[note: the author formatted this is a way that did not leave space for a page break. So I am inserting the break at the top — NR]
- Paley’s teleological argument is: just as the function and complexity of a watch implies a watch-maker, so likewise the function and complexity of the universe implies the existence of a universe-maker. Paley also addressed a number of possible counterarguments:
- Objection: We don’t know who the watchmaker is. Paley: Just because we don’t know who the artist might be, it doesn’t follow that we cannot know that there is one.
- Objection: The watch (universe) is not perfect. Paley: Perfection is not required.
- Objection: Some parts of the watch (universe) seem to have no function. Paley: We just don’t know those functions yet.
- Objection: The watch (re universe) is only one possible form of many possible combinations and so is a chance event. Paley: Life is too complex and organized to be a product of chance.
- Objection: There is a law or principle that disposed the watch (re universe) to be in that form. Also, the watch (re the universe) came about as a result of the laws of metallic nature. Paley: The existence of a law presupposes a lawgiver with the power to enforce the law.
- Objection: One knows nothing at all about the matter. Paley: Certainly, by seeing the parts of the watch (re the universe), one can know the design.
- Hume’s arguments against design:
- Objection: “We have no experience of world-making”. Counter-objection: We have no direct experience of many things, yet that never stops us from reasoning our way through problems.
- Objection: “The analogy is not good enough. The universe could be argued to be more analogous to something more organic such as a vegetable. But both watch and vegetable are ridiculous analogies”. Counter-objection: By definition, no analogy is perfect. The analogy needs only be good enough to prove the point. And Paley’s analogy is great for that limited scope. Hume’s followers are free to pursue the vegetable analogy if they think it is good enough. And some [unconvincingly] do imagine the universe as “organic”.
- Objection: “Even if the argument did give evidence for a designer; it’s not the God of traditional Christian theism”. Counter-objection: Once we establish that the universe is designed, only then we can [optionally] discuss other aspects of this finding.
- Objection: “The universe could have been created by random chance but still show evidence of design as the universe is eternal and would have an infinite amount of time to be able to form a universe so complex and ordered as our own”. Counter-objection: Not possible. There is nothing random in the universe that looks indubitably designed. That is why we use non-randomness to search for extraterrestrial life and ancient artefacts.
- Other arguments against design:
- Darwin: “Evolution (natural selection) is a better explanation”. “There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows. Everything in nature is the result of fixed laws.” — The Autobiography of Charles Darwin 1809–1882. Counter-objection: “Natural selection” would be an alternative hypothesis to Paley’s if it worked. But it demonstrably doesn’t, so there is not even a point in comparing the two.
- Dawkins: “Who designed the designer?” Counter-objection: Once we establish that the universe is designed, only then we can [optionally] discuss other aspects of this finding (see counter-objection to Hume).
- Dawkins: “The watch analogy conflates the complexity that arises from living organisms that are able to reproduce themselves with the complexity of inanimate objects, unable to pass on any reproductive changes”. Counter-objection: Paley is aware of the differences between the living and the inert and is not trying to cast life into a watch. Instead he is only demonstrating that they both share the property of being designed. In addition, nothing even “arises”. Instead everything is caused by something else. That’s why we always look for a cause in science.
- Objection: “Watches were not created by single inventors, but by people building up their skills in a cumulative fashion over time, each contributing to a watch-making tradition from which any individual watchmaker draws their designs”. Counter-objection: Once we establish that the universe is designed, only then we can [optionally] discuss other aspects of this finding (see counter-objection to Hume).
- Objection: In Dover case, the judge ruled that such an inductive argument is not accepted as science because it is unfalsifiable. Counter-objection: Both inductive and deductive reasoning are used in science. Paley’s argument is not inductive as he had his hypothesis formulated well before his argumentation. Finally, Paley’s hypothesis can absolutely be falsified if a random draw can be found to look designed. This is exactly what the “infinite monkey” theorem has tried and failed to do (see counter-objection to Hume).
