you are a Darwinist, I would say the backwards claim is a
very good indication we have it right.


> What is born out in computer simulations of this trial and error method
> is that the mechanisms utilized by a fully natural evolution results in
> designs that increase in complexity, retain non-functional features,
> even contain nonsensical (to our mind) features that function in
> mysterious ways.

Utter nonsense. These CS are programmed by Darwinists.

You are asserting a blind directionless process is responsible for the
precision and complexity of nature. This is a recognition of products
produced by design capriciously assigned to your idiotic theory =
plagiarism.

All you guys do is assert evolution-did-it. The definition of evolution
precludes it from having anything to do with what we see in nature.
This is why Dawkins wrote a book (Blind Watchmaker) which recognizes
the obviousness of design arbitrarily assigned to chance/evolution.
Senselessness hoping educational credentials prevent anyone from
pointing out that the Emperor has no clothes or logic. Watchmakers
cannot be blind no matter how much you assert contrary to logic. This
is called removing your brain before one enters the First Church of
Crackpot Scientist, Rev. Richard Dawkins, senior Pastor.


> When these designs are compared with human design and
> then with nature's design, the similarities to nature is much much
> closer than any similarities to human design.
>
> Many IDists draw parallels between the cumultive improvement in design
> we see humans produce over time with the apparent design improvements in
> nature. What they don't either consider, or admit - take your choice - ,
> is that human designers strive for simplicity and modularization in
> their designs, generally attempting to eliminate waste in material and
> interactions.

Yes, of course, whats the point ?


> This is not true of what we observe in nature. There is
> modularization in nature, but for obviously different reasons. Each
> module in human design is there to *simplify* the design, manufacture,
> and maintenance process. Each module in nature is due to modification,
> or duplication and modification of existing modules. Human modules have
> no wasted energy, no retained parts that were at one time functional but
> totally useless in the current design. Nature on the other hand results
> in increasingly complex modules that many times include non-functional
> components.
>
> This increased natural complexity is one reason IDists can't agree on a
> definition of 'information'. They need a definition of information that
> will guarantee a direct relation between information content and
> complexity yet allow them to arbitrarily control the evident information
> content.
>
> However the ID proposed putative link between information and the
> ability of nature to produce what is called a 'novel' feature is
> tenuous. If we consider the information content of a gene duplication we
> see that the second *new* gene does not count as more information (there
> is no 'surprise' value in Shannon, nor will it take a longer algorithm
> to produce the second gene in C-K information), so of course complexity
> has not increased. Yet in an hypothetical case of a 4 winged insect,
> duplication of the gene that determines the growth of wings, we would
> end up with a 6 winged insect. If that gene then suffers a mutation that
> fixes the wing so it is unable to beat, the insect has gained a novel
> feature and function (effortless gliding ability). This new gene can
> undergo cumulative mutations just as any gene or group of genes can
> experience, resulting in a completely new function for the feature.
>
> Nature can and does produce designs every bit as complex as an
> intelligent designer.

You have to admit that. The only issue is the source. Chance and NS
(euphemism) cannot produce what we have.

The brighter the P/person = the increased capacity to comprehend and
produce intricate functional complexity. The level of complexity seen
in nature self-evidently gives visibility to an invisible Designer. It
takes intelligence to figure nature out; the same to report the
findings, yet it took none to produce it = senseless predictable
atheistic philosophical conclusion. The inability to figure out nature
and/or its ability to keep our bests minds in pursuit of its secrets =
the work of an IDer.

We know the size and capacity of a computer chip.

We know the size and capacity of a human cell.

The differential of information stored, in comparison to its size, is
in direct ratio to the brilliance of its D/designer = how complexity is
measured.

> The ID contention of the unlikelyhood of nature
> producing complexity to the same degree as an intelligent designer may
> be correct, but it is correct in the wong direction. An intelligent
> designer is *less* likely to produce highly complex structures than
> natural processes unless that designer is God (which removes
> testability), and we both know that ID is not about religion don't we.
>

Atheist conclusion spoils the preceding logic. I don't know any person
who thinks God is not testable.



> --
> Gary Bohn
>
> Science rationally modifies a theory to fit evidence, creationism
> emotionally modifies evidence to fit a specific interpretation of the
> bible.


Could one expect an atheist to have any other opinion ?

Nonetheless, I enjoyed your message.

Ray Martinez

.

Relevant Pages