Question 2: Natural Selection

Simon · Post by **Simon** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 4:23 pm

According to Richard Dawkins, the "evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design." Yet he also states, "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." How does Dawkins know that living things only appear to be designed but are not actually designed?

jwu · Post by **jwu** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 5:02 pm

What would you suggest how one could find out if something only appears to be designed, but isn't?

jwu

Jose · Post by **Jose** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 5:49 pm

jwu wrote:What would you suggest how one could find out if something only appears to be designed, but isn't?

This is a very good question. Many things have the appearance of having been designed. Some actually have been designed, which we can verify by knowing the designer and/or the methods used. If the proposed designer is not known to exist, it's hard to distinguish appearance from reality. Gosh, jwu, this is a toughie. How would anyone find out if something only appears to be designed? Is it any easier than finding out if something actually was designed? I think you have to be able to do both.

But what does this have to do with natural selection? Is there a debate question that addresses the thread name more directly?

jwu · Post by **jwu** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 6:18 pm

That's my point - it works only if we know the designer (or lack thereof).

If we can infer from the supposedly designed object itself that it only appears to be designed and in reality isn't, then it didn't really look designed in first instance.

You can demonstrate that it *could* only appear to be designed, but you can't *prove* that it only appears to be designed unless you can completely reconstruct its precise formation.

Since this is beyond the capabilities of science without a time machine, ID currently is unfalsifiable in this regard.

jwu

Simon · Post by **Simon** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 8:06 pm

As you have admited, intelligent design is scientifically detectable in many areas of science. For instance: archeology, forensics, and cryptography. Some evolutionists even admit that nonhuman intelligence could be scientifically detectable, as with SETI.

The debate is whether or not Natural Selction is responsible for the appearance of design in biological systems, and the question to get it off the ground is .. how does Dawkins know that living things only appear to be designed but are not actually designed??? (Simply putting the question back to me doesn't help your case.)

bernee51 · Post by **bernee51** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 4:28 am

Simon wrote:According to Richard Dawkins, the "evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design." Yet he also states, "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." How does Dawkins know that living things only appear to be designed but are not actually designed?

For something to be designed there has to be a designer - agreed?

There is no evidence independent of the supposed designed article to support the existence of a designer.

Quite simple really.

Simon · Post by **Simon** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 4:31 am

Even if you believe that, it's just a dodge of the question. It doesn't follow from there not being evidence of a designer that you cannot tell if something is designed or not. So.. How does Dawkins know that living things only appear to be designed but are not actually designed?

bernee51 · Post by **bernee51** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 4:39 am

Simon wrote:.. How does Dawkins know that living things only appear to be designed but are not actually designed?

Sheesh...because there is NO EVIDENCE of a designer.

ergo if there is no evidence it is reasonable to assume until such evidence exists that there is no designer.

ergo that which appears to be designed is in fact not.

Simon · Post by **Simon** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 4:57 am

It doesn't follow from there not being other evidence of a designer that you cannot tell if something is designed or not.

bernee51 · Post by **bernee51** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 5:23 am

Simon wrote:It doesn't follow from there not being other evidence of a designer that you cannot tell if something is designed or not.

Of course it does.

If there is no evidence of a designer then there is no design - regardless of the appearance of the 'something'.

You are speaking as if you believe a designer to be the default position when that is clearly an erroneous belief.

Debating Christianity and Religion

Question 2: Natural Selection

Question 2: Natural Selection

Re: Question 2: Natural Selection

Shheesh