[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:
I demand to know how many slices are in an unexamined pizza x inches in diameter.
Entropy,
Yes, it does seem as if the argument is that the matter could only be decided empirically – only by examining all individuals could one be sure their frequencies added to 100% (or 1; I’m not a mathematician!). But I have a hard time imagining an examined case where the supposed hypothesis failed!
Joe Felsenstein,
Ah, in ignoring these, you are failing to satisfy the demand of exactitude. Deletions could be handled in terms of x, but there is a technical infinity of permutations with insertion.
Perhaps you should read the masthead every time you visit this site.
See, you misunderstood me. The part I was questioning is your claim that Darwin’s idea of evolution by natural selection was accepted because “atheism became much more entrenched”. I have never heard anyone make such a claim, so I was wondering were you got that from.
I will also note that although the scientific community was slow to accept evolution by natural selection, the other concept promoted in the “Origin” -descent with modification- was accepted rapidly, long before “atheism became entrenched”.
I strongly doubt your claim is correct. Rather it appears to be informed by your misconception that evolution is an atheist idea.
Let’s start here.
It’s not a trap, non-lin. Quite entertaining, I enjoyed the odd (to my ear) pronunciation of “allele”.
Now we’re getting to something worth debating!
What’s crystal clear is that you do not understand the meaning of the word “synthesis.” All I will say is that the book synthesized findings and discussions from what had already become a healthy and productive scientific field of research. Hopefully that’s not too hard for you to understand, and hopefully it is not too hard for you notice that there’s a difference between “productive field of research” and “atheism was becoming entrenched.”
——————
P.S. “Parasitic relationship?” You really have a very twisted view of the world. Your apparent inability to read for comprehension doesn’t help.
Why? Can someone explain to poor Alan that we’re talking about alleles, not cake?
They call them “objections”. And they look like objections. Enough time wasting. Will address your “better” objections when you have one.
But you can’t prove with an example if your life depended on it. Cut the crap.
And that’s how many? 4^x Plus how many and Minus how many that are impossible combinations (not viable)??? Exact number requested, remember? Stop failing and provide the exact number. BTW, kudos – after so many days of Allan’s smoked brain, you’re the first to attempt some number.
I bet on the former.
Anyway, seeing that you can’t come up with an exact number, what exactly are you adding up to that mythical 100%? Bullshit plus bullcrap?
And this, ladies and gentlemen is THE essence of “evolution”. Bullshit plus bullcrap.
This is stupid. I asked for their number, not their names.
That’s why we have experts that examine them and extract the essence. That’s good enough for me and should be good enough for you. Now, any comments and/or complaints about this summary of the argument?
False. Because you don’t know what the precise fuck an allele is. That’s why.
Exactly. Did you just smarten up?
I’m unlikely to regress to your mean in this lifetime. Not how it works.
There have been numerous studies that show atheism on an ascending path since before the blood-fest that was the French revolution (Liberté, égalité, fraternité my ass). You wouldn’t have a problem with that assessment, would you? Btw, that’s due to a growing urbanization of humans that falsely believe more and more they’re in control. Because atheism is in a nutshell, the illusion of control fallacy.
Liking to something stupid on youtube is not demonstrating anything. Try again. In your own baby words.
Dialogue of the deaf continues!
It’s you who called them objections, not “them.” Some do look like objections, some don’t. You have forgotten that you quoted just one of my sentences, which referred to just one of your “objector/Paley” pairs. It’s you who mistook “this one doesn’t look like an objection” for “this structure is not understandable”, it’s you who didn’t examine it later on and then mistook “this one doesn’t look like an objection” for “these are your objections.” Now you imagine I was talking about every one of your pairings, rather than the one I was addressing in what you quoted yourself! Could you be any more clueless?
How could you possibly address my better objections when you cannot even understand and then address the most straightforward problems with the bullshit you already presented? If you cannot distinguish an objection from a request for more information? When you misunderstand straightforward sentences like “this doesn’t look like an objection”? Could you be any more clueless?
Sorry, but to deserve a conversation about my objections to Paley’s watch analogy, you’d need to demonstrate that you have the basic level of knowledge, the reading comprehension and reasoning abilities, for it to be meaningful or fruitful. So far you behave like some stubborn two-year old who doesn’t understand that she doesn’t rule the world.
I’m sorry, but the fact that you do not know what an allele is doesn’t mean that everybody shares your ignorance. Maybe you think that the world revolves around you, but it just doesn’t. To add insult to injury, here the news: I don’t share your ignorance. I know you think it’s impossible for anybody to understand something you do not understand, but that’s just life and you’ll have to confront it and accept it sooner or later.
Then again, even if we didn’t know how exactly alleles were defined, we could refer to any number of counted ones, in any sample or population, real or theoretical, as 100%. Do you know the best about it? Here it goes: you cannot do anything to stop us! You’re not a magical being. You cannot command us to stop. Your anger and your ignorance cannot stop us either. I, for one, could not care less if you liked it or not. Now that’s just beautiful, isn’t it?
Well then, 4^x it is.
