274 thoughts on “The true origin of eyes according to intelligent design”

  1. phoodoo: It still doesn’t explain why you are calling a snowflake designed, I am afraid.

    I have no hopes, but let’s give it a brief shot.

    You are saying that I claim that “you can have a plan, and the fruition of that plan, without a designer of that plan” whereas actually I claimed that a plan implies no necessary planner or designer. This simply means that it’s possible to talk about the plan in multiple senses and a given sense can be talked about without any reference to the planner or designer. For example, we can say that a given work of art is POS without necessarily implying that the artist is POS. The artist may very well also be POS, but that would require a separate claim. There may be reasons independent of the artist why the work of art looks POS.

    In contrast, a necessary implication, as shown in the examples at Wikipedia, means that when you talk about bachelors, you are necessarily talking about unmarried males.

    So, when I said that a plan implies no necessary planner, my claim was very modest. I didn’t say that there’s no planner at all. It’s just that plans have multiple causes, so the link to the planner is indirect, not direct. And the nature of the link is such that it cannot be quantified.

    Anyway, you are the sort of dude who says that snowflakes have no design. In what sense? No structure? No regular shape? Because this is what I mean when I say design: Structure, shape. You?

  2. Erik:

    Anyway, you are the sort of dude who says that snowflakes have no design.In what sense? No structure? No regular shape? Because this is what I mean when I say design: Structure, shape. You?

    Our communication is hampered by ambiguities in our language.

  3. Mung:
    Looks like I didn’t just touchnerve, looks like I severed one. An optic nerve, at that.

    Help, my name is newton and I can’t see!

    That reminds me, why are some people designed to be blind?

  5. Erik: Because this is what I mean when I say design: Structure, shape. You?

    All material things have structure and shape therefore all material things are a design. And this is a necessary thing. Or a tautological thing. Since by design you mean structure, shape.

    But not all material things have a designer. Or structurer. Or shaper. They are not shaped, or structured, or designed. They just be.

  8. newton,

    That reminds me, why are some people designed to be blind?

    Perhaps the Designer wants people like Mung, phoodoo and colewd to look stupid for believing in a loving God.

  9. keiths:
    newton,

    Perhaps the Designer wants people like Mung, phoodoo and colewd to look stupid for believing in a loving God.

    Unlikely

  10. Mung: So that they cannot see. Duh.

    But to be clear,they are blind by design not because there such things as accidents ,unexpected results in the design paradigm?

  12. Glen,

    That’s not really necessary for them to look stupid.

    True. But cancer isn’t necessary either, and that doesn’t stop the designer.

  15. Erik: You are saying that I claim that “you can have a plan, and the fruition of that plan, without a designer of that plan” whereas actually I claimed that a plan implies no necessary planner or designer. This simply means that it’s possible to talk about the plan in multiple senses and a given sense can be talked about without any reference to the planner or designer.

    But this is totally irrelevant Erik. Yes, you can talk about the plan, without talking about who made the plan. I think IDists have been very clear about this. But that it totally separate from making a distinction about whether or not it was planned. We have subjects and objects and nouns and verbs, all of which can be talked about, but all of which are connected.

    But to clear things up, to MAKE SURE that what you were saying was that you can have a plan, and a plan comes to fruition without a planner, I asked you to explain. I spelled it all out Erik. And you didn’t say, “No, no, I didn’t mean you can’t have a plan, and an execution of that plan without an intelligent planner, what I meant was we can talk about the plan without discussing the planner.” This IS NOT WHAT YOU REPLIED, which you could have of course.

    Instead, you simply claimed a snowflake was one example of a plan, coming to fruition, without a planner. Since I asked you for examples, you gave this example! You can’t revise the history of that statement now Erik, by linking to a Wikipedia page, hoping to confuse your meaning. It was clear, and if it wasn’t, my question to you certainly was clear. A snowflake, according to you, is a design, and design which has come to fruition in the form of a physical object, without any such designer.

    You try to play word games often Erik. I think it is a hobby of yours; try to say things in such a way, so that you can claim it is more profound, more precise, when in fact it is less. But now you have been called out, and now it just seems you are trying to play more words games and hope no one notices. But Mung just did. And I did too. Physical things have structure and shape. Cool. Do undesigned things have structure and shape, or only designed things?

