jillery wrote:
On Sat, 9 Mar 2024 12:27:49 -0500, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Sat, 09 Mar 2024 11:12:52 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
>
On Fri, 08 Mar 2024 17:44:11 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> writes:
>
On Fri, 08 Mar 2024 17:09:46 +0000, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>:
>
Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> writes:
>
On 3/3/24 5:03 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
dgb (David) wrote:
On 3 Mar 2024 at 19:39:32 GMT, "Ron Dean"
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>
dgb (David) wrote:
On 2 Mar 2024 at 15:15:57 GMT, "John Harshman"
<john.harshman@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
On 3/2/24 12:50 AM, dgb (David) wrote:
>
[snipped]
>
Perhaps you could post this in some other, more appropriate
newsgroup instead of one dedicated to arguing about
creationism.
>
I believe in God :-D
>
It's a common claim among people who accept evolution as a
reality that conflicting scientific evidence does not
exist. But how does he or she know? When confronted, the first
time, with an opinion; a belief; a hypothesis or a theory, I
think most people initially are inclined to "like or a dislike"
the discovery. If a person dislikes the opinion or theory it's
very often ignored, dismissed and forgotten.
>
By contrast, if a theory is appreciated or liked or seen as in
a favorable light, then the tendency is to search for positive,
supportive evidence. If in this search one happens to discover
evidence contrary or contradictory to the theory, then the
propensity is to ignore the evidence, explain the contrary
evidence away, or go searching for some means to fit the
contradictory evidence into the theory or finally to label the
contradictory evidence religious data or religiously motivated.
>
I suspect that religious antagonism or resentment is one of the
main driving force enabling evolution to become an overwhelming
paradigm in the minds of some people. Again with this approach
it's possible to "prove" anything the heart desires to be real
or true. In this sense evolution becomes an essential part of
one's reality and one's identity.
>
And where there is an absence of expected or required evidence,
there is the trust that the evidence exist, but just not yet
found. The final conclusion becomes central to the paradigm,
which takes precedence, supremacy and priority over everything
including opinion, observation, evidence and facts. With this
endeavor it follows that there can be no contradictory or
contrary evidence against evolution. In this evolution
demonstrates the characteristics of religion. In the US there
is the missionary zeal to educate, IE push evolution as good
news (gospel) especially in the American education system. This
one sided approach is strongly demanded and any opposing data
or information is met with harsh condemnation and even to legal
renderings by judicial commitments.
>
Science is supposed t be impersonal, unemotional and impervious
to criticism, but because of a personal identity with
evolution, to attack evolution is seen as a personal attack,
rendering a wrath of embittered, spiteful and rhetorical verbal
assaults.
>
Interesting thoughts, Ron.
>
Thank you for posting.
>
Evidence for design in nature is overwhelming. If it looks to be
designed then it is designed. But if you trust evolutionist, what
appears to be design is just an illusion, a chimera or a mirage,
if so then it's a deliberate and willful deception by
God. . David
>
What Ron neglects in his analysis is, first, that evolution is a
designer
>
It isn't.
>
Designer: "a person who plans the look or workings of something
prior to it being made, by preparing drawings or plans"
>
I assume it's "person" that's throwing you.
>
No it isn't, and I am not "thrown". The problem is the "look at the
workings prior to being made". It is foresight and planning. It's not
what evolution does.
>
Arguing from definitions rather than from functions isn't especially
persuasive. Functionally, evolution certainly *is* a designer, since
it performs the functions of a designer -
>
No it doesn't. It doesn't make any plans for example. It doesn't have
any designs.
>
>
trial, error, progress.
>
Designers don't operate by trial and error alone.
>
>
Your uncited definition is a broadly useful wrt to how most people use
the word. However, it doesn't cover all the possibilities.
>
Metaphorically, "designer" can be anything which creates designs, and
designs can be any pattern which performs a function, and function can
be anything which can be imagined patterns perform. Patterns exist
everywhere, from stars in the sky to cloud formations to rain drops on
a window, and most of them were create without benefit of intelligence
or purpose or plan.
>
It's the nature of the human mind to presume purpose where none
exists. That's what Dawkins means when he speaks of the illusion of
design.
>
Metaphorical design is not design any more than a shit storm is a storm
of shit.
>
He said it is an illusion of design because it is not design.
>
>
More accurately, he said it is an illusion because it *appears*
designed. His point and mine is that appearances are deceiving.
>
Observation is a cornerstone of science. Generally considered the first
principle of the scientific method.
>
The blind watch maker didn't have any designs, not even in Braille.
>
I think using the word 'design' in a metophorical sense in a discussion
about evolution is going to cause no end of problems.
>
>
These problems are the basis of ID, and so already exist. There's no
"going to" about it.
