[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 doesn’t matter if “never, sometimes, always, most times, etc.” Neither is demanded, let alone dogmatically, by evolutionary theory.
Neither the phenomenon of evolution, nor the theory that tries and explains it, consists on the impossibility to lose no-longer-adaptive characteristics.
ETA: I’d explain, but your demeanour would make it both an unpleasant and a useless effort.
The fact that if resistance fades why are we so worried about resistance?
The fact is a lot of time and effort and money is spent on antibioltic resistance and how we’re going to cope with it. I’m asking you why that is? Why don’t we just wait?
Remind me again, how long do we have to wait?
Good grief! You wrote an OP on the watchmaker analogy and you don’t understand how it works. That’s rich!
*Why must I always explain the basics?* LOL
The only thing in which [lower case] design and [upper case] Design need to be analogous is that they both require a designer. The purported [upper case] Design implies the existence of a [upper case] Designer in the same way that [lower case] design implies the existence of a [lower case] designer. If this part of the analogy fails then this collapses the argument from analogy.
And, of course, Nonlin decided to deny this part of the analogy.
Resistance to colistin is encoded by the plasmid-borne gene mcr-1.
That’s a fact nonlin.
So, how long do we have to wait for mcr-1 to vanish?
Here’s a selection of related papers: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26603171/
I don’t see anywhere anyone advodating your option of ‘it’ll fade’. That’s also a fact.
Perhaps you should write a paper explaining how it’s not a problem after all and all those people who will die are just deep state actors trying to support the evolution narrative.
Nope. That would be genetic material, and Nonlin has decreed that genetics has nothing to do with evolution because Darwin and Mendel wrote their stuff at different times, and Darwin wrote first. Take that darwinistas!! Muahahahahahaha!!
Proof? Past experience says you always come up with the weirdest trivia that is irrelevant and/or misleading.
So lying about others is condoned?
Haha “phenomenon theory”!
Something must be demanded. Dogmatically.
Only in hospitals. Because that’s where the stimulus persists. Elsewhere, only retards that are also worried about “climate change”, “US racism”, “inequality”, Malthusian “peaks”, and other such bullshit.
No, YOU don’t understand.
OK? So do you or don’t you understand that UC and LC design are two different things?
Well, does it fail? Of course not. We have yet to see something that looks designed and it turns out it positively IS NOT designed. This was discussed at length: http://nonlin.org/intelligent-design/
But maybe you know and can prove otherwise. Can you? No, I didn’t think so. And your “fitness” function is? Do you or don’t you want me to switch to the dark side?
So?
It needs not vanish. It only needs to not spread to prove “evolution” wrong. Because if it were a “beneficial” mutation, it would spread to 100% of the population… or so the retard “theory” says. “Survival of the fittest” and other such nonsense. Btw, when will any of you Darwinistas volunteer your “fitness” function? Don’t you want to be selected? How else could you?
And that’s aside from antibiotic resistance being a built in capability of ALL organisms, hence demonstrably not “evolution”.
Phenomena are the things we observe, theories are what attempts to explain the phenomena. I hope that helps you out.
You should become aware that projecting from your religious mindset doesn’t help you understand science. In science there’s no actual dogmas. Anyway, in evolutionary theory there’s no demands, dogmatic or otherwise, for no-disappearance of no-longer required adaptations. Sorry, but your pronouncements don’t make it so. As I’ve told you before, you’re not some kind of all-powerful god. You’re just some kid in the web.
You might not care, but comments like this make you look like a disgusting, mindless, bigot Nonlin.
Nonlin.org,
What fresh madness is this? Antibiotics are only administered in hospitals, or resistance is only a problem in hospitals? Community resistance is only a problem for people who are also concerned about random “things” that yank nonlin’s chain? I’m surprised “the EU” didn’t get a look-in, then. 100% barking.
The fact is one is imaginary. ID proponents claim there is a Designer but offer no details and no evidence. What entity Designs? When does it Design? Where does it Design? How does it Design?
Reverend Paley thought it was (his particular) God. ID proponents haven’t added anything meaningful to Paley’s belief in the 200 years since Paley’s death.
Facts demonstrate otherwise:
https://aac.asm.org/content/61/1/e02057-16
https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2017.22.39.17-00206
It’s not about sides, it’s about improving our understanding of reality. But as you are askin, you appear to provide negative value so no, I don’t think anybody wants you on their side.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_(biology)
There are some mathmaticial statements there for you to pretend to undertstand and then ignore.
Out of interest, how does that resistance come about?
Could you describe how that capabilty is triggered, how it is expressed and how it spreads in a population?
Originally I thought it had something to do with evolution but your erudite arguments have convinced me othewise.