    If you are claiming a snowflake is definitely designed, then you either mean all physical things are designed (I can buy that), or you mean things can be designed, without someone designing them-nonsense. Things may look pretty, without someone making them pretty, but a design, a plan, a fruition of that plan, ALL require intelligence. Its necessary! Your word games can’t break through that wall Erik.

    And finally, to further emphasize that you prefer trying out your word play, as opposed to really meaning what you are saying, I referenced you BACK to your claiming that there can be a plan with no planner, a designer with no designer, and you THEN tried to say you made no such claim-and yet, YOU STILL used a snowflake as an example to my question of a plan, a design, come to fruition, without a designer. You whined, and said, prove I said it , prove I said it, and then I did. And you still whine.

    So if you have no hope of me understanding you, the problem seems like it could be you Erik.

  16. phoodoo: But to clear things up, to MAKE SURE that what you were saying was that you can have a plan, and a plan comes to fruition without a planner, I asked you to explain. I spelled it all out Erik. And you didn’t say, “No, no, I didn’t mean you can’t have a plan, and an execution of that plan without an intelligent planner, what I meant was we can talk about the plan without discussing the planner.” This IS NOT WHAT YOU REPLIED, which you could have of course.

    It’s because this was not the topic back then. Back then, we were already stuck at the fact that you didn’t acknowledge anything like design in snowflakes, and here you are not helping this issue to move along not one bit.

    phoodoo: Instead, you simply claimed a snowflake was one example of a plan, coming to fruition, without a planner. Since I asked you for examples, you gave this example! You can’t revise the history of that statement now Erik, by linking to a Wikipedia page, hoping to confuse your meaning. It was clear, and if it wasn’t, my question to you certainly was clear. A snowflake, according to you, is a design, and design which has come to fruition in the form of a physical object, without any such designer.

    Yes, I am very clear about the design(edness) of snowflakes. But you insist on talking about their designer. Okay. Who is the designer? What’s the designer’s relationship to snowflakes? You will of course never answer. No ID-ist ever has.

    There are two kinds of design. Scholastic philosophers acknowledge this and even Darwin(ists) acknowledge this. But you somehow don’t. One design is artificial, the other is natural. Darwin’s idea of “natural selection” is, on one level, contrasted with artificial selection, such as in breeding home-grown animals and crossing plants. “Natural selection” is supposed to work analogously with artificial selection, except that there’s no (human) selector, so what gets selected is what n/Nature favors.

    Artists and craftsmen design all sorts of things, imagination is the limit. The result is a work of art or work of craft. In true handwork, each object is unique, but none is alive. Not so in the design in nature. In nature, there are species that replicate themselves according to laws of nature. That’s natural, quite at odds with artificiality. So what is seen operative in natural design is not the designer, but the laws of nature. Natural sciences study those laws.

    It makes sense to talk about the designer or artist if you are an art critic. When you are a natural scientist, it doesn’t make sense. There’s no necessary or immediate connection to the designer in natural design. There’s no necessary or immediate connection to the designer even in artificial design – the designer may be having a bad day and thus the outcome of the day would not properly represent the designer. If you want to argue that Nature’s designer operates the same way as human designers, go ahead.

  17. Lots of words phoodoo, but not a single one about the true origin of eyes according to intelligent design. So you’ll just have to accept whatever is put your way given your lack of any alternative won’t ya? You and Mung…

  18. Rumraket: That’s just what it means to be blind. The question is why.

    To give full employment to white cane manufacturers and service dog trainers. Duh.

  19. Acartia: To give full employment to white cane manufacturers and service dog trainers. Duh.

    I think that I just out-Munged Mung. How come this doesn’t make me feel proud of myself?

  20. Erik: Yes, I am very clear about the design(edness) of snowflakes.

    You are, why? Because it has structure, and shape?

    So rocks are designed? Even if there is no God?

  21. phoodoo: You are, why?Because it has structure, and shape?

    So rocks are designed? Even if there is no God?

    Ixnay on the odgay, the designer phoodoo

  22. Erik: Back then, we were already stuck at the fact that you didn’t acknowledge anything like design in snowflakes…

    He probably didn’t know that what you meant to convey was that snowflakes have shape, structure. If you had said that, I bet phoodoo would have agreed with you.

    I remember asking specifically what you meant (twice) and getting no response.

  24. Erik, it’s simply not necessary that you go out and try to gather evidence that snowflakes have shape and structure. I think that’s a given.

Leave a Reply