- Objection: Paley confuses descriptive law with prescriptive law (i.e., the fallacy of equivocation). Prescriptive law does imply a lawgiver, and prescriptive laws can be broken (e.g., speed limits, rules of behavior). Descriptive laws do not imply a law-giver, and descriptive laws cannot be broken (one exception disproves the law, e.g., gravity, f = ma.). Counter-objection: Of all the laws with known origin, all (100%) have a lawgiver at the origin. The distinction between descriptive and prescriptive laws is thus arbitrary and unwarranted.
- Objection: It is the nature of mind to see relationship. Where one person sees design, another sees randomness. Counter-objection: This ambiguity is present only for very simple cases. But all humans agree that organisms’ structures are clearly not random.
- Dawkins: “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” Counter-objection: Just a corollary: since organisms indeed appear designed, then they are most likely designed according to Occam’s razor.
- In conclusion, Paley is right and his opponents continue to be wrong with not even a plausible alternative hypothesis.
Links:
It is a case of the whole being more than the sum of its parts.
The “internal intelligence” is a feature of the organism as a whole.
If I decide that I have spent more than enough time here and decide to get on with tidying the house and garden then it is me who has made a conscious decision. I am a whole person, it wasn’t my brain or my heart or my gluteus maximus that made me do it.
But I also act instinctively without necessarily being conscious of it. Breathing is an instinctive behaviour. Think of all the activity at the cellular level that goes into the act of breathing. That is an example of the body’s internal intelligence. The process is not instigated within the nucleus of any cell, it is instigated originally by the birth process.
This is false. Did you understand the paper? Also, if it is the case that the yellow dots represent non-essential genes, what does that say about whether this complexity is required?
Yes it is and no it doesn’t.
Look! Something approaching a valid complaint: the bootstrap problem. When I was a kid, this was a genuine problem for understanding the origins of protein synthesis. No longer, and almost all creationists have stopped citing it.
Since introns can get introduced into previously intronless genes, there is no bootstrap problem, and instead your complaint is yet another example of the “Twas ever thus” fallacy.
Okay, is it fair to say known and proposed interactions.?
No it isn’t. And in what way does it not in some way reveal what has been discovered?
ROFL
Well, your figure does include the Lsm5-Lsm7 interaction (the red line near the bottom of the figure), so it does “in some way” reveal what has been discovered.
But you wrote
which is a steaming pile of crap. You always overstate your case, and it reflects poorly on you.
I wasn’t complaining or arguing about any perceived problems on the origins of splicing. I was pointing out an observation. And that is that there is another level of regulation to think about. The argument that everything is controlled at the level of the DNA might have had some credence when it was believed that one gene produced one protein, but much more has been uncovered since then.
The fact that such a coordinated system as RNA spicing occurs means that any proposed simpler system already had the potential to be altered in a way that this process would be achievable.
That is the beauty of organic molecules. No matter how simple they might have started out, their potential is infinite.
That does not distinguish between the two alternatives.
Let’s stick with the spliceosome. Your argument is hard enough to follow without it sprawling to dozens of examples. How does this internal intelligence organize all the network interactions of the spliceosome if it is not solely guided by their molecular interactions, as you claim? What extra bit is required in the explanation beyond the chemical properties of mere matter (e.g. hydrophobic interactions, hydrogen bonds, van der Waals forces)?
And remember: you don’t like vague generalities without substance.
I am willing to accept that the figure does not in any way give the full story, In fact I’m happy to do so.
So with your knowledge, could you point out further discoveries that are not apparent from the figure? I’m here to learn.
Entropy,
What do you think the odds are of 2 enzymes evolving the same function with very different sequences?
Corneel,
Watch: evidence
Intelligent being: cause
Just because you guys have repeated this “no evidence” canard for the last 4 years does not make it true.
I missed what you are trying to explain.
OMagain,
The Isaiah prophecies have been preserved in the Dead Sea scrolls and carbon dated to before Christs birth. They describe Christs birth ministry and death. How do you explain this? How do you explain the commonality of the Gospels and the Letters? How do explain the Global domination of the Abrahamic religions?
Your alternative is to bury your head in the sand and not examine the evidence here.
Corneel,
I am simply showing you that Paley’s watch which has well matched functional parts is evidence for design.