Now, I just need to understand the origin of antibiotic resistance according to nonlin and I can go out there converting Darwinists to the cause.
Nonlin, what is the true origin of antibiotic resistance?
Always puzzles me why the properties and origins of this universe are used by some to argue for a (say) Christian God. I can imagine some ineffable entity being the source of all creation but where can I make the link to religious teaching and authority? Jesus is not confirmed or supported by Designer methods. I just don’t see the connection.
Nonlin’s contributions at Uncommon Descent, BioLogos, and Peaceful Science had a consistently lead-balloon quality.
Yeah, the last thing I’d want is for nonlin to argue for the evolutionary stance! 😁
In a sense, he does.
I miss “drowning kittens” in this list.
And none of that is “evolution”. Hope that helps. Haha.
A bit right but mostly wrong. “Different times” and “first” don’t matter. Incompatibility does.
Bigot accuses others of bigotism? Straight from the communist playbook?
Mostly a hospital problem.
False and baseless. Proof?
Also false as discussed repeatedly.
Your “fitness” is wikipedia? How retard is that? Do you want to go extinct?
‘Built-in’ means it doesn’t “come about”. It’s part of the design. Like DNA, organelles and so on. There’s no life without those.
It’s God, not “Christian God”. What a stupid thing to say…”Christian God”.
WTF is this nonsense?
Quit deflecting. Your “fitness” please. If not, time to admit “evolution” is a failed concept.
Especially when asking for your “fitness” and you can’t produce any. Fun with Darwinistas.
Cheer up. Once we solve the “fitness” issue we tackle “natural selection” – another load of crap.
At least Allan Miller tried to solve the “fitness” problem. Of course he botched it big time, but let’s give him that much: “he TRIED”. Now will you try? So what if you go down in flames like Allan Miller. Give it your best, mate.
Not false. ID tries to circumvent the Lemon test by by claiming it is a scientific movement and avoiding any discussion of the identity of the Designer.
As I said, nobody is prepared to say what or who is the Designer, how the Designer Designs, where the Designer Designs, when the Designer Designs.
Fitness is the differential ability of individuals in a population to leave offspring. How many times have people given examples of this process from bacteria to blue whales.
Yes false. And the justice system has nothing to do with ‘science’. But then again, since “evolution’ is not science, any desperate attempts are employed. Pathetic.
Irrelevant. 2.c. in the OP is too hard for your understanding? Ask a mentor to explain.
I asked for YOUR “fitness”, not more bullshit. Sweat this one so you won’t go extinct now.
So Corneel, I notice you skipped the hard problem as you always do:
Corneel: If this part of the analogy fails then this collapses the argument from analogy.
Nonlin: Well, does it fail? Of course not. We have yet to see something that looks designed and it turns out it positively IS NOT designed. This was discussed at length: http://nonlin.org/intelligent-design/
But maybe you know and can prove otherwise. Can you? No, I didn’t think so.
You know you can’t win by going into hiding from hard questions. Hint: did you try the “infinite monkey”? I know it fails, but do YOU?
Well, folks that wanted to inject Creationism into US public school curricula forced the issue to a legal test which it failed spectacularly.
I and the overwhelming majority of biologists disagree and are unconcerned with this cargo cult claim.
Yet you post here and are unable to support ID when asked and given the opportunity. That seems a bit pathetic to me.
As I said, you’re not some kind of god. Thus, your saying so doesn’t make it so. I hope that helps.
Yet the “different times” thing was your argument. There cannot be any incompatibility between genetics and evolution because genetics is the science of heredity, and evolution is what happens with the genetic material of populations as time goes by. They’re linked by definition, and there’s nothing you can do about that. Your denial is laughable at best, idiotic at worst.
I suspect you don’t know the meaning of the word bigot. I wouldn’t be surprised though.
ETA: I also suspect that you don’t know what communism means. I wouldn’t be surprised by that either.
You had no answer, beyond denial, as I recall. Quantitative fitness is definitional: the mean number of offspring accruing to carriers of an allele, much as R0 is the mean number of new infections per instance of a disease. You failed even to grasp that, just as you failed to grasp such basic concepts as ‘allele’, ‘locus’, ‘population’ and ‘frequency’. For someone gone down in flames, I feel remarkably unscorched.
How do you know it’s part of the design?
We have fully sequenced the DNA of many things. Nobody has found this ‘built in’ store of information ready to be used in response to environmental cues.
In fact ‘pre-loading’ has fallen out of favour in the ID world over the last decade or so because the advances in DNA sequencing have not provided the evidence for it that the supporters were hoping for.
