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?

Nyril · Post by **Nyril** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 5:24 am

However, if something could have been designed without a designer, you cannot then claim that the potential for it have being designed counts as evidence.

For instance, if my bookshelf collapses and by some strange twist of chance the debris forms the letter T, well, a designer is not required. With all measures of certainty a designer could of done it, but if chance is sufficent, it doesn't support the idea of a designer.

Simply find things simply could not have occured through chance, and that may be sufficent to allow for a designer.

Simon · Post by **Simon** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 5:28 am

bernee51 wrote:
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.

No, you're dead wrong. Suppose that there is no evidence (other than the apparently designed thing(s) in question) for a designer; it doesn't follow from that that a designer does not exist. This is an argument from ignorance, and it's fallacious.

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 5:36 am

Simon wrote:[]No, you're dead wrong.

So you say.

Simon wrote: Suppose that there is no evidence (other than the apparently designed thing(s) in question) for a designer; it doesn't follow from that that a designer does not exist.

As there is no other evidence to support the existence of a designer I will run with Occam's Razor. There is no designer.

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

Maybe he had heard of Occam as well.

Nyril · Post by **Nyril** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 5:37 am

No, you're dead wrong. Suppose that there is no evidence (other than the apparently designed thing(s) in question) for a designer; it doesn't follow from that that a designer does not exist.

Correct, but it is not evidence for one either. Which is the main point of this discussion.

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

The crystalline glaze on the moon not only fills in the holes, it also forms perfect mountains atop it! Er, sorry, off a by a bit.

You said it best:

This is an argument from ignorance, and it's fallacious.

We need evidence for design, not simply a lack of evidence against it.

Simon · Post by **Simon** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 5:39 am

The argument to ignorance is a logical fallacy of irrelevance occurring when one claims that something is true only because it hasn't been proved false, or that something is false only because it has not been proved true. A claim's truth or falsity depends upon supporting or refuting evidence to the claim, not the lack of support for a contrary or contradictory claim. (Contrary claims can't both be true but both can be false, unlike contradictory claims. "Jones was in Chicago at the time of the robbery" and "Jones was in Miami at the time of the robbery" are contrary claims--assuming there is no equivocation with 'Jones' or 'robbery'. "Jones was in Chicago at the time of the robbery" and "Jones was not in Chicago at the time of the robbery" are contradictory. A claim is proved true if its contradictory is proved false, and vice-versa.)

The fact that it cannot be proved that the universe is not designed by an Intelligent Creator does not prove that it is. Nor does the fact that it cannot be proved that the universe is designed by an Intelligent Creator prove that it isn't.

The argument to ignorance seems to be more seductive when it can play upon wishful thinking. People who want to believe in immortality, for example, may be more prone to think that the lack of proof to the contrary of their desired belief is somehow relevant to supporting it.

- http://skepdic.com/ignorance.html

You're guilty of the above fallacy, bern.

So.. How does Dawkins know that living things only appear to be designed but are not actually designed? That's the main point of discussion here .. How is it that living things only appear to be designed? I get to decide that, because I started the thread. Start your own thread. (Get your own Passat).

Nyril · Post by **Nyril** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 5:53 am

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

How does Galileo know that the moon is imperfect, and that there is not a crystalline glaze that fills in the imperfections thus making it a perfect sphere?

Basically, we need evidence for it, not a lack of evidence against it.

Simon · Post by **Simon** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 6:03 am

You agree that there is an appearance of design. And you agree that a lack of evidence (outside of the apparence of design) for a designer is a fallacious argument from ignorance and therefore, irrelevant as to whether or not a designer exists.

Yet, you cannot offer a reason as to why things appear to be designed.

jwu · Post by **jwu** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 6:10 am

As you have admited, intelligent design is scientifically detectable in many areas of science. For instance: archeology, forensics, and cryptography.

Could you explain where exactly i have admitted this?

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.)

It does help my case, because a possible falsification is an essential part of any scientific theory. The identity of the designer is unspecified, no falsification possible there.
That leaves us with the supposedly designed objects.

Providing possible ways to falsify it is the burden of the one who proposes a theory, so it's my right to put that question back to you. How can we know beyond doubt that something which we did not observe forming has not been designed (regardless if it looks that way or not)? I can't answer that question. If you (or IDists in general) can't either, then ID lacks falsifiability, and therefore lacks an essential part of a scientific theory.

jwu

bernee51 · Post by **bernee51** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 7:21 am

Simon wrote:
You're guilty of the above fallacy, bern.

I do not know how to thank you enuf for pointing this out to me - you have my gratitude.

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

I am not Brother Dawkin's keeper therefore I suggest you ask him.

Simon wrote: How is it that living things only appear to be designed?

Because that is they way they are...as to why that is the case, I am very happy with "I don't know" .

Why do YOU think they appear that way?

Simon wrote: I get to decide that, because I started the thread. Start your own thread. (Get your own Passat).

This I will leave alone...

bernee51 · Post by **bernee51** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 7:23 am

Simon wrote:You agree that there is an appearance of design. And you agree that a lack of evidence (outside of the apparence of design) for a designer is a fallacious argument from ignorance and therefore, irrelevant as to whether or not a designer exists.

Yet, you cannot offer a reason as to why things appear to be designed.

I have offered a reason 'why'...because that is the way they are.

HOW they came to be that way is a different question.? Do you have an answer?