As is a cell with well matched functional parts. The “no evidence” assertion you guys. have been repeating is nonsense.
Sorry, I still miss what you are trying to explain.
Yes, of course. It is evidence of design of watches.
That’s a huge leap.
I actually do believe that biological organisms are designed — for some meanings of “design”. But the ID people have a very narrow conception of “design”, one that does not fit.
To a first approximation, biological organisms design themselves, and evolution is the design process that they use.
Don’t you think that would depend on the function? I doubt we have the data to calculate odds for any functions. But we see the evidence that it has happened several times. With well inferred paths towards those functions diverging from something else. So, it happens. Therefore the odds must be enough.
Now, Can we even imagine paths towards estimating odds towards functions? We’d have to start somewhere, with something we know. That alone is guaranteed to give us lower odds than there might be. Why? Because we have limited examples of enzyme catalysis compared to whatever is available “out there.” But, even those odds would be within the grasps of the convergent evolution that we have studied. I’d start by taking a look at the known catalytic mechanisms, at the classification of enzymes. Enzyme classification, for example, starts by dividing enzymes according to the type of catalyzed reactions, which are surprisingly few, etc.
I’d take a look at other data to try and make a fairer estimate. For example, there’s results with antibodies, directed evolution, where, even these limited beasts can be evolved to catalyze reactions by mere affinity. These “abzymes” are not as efficient as enzyme counterparts, but they show that just binding to what’s called the “intermediate form” of a reaction works to change the speed of such a reaction (changing the speed of reactions is what catalysts do).
This might not be enough of an answer, for you. However, even though I’m rusted on these themes, having studied them too long ago, this might give you an idea about why I doubt that convergence of function is a problem.
Corneel,
That if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck its probably a duck unless it being a duck contradicts your world view then you can call it a dog and maintain your karma 🙂
Entropy,
It’s a good answer and an honest answer. Thanks.
The challenge is the amount of convergence I see and explaining how replication and variation can account for it. Just trying to estimate the probability of two different sequences that share a common function arriving from this mechanism is a challenge.
The bottom line is the hypothesis of convergent evolution is based on universal common descent as a working hypothesis and that makes the reasoning circular until UCD can be successfully tested.
Neil Rickert,
This is the claim that is a big challenge to defend as most people don’t agree with this now that we have a glimpse into cellular complexity.
Does the text of these scrolls differ in substance from this summary from Wikipedia?
So why aren’t members of the Jewish faith persuaded by that?
What is in theses texts that makes you sure that Jesus is being referred to. (I’m looking at the Wikipedia quotes).
There was quite a bit of copying.
Constantine!
No problem.
And selection. Also, things get surprisingly clear with some understanding of biochemistry: catalysis, Kcat, Kd …
UCD is not necessary. Even some limited common descent works, it doesn’t have to be universal. If there was more than one life lineage, then convergent evolution would necessarily be true at a much higher level. Right?
Still, if we just noticed two proteins with no detectable homology performing the same function, the first thing we think is convergent evolution. Nothing wrong with that thought. However, scientists don’t stop there, as I tried to explain before. Did you get that?
Common descent, at many levels, has been successfully tested many times over. UCD might be the most challenging, but even that is supported by a lot of evidence.
I might put it differently but I think you make a fair point, especially the appropriation of the word “design” and the equivocation between noun and verb.
The properties of water is contained in neither hydrogen nor oxygen. If we want to know why water behaves as it does it is no use looking for causes in the elements of which it is composed.
The people who wrote down what Christ’s birth, ministry, and death were like had access to texts similar to the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Dead Sea Scrolls are unique for having been preserved for so long, not because nothing like them existed in antiquity.
Paul’s letters are dated to several years before the Gospels, and not all the Gospels are in line with Pauline theology. Haven’t you found it interesting that Paul never discusses Jesus’s ministry? It’s only the meaning of the resurrection that interests him, because he needs to radically re-invent what it even means for someone to be the Messiah. He needs to completely transform the meaning of Messiah in order to invent the idea of the Christ. Only when he’s done that can the Gospel writers invent a history of Jesus’s ministry that culminates in his crucifixion and resurrection.