>
This is true! But since the observation of design aligns with the first
principle of the scientific method, then it follows that ID is
scientific. By contrast evolution pretends that observation is false,
misleading and deceptive.
Your comment above uses a nonsense understanding of "observation". The
design to which Dawkins refers is of pattern, a noun, not of
purposeful design, a verb.
You are "interpreting" what Dawkins said. His actual words were:
“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1}
Another comment:
“Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the illusion of design and planning.” {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 21.}
>
So, how does he know that what is observed here is not the actual case? If it has the overwhelming capacity to impress us with the illusion of design and planning. If this is not the case, then the designer purposefully, willfully and deliberately deceived us. It's my contention that Dawkins or anyone can know for certain. In reality, this is a psychological position and a philosophy, and since
atheism is his supreme paradigm, he has no option. His paradigm takes priority and overwhelms
everything, including observation, evidence and facts.
>
When you, Ron Dean, say " If it looks to
be designed then it is designed.", you have jumped to a conclusion.
>
No, but I admit I went too far out on a limb. I know there are things that give a false impression. Stars appear to be tiny dots of light on a black background, the earth appears to be stationary, with the sun traveling around it. And there are others. Mountains in the distance appear to be small. But there absolutely must be examination and testing. You can travel to the mountain and determine its not tiny. There are ways to determine star distances and sizes. The earth movements, can be understood relative to the changing patterns of stars.
But how can you determine that life was not designed? If the present is key to the past, we know from Pasteur's experiment and from present experience life comes _only_ from preexisting life and from the _key_this must have been true in the past "And God breathed the breath of life into nan and man became a living soul". So, far there's no better explanation! So, how do we know that the record of complex creatures first appearing during the Cambrian were not just placed there?
The origin of complex information contained in DNA. In every case in the present all complex information is derived from intelligence - that is a mind: there is no exceptions today and so it must have been so in the past - 3.8 - 4 billion years ago according to the present day observations.
Not that evolution cannot theorize explanation for what is observed. However, I see evolution as a deliberately conceived alternative to intelligent design.
I believe there are many cases where evolution and design can be seen as the explanation, but there are examples where, except for biases, deliberately engineered design seems to be the _better_ explanation. This is in reference to the _master_control_genes_ called the "homobox genes".
The eye is one that's readily comes to mind, but is just one of many homeboy genes. It is often stated that the eye evolved independently over a period of millions of years at least 39 times. However,
it's know that many of these trilobites had highly developed eyes when they first appeared in the fossil record over 520 million years ago.
>
https://www.amnh.org/research/paleontology/collections/fossil-invertebrate-collection/trilobite-website/the-trilobite-files/trilobite-eyes >
https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/08/429-million-year-old-trilobite-already-had-modern-like-compound-eyes/ So, evolution of a highly developed eye already existed during the Cambrian which contradicts the long standing doctrine regarding the long term multiple and independent gradual development or the origin of eyes; that is except for a theoretical rendition of an evolutionary process leading to highly developed eyes before or during the early Cambrian for which evidence is scant if at all.
Another important characteristic of homeobox genes is they are extremely ancient, these master control genes are universal and they are fixed or stable virtually unchanged from the beginning.
Evidence of this is an experment where eye gene called Pax6 gene was taken from a mammal a mouse and placed in the fruit fly and the mouse master control genes controlled the downstream specific eye genes of the fly to produce fly eyes. IOW the Mouse gene controlled the development of
the fly eye in the fruit fly.
>
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_04.html >
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/04/4/text_pop/l_044_01.html >
"....unusually high degree of homology between Drosophila ey(e) and both the mouse and human PAX6 genes...."
>
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5746045/This is an outstanding example of a highly developmental form of a proficient and an excellent engineering practice. Of course the same Pax6 gene is involved in human eyes.
Your "observation" aka conclusion is no more valid than if I said that
by observing the constellation Taurus, I saw an actual bull in night
sky. Even electrical engineers should be able to understand the
difference.
That's a stupid example! I gave you more credit that - Jill!
But you are right in one respect, as I discussed above. design can be deceptive, but _if_ you cannot prove that it's false or an illusion, then there is _no_ reason and no justification for ruling out design. However, for some people there is a _purpose_ for doing just that. IE for philosophical reasons there is the need for the elimination or removal of design from the picture of life.
Even science has later in its development has assumed this philosophy - which was a foreign notion to the founders of modern science.
>
Here I have provided a small number of reason I take and defend my position as to origins. Of course it's your right to reject any or all of my reasons, I think as I do and no hard feelings. Whether or not we agree, I do have an appreciation and a respect for you.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
Re: CONTRARY EVIDENCE (WASRe: Evide)nce!
Re: CONTRARY EVIDENCE (WASRe: Evide)nce!