Ok, so, simple question. If antibiotic resistance is ‘built in’ how come antibiotics work for a time before becoming impotent?
If the response is built in and activated on encountering the antibiotic, why is the antibiotic effective in the first instance? Why does resistance seem to spread? Logically, if your claim was true, there would be no spread of resistance, it would be global all at the same time. And yet we know that’s not true.
I told you I would do so after you told me your “regression to the mean”. So far I have only received some feeble excuses.
Me? That is some powerful projection there. It was YOU who denied that the watchmaker analogy is a theological argument for the existence of God, because [upper case] Design is different from [lower case] design. If that difference would indeed invalidate this conclusion, that would deep-six the entire argument from analogy, because it relies on both types of (apparent) design having a designer. None of that makes any difference though, because you are completely oblivious to the incoherence of your position. You deny, deny and deny again, while all the time it is painfully obvious that you understand neither the arguments you oppose nor the ones you support.
I think this is nonlins way of inquiring how many kids you have?
Hey, nonlin are you able to have kids or are you still waiting for them to drop?
You seem to have a problem with links. You know you can click them and read what appears when you do?
Now you know how literally everybody feels about your output.
Considering that such “output” comes from Nonlin’s nether sphincter …
I didn’t find any discussion going on there. Just a recurrently circular argument. It’s as if Nonlin didn’t know what “discussed at length” means. I wouldn’t be surprised.
Bull Shit. Best proof “evolution” is NOT science. Haha lousy spin.
“Let’s vote on science”! Haha.
Too much laughter. You’re a riot.
Entropy,
Too much stupidity to address.
Go check. No one supported your stupid idea and you gave up. Apparently I overestimated you.
Explained in previous comment you cite.
Like everything life, it’s not a fixed mechanism. Important thing is that resistant bacteria are not “evolved” given this “impotence” is fleeting.
It is the most damning evidence against “evolution” that falsely claims resistance would spread to 100% of bacteria – the “evolved” ones would “survive (the fittestest)” and regular bacteria would go extinct as the stupid story goes.
Silly questions. It’s a dynamic system, not static. Why do predator and prey populations track each other over time? Same reason – dynamic system.
What nonsense is this?
Lame. I don’t claim to be selected based on regression. But you DO claim to be selected based on “fitness”. So, where is it?
Huh? Are you losing it?
Huh again?
We were here:
Corneel: If this part of the analogy fails then this collapses the argument from analogy.
Nonlin: Well, does it fail? Of course not. We have yet to see something that looks designed and it turns out it positively IS NOT designed. This was discussed at length: http://nonlin.org/intelligent-design/
But maybe you know and can prove otherwise. Can you? No, I didn’t think so. And your “fitness” function is? Do you or don’t you want me to switch to the dark side?
Can you try to be coherent and address this last dialog?
Wait a minute. Are you saying you don’t understand what “fitness” is and how it is supposed to be “selected” for the unending glory of “evolution”?
Are you also saying a link on the net is YOUR “fitness”? Wow!
Haha. I’m not chewing your food for you.
I really don’t think discussion with Nonlin is useful, productive or even possible. I am not going to bother responding further and I suggest we leave him to this thread and move on.
Thanks for confirming that you don’t know what “discussed at length” means. Now let’s add “circular argument” to the repertoire of things Nonlin knows nothing about.
That’s what you say every time someone demolishes your bullshit leaving you defenceless. Thus, I win and leave you to your tantrums.
Nonlin.org,
10 more points in nonlin bingo. I’ve got my eye on the big teddy bear, again.
You gave up, as I recall, having Googled some nonsense you clearly didn’t understand, interspersed with furious capitals. “My stupid idea” is the standard definition of fitness in quantitative population genetics; there’s not much more to say if one’s interlocutor switches to denial mode. Of course, such is your … um … “special” nature that you’ll dismiss that as an “argument from authority”. 🤣
Tell me more about this mechanism…..
Congrats nonlin. another forum ‘convinced’. TIme to find a new one.
More feeble excuses. You claim “regression to the mean” to be a real-world process that drives population phenotypes to some preordained mean. As such, you should be able to quantify it.
Ach, you forgot your own claims? Read again.
I remember that. You posted that piece here, and received remedial statistics lessons from all participants. Quite amusing.
And now I will follow Alan’s suggestion and leave this discussion. You can have the last word, but .. and let me be absolutely clear about his … YOU DIDN’T WIN!
Actually, that’s quite sensible. Seeing you’re not adding anything to Paley’s excellent argument.
Entropy,
Haha.
Allan Miller,
Ditto.
Read for yourself. More importantly, are you clear on why antibiotic resistance is NOT “evolution”?