Conquest, slavery, forced assimilation, and genocide. You know, history.
Watches are machines. Cells are not. Paley is wrong, and contemporary ID is wrong for the exact same reason.
Yes and no. One doesn’t get the causal properties of water by adding together the causal properties of hydrogen and the causal properties of oxygen.
However, if one knows what the causal properties of water are, and if one knows what the causal properties of hydrogen and oxygen are, then knowing that water is H2O (to the extent that it is) will allow you explain why water has the causal properties that it does.
Entropy,
We have common ground here as common descent is a partial explanation of life’s diversity. Lets end on a high note 🙂
If organisms are designing themselves then we need a word other then design for what they are doing, right? As what they are doing is not what humans call design, as demonstrated simply by those images.
And I read from the bottom up. So I missed that. So I still think we need a new word.
But you can’t even start to say anything about the rest of it, according to you, other then “design explains it” whereas common descent can be discussed, the evidence discussed.
Design literally is a science stopper. That “partial explanation” will remain partial forever if you believe design is required for a complete explanation as you literally cannot say anything about it other then it explains biology!
Biology was designed.
Design explains biology.
So when you say a researcher should take into account design when calculating probabilities you say that knowing it’s impossible. How can “design designed that” be a probability?
I’m sure Jesus is so proud…
I know this was directed at Entropy but let me chime in. Andreas Wagner in The Arrival of the Fittest covers this in some detail, especially chapters two and three (where he develops the analogy of the universal library of metabolic pathways.
Human design of complex systems and cellular complexity are not comparable. No conscious designer we are familiar with (i.e humans) strives for what we see in cellular complexity.
You equate complexity with design, that much is obvious. And yet, the irony is, it’s actually the wrong way round.
Simplicity and elegance are what designers strive for.
You look into a cell and see complexity and think design when in fact you are seeing the literal end product of blind watchmaker evolution.
We can see exactly this directly. And you can do it yourself.
Write some computer program to do a thing.
Evolve some computer program to do a thing.
The first can be handed to another programmer and they will usually be able to understand it.
The second may not be understandable by any human ever, no matter what. It’s a black box. It works but we don’t know how or why.
And there are more of these “black boxes” out there then you’d imagine.
You look into the cell and see complexity and think design but it’s really a reflection of your own ignorance as to how those who actually create, create.
Why do you think UncommonDescent has an idealized mechanical looking version of the bacterial flagellum on the top of their site? That’s because like you they see cells as little machines with gears and cogs, and as we know watches have watchmakers……
Pathetic.
But it emerges from them. Why two atoms of hydrogen and one oxygen? Why don’t the three atoms form a straight line but instead an angle of 106°? Why do the shared electrons spend more time nearer the oxygen atom than the hydrogen atoms causing a dipole effect that leads to hydrogen bonding, a property that is vital to water-based life, like us. Science has some answers.
Can you support this at any level?
Who are “most people”? Have you done a survey? Is there some data you can point to? If most people have turned away from evolution due to cellular complexity I’d expect to be reading about this in the popular science journals by now? Or has it not made it that far? If not, can you point me to some articles, as there must be some otherwise on what basis are you making the claim?
Or is it that you are just a delusional liar who can’t stop lying no matter what even about the most trivially provable things.
Support for evolution is at 99% among biologists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve
And among biologists called Steve it’s off the charts!
Here’s a survey from 2009: https://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-5-evolution-climate-change-and-other-issues/
Is 3% “most” to you? Or do you have newer data?
Alan Fox,
Many are. Have you heard of Messianic Judaism.
Look at YouTube Bible project Isaiah and listen to the commentary (16 minutes)
If your curiosity is their read Isaiah. Pay close attention to ch 7,9,42,52,53,61.
More curiosity read Daniel and pay close attention to ch 9.
More curiosity read Deuteronomy (Torah) pay close attention to ch 16,17,18
More curiosity read Micah ch 5
You then realize that the coming of the Messiah is all over the book and his description is fulfilled by Jesus.
Then how do you explain the differences.
Cute 🙂
No I have looked at public surveys. There are surveys done every year by Pew. You need to learn what a neutral source is.
