Re: How New a "Science" is Intelligent Design?


Lee Bowman wrote:
On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 04:33:49 GMT, Lee Oswald Ving <leeoving@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

IDadvocacy@xxxxxxxxx (Lee Bowman) wrote in news:4429e0bd.97101885
@news.west.cox.net:

<snip>

I am also skeptical of certain arguments that attempt to bolster the
concept, such as co-opted functions of intermediate steps. The
flagellum shaft maybe ... (Stephen Meyer and many others), but I've
heard no convincing arguments for the eye, for example, and the fact
that it seems to have formed independently, and in some cases nearly
identically, in separate lineages.

I know, "If it happened once, it could happen an infinite number of
times ... ". Frankly, I don't believe it could happen even once!

Do a web search for "Argument from Incredulity," please.

I'm well familiar with the it. Disbelief merely invites "show me". I
realize you can't prove a negative. But if the negative is never
negated, if the hypothesis, predictions and verifications don't
follow, then the negative, while not proven, remains a possibility.
On the other hand, to hypothesize a designer, make predictions and
verify by experiment is impossible, in all likelihood. So we're back
to "show me".

No we are not, because unless you specify limits to the powers of the
designer, there is no possible way of falsifying the assertiopn that
something is "designed". Furthermore, falisfying evolution in small
incremental steps does not support the assertion that something is
"designed".


So rather than "Arguments from 'Credulity' ", which is no better than
"Arguments from Incredulity", we're left with a conundrum. And what
is even more troubling. What if neither is true? Maybe it's beyond
human comprehension.

It may or may not be "beyond human comprehension", but for scientific
research to have any value we must assume that, given time, resources
and imagination, we can figure it out. As an aproach to understanding
the way in which the universe works that has proved to be pretty
effective.

Your aproach - i.e. if we don't understand something
"GodImeananintelligentdesigner did it" has proved to be rather
unproductive in generating understanding.


As an engineer,

You have plentiful company in the anti-evolution camp.

If you were a Biologist, you'd have trouble getting a good poker game up.

How many degreed biologists would you guess have some doubts, but
would never admit to that publicly? .... or be caught dead in the
enemy's camp.

I'd guess that no biologist who is not motivated by religious
conviction does not think that evolutionary theory provides the best
explanation for the diversity of living organisms we find in the
natural world. Of course, many biologists express doubts: that is part
of the scientific process, the questioning of assumptions, and there is
a steady stream of publications in the academic press questioning parts
of evolutionary theory.

My opinion on what the beliefs of biologist is based on talking to many
of them, so I'd venture to suggest that it carries some weight.

What is your's based on?


<snip>
>snip>
<snip>

<snip>.

If you mean our own design efforts compared to biologic systems, yes,
they are quite different. This is due to what we have to work with,
verses what DNA, RNA and ribosomes can produce. Whether guided or
not, and if guided, to what extent, remains unanswered.


Why on earth should an "intelligent designer", who may or may not have
supernatural powers limit himself to such a cranky system?

But viewing its overall complexity, (look at a cross section of the
retina), the blood supply and nerve interfacing, the muscular focusing
apparatus, the iris, the lens, its mounting with lubrication and
eyelid protection, the ability to perceive depth perception due to the
inward angle of the optical axes, and the processing necessary to make
the images comprehensible.

And the fact that the retina is wired backwards and the image projected
upside-down, requiring a much more powerful processing system than it
should.

As far as an inverted image, all single lens systems do that.

Yes, but what digital cameras don't do is wire their image receptors
from the front, which is what the vertebrate eye does.

The
brain, like any computer, is wired to handle it. I don't agree that
the processing is more difficult than it should be.

We're not talking about an inverted image. That's an inevitable outcome
of optics. It's the inverted retina which is hard to explain in design
terms.


Despite what Dawkins and others have said, the inverted retina design
has been carefully analyzed, and the current consensus is not only
that it's OK, but necessary for nutrition, heat dissipation, UV
filtering, and possibly strain relief. The blind spot is of no real
consequence.

If by "current concensus" you are refereing to the article on AIG's web
site, please do some research elsewhere. The article is a load of
illinformed drivel, full of unfounded assertions.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chapter7.asp

Please note: What is written by creationists is not representative of
current concensus in any field of science.


Note also that their arguments in favour of the supposed "good design"
of the vertebrate eye are completely invalidated by the fact that most
vertebrates live in water, and share their environment with cephalopods
whose eyes are wired from the back, as we would expect in a
well-designed system.


And the focusing mechanism is a flexible lens system that hardens
and loses efficiency over time. And that there are several eye "designs",
plus major variations.

Nothing lasts forever. So seniors wear glasses. And eventually, you
die. Were that not the case, where would we put everyone.

Almost as if it was an ad-hoc system that worked by modifying previous
parts.

Almost, but not quite.

Oh? In what respects?

It's easily reconcilable that most of the
designs in life are satisfactory and work well. Finding fault is
easy, but I never anyone come up with improvements, other than vague
ideas, like "the lungs should vent separately, so you can't choke".
That common criticism is specious and refutable, but I won't go into
it here. I'd rather catch some Z's.

So you evade the issue. You just make the statement that it is specious
and refutable, but refuse to support that assertion.

RF


Regards,
Lee

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Stunning ID Breakthrough (Yawn)
    ... eye is complicated therefore designed. ... engineers really understand 'design' therefore are the only people ... Bizarre when you think about it - 'aliens' would be about as ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Some ID person please explain
    ... James' reference to the vertebrate eye being "quite flawed". ... find that arguments for flawed design tend to be based on specious ... Evidence of design. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: I just dont see the evidence for.....ATHEISM !
    ... Here is the specific rebuttal to Dawkins assertion that the Human Eye ... Are evolutionists right when they say our eyes are wired the wrong way? ... No engineer worth his salt would design an eyeball the way ours has been ...
    (uk.philosophy.atheism)
  • Re: The Great Date Debate [Was Re: Layout Hell-o]
    ... You have a design for a system that runs in production, ... Hee hee hee... ... but everything in a car is tangible. ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: Another Scientific White Elephant?
    ... the conceptual design began in the 1950s: ... The X Prize foundation gave a number of people the idea to build spacecraft which might eventually make orbital flight accessible to the general public. ...
    (sci.research.careers)