Kantian Naturalist,
Interesting point.
This is a strange claim. How familiar are you with the Tanakh prophecies. You understand that Paul was a Pharisee.
Why does this difference if it is even true make the analogy wrong. Both are functional arrangement of parts.
By that logic, one can always compare any one thing with any other thing, since one can always choose to ignore what makes them different!
I’d expect to see differences in independent accounts of some historical event.
Surely you can be more specific than this.
We seem to be having a conceptual misunderstanding. Here’s a tale about Darwin: The Royal Geological Society got tired of everyone arguing about the meaning of every stone, and decreed that until sufficient evidence was collected, no speculation would be allowed. Darwin scoffed, saying “no evidence is meaningful, unless it is for or against some view.”
So for what you claim is evidence to actually BE evidence, it must comport with some valid view. As I understand it, your view (or what underlies it) is an intelligent actor, impossible to detect directly in any conceivable way, using undefined mechanisms at undefined times to perform undefined actions which result in “evidence” of those actions. You could with equal validity close your eyes, spin around three times, point at random, and say “THERE is evidence.” And sure enough, you would be pointing at something visible and measurable.
So you need to understand that you are working backwards. You start with your conclusion (your god did it), and strive to confect stretched analogies in support of those conclusions. The watch is evidence of a watch. You cannot even say it’s the product of some process without some passing familiarity with that process.
Look at it this way. If some skeptic came along and doubted that the watch was manufactured by people, you could take that skeptic to the watchmaker and SHOW him how it happens. The watch then becomes evidence of that process – and not before. Now, let’s say I doubt that some magical invisible undetectable ineffable entity poofed life into existence, BUT if you could take me to where it is actually being done and SHOW me, I’d be convinced. The fact that you can’t do this, even in principle, means you have no evidence. Because it is necessarily “evidence” of something entirely imaginary. When anything and everything is evidence, nothing is evidence.
Sure. So teach me then. What is a neutral source and what evidence does that source have for your claims?
You realize that most people would have responded with a link to their neutral source? Instead you just allude to surveys that support your views instead of actually linking to them.
How can I learn what a neutral source is if you won’t spend a fraction of a second typing in what you consider a neutral source?
What I linked to was linked from Wikipedia. If you know better, educate me.
Your faith too.
You don’t understand much of anything. And anyway, life/death/afterlife are as they are regardless of your opinion.
“Devine”? Divine!
We do create artificial lungs and hearts and kidneys and so on. Just not as well as God. Best evidence.
So it’s under 900 words.I didn’t spot anything that appeared revelatory regarding the later Jesus stories. Did Daniel write Daniel? Is Daniel documented historically?
Remember the rules.
Well, as no-one has come back from death or an afterlife to tell us about it, all opinions are equally valid.
I’m happy to acknowledge that I don’t understand much of anything. That doesn’t deter me from reading and learning.
In any event: I was only trying to draw attention to a distinction, perhaps only of interest to me, between a “cognitive atheism” and an “affective atheism”.
A cognitive atheist is someone who believes that God doesn’t exist but might nevertheless also feel an emotional attraction to some aspect of organized religion — someone who says, “it’s not true but wouldn’t it be nice it were?”
Whereas an affective atheist would be someone who does not want theism to be true — who finds something deeply repugnant or abhorrent in theism.
“design themselves” is one of the stupidest thing ever. On par with “fitness”.
Wrong. Evidence of design is in the watch itself, not in visiting the manufacturer which none of us has ever done.
Conversely, you claim evidence for “evolution” is in the organism itself (it isn’t, but that’s another story) and no actual “evolution” witnessing is necessary. See the double standard?
What does “emerge” even mean in this context? It’s just that water is different and in many, many ways not predictable from its constituents. That doesn’t “emerge”. It’s just the way it is. By design, you see? “Science” doesn’t have many answers if any.
When someone like Nonlin gets to correct you, you know you’ve hit rock bottom
Alan Fox,
It documents the death of the Messiah (anointed one) prior to the second 70 AD temple destruction.
Some people did. Anyway, that was not about opinions but about his wishful thinking (expressed earlier).
Lack of comprehension. That’s why.