Exactly. [Since nonlin has kindly agreed to exclude all indels]
But your “Plus how many and minus how many…” query is stupid. Alleles that are ‘not viable’ do not represent ‘impossible combinations’.
I encourage you to learn just the tiniest bit about genetics, so that you avoid making such embarrassing mistakes.
Homozygous lethal alleles (‘not viable’, as you would put it…) crop up all the time. They can hang around for many generations. Watch the video to understand why.
Separately, it’s still true that the allele frequencies sum to 100%, even if you don’t know what they all are.
Clearly you misunderstand. Take this as an example:
You have 10 apples. You take 6 apples, and put the remaining 4 underneath a blanket. Nonlin can no longer see the 4 apples, so you are now arbitrarily stuck in an argument over whether the remaining apples will amount to 100% of the apples.
Does that clear things up at all?
If a gene which is
bases long has 4 possibilities at each site, then there are 
possible sequences. You did not ask for how many were viable, you asked for how many possibilities there were. And why are you saying “plus how many”? There can’t be more then 
so there is no “plus”.
This shows how impossible it is to communicate with nonlin.org. So my first theory is correct: nonlin.org is terminally unclear, and then blames everyone else for the resulting confusion. Plus nonlin.org does not understand that with
bases there can’t possibly be more than 
different sequences.
Bye-bye, nonlin.org. Not worth attempting to communicate.
Nonlin.org,
You want an example to show the total allele frequencies in a population adding up to 100%? ie, you want me to take a population with N individuals, pick a locus (2N instances in a diploid autosome) and check every allele at that locus. Once I’ve counted the alleles at all 2N sites, only then will you accept that 2N is 100% of 2N (or 2N/2N = 1)?
Hahahaaaa! This ‘experimental verification’ card is a popular one with Creationists. But this has to be the dumbest manifestation I have yet encountered.
Up until this very moment, it has not been at all clear that you have been referring to all possible permutations, rather than actual instances. I’m not so sure the fault in that miscommunication lies entirely with me, given that we’ve all been scratching our heads.
In asserting that frequencies must add up to 100%, I have of course been referring to real things you can actually go out and count. If you want experimental verification of things that don’t actually exist, then I confess: you got me. I can only subject the real to empirical work.
More accurately, you don’t know what the precise fuck an allele is. It is a variant of any genetic segment of interest. That segment is bounded by start/end map position or, better for practical work, flanking sequence: you can amplify the segment by PCR by making primers complementary to that sequence, and count all the variants. It’s a piece of cake.
Wait a sec. You think you are better than me?. Really?
So has the use of toilet paper. Where is the support for your claim that the rise of atheism is responsible for the acceptance of Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection?
How does not believing in God grant me the illusion of control over my life? Not seeing it.
Why is it stupid? It is just basic genetics. You need to learn that stuff before I can demonstrate why immune genes can have heritable variation, just like any other gene.
has morphed into
which actually strikes me as even more obviously true. There appears to be a defect in conceptual thought here: we cannot know that all 2N alleles add up to 2N unless we sequence every single one, and add up the counts.
We’ve seen this strange mental blockage before. It may even be a defining characteristic.
How can you say “there can’t be more” when you also say “not counting alleles that have more bases inserted or some bases deleted”? You can’t reconcile the two with a functional brain.
And since 4^x are all alleles of an x-pair gene, then all x-pair genes are alleles of each other. And let’s go ahead and count those with insertions, deletions, etc. That MESS makes every gene an allele of any other gene. Which is really stupid.
And a gene with only 10 base pairs already has 1 mil alleles in your estimate. Do you know any genes with so FEW base pairs and so MANY alleles? Of course not. You can only “add up” to 100% because ‘alleles’ is just another squishy concept. And even that numbs your brain.
You don’t know the difference between the stupid theoretical game you’re playing and a real example. That’s awful.
So this is what you “understand” by allele? That’s retard. What population will you take? And what “locus” is that? You think an allele is a function of your choices of “population” and “locus”?
Don’t know who you’re quoting. Can you link to the actual comment?
Don’t know if Darwin and followers ever used toilet paper. But atheists they certainly were. With the exception of a few dumkopfs like the Ukrainian guy. Stop asking the obvious.
Add that to the many, many things you’re not seeing.
Anyway, we were on the Paley topic, everyone. Anything to add to that discussion? The objections to date were very, very feeble. Maybe due to the effects of the lock-down on the weak brains?
You’re the poster boy of such effects. You lost any ability to read for comprehension, if you ever had any, and you haven’t even noticed.
Nonlin.org,
I don’t see what you gain by going out into the field and counting every instance before you’ve decided that the total of everything is 100%. What sort of knobhead needs to do that? It’s always going to be 100%. What else could it be?
An allele is a variant of any genetic stretch of your choosing. This really isn’t hard. It’s no more difficult than the definition of ‘word’. Maybe science not your thing?
Back when he was trying to understand your mangled prose — what you might mean by an “x pair gene” — Joe included the proviso that an gene of x base pairs has x base pairs. The total number of possible alleles for an “x pair” gene is 4^x.
Make an insertion, and it isn’t “x pair” any more.
Make an deletion, and it isn’t “x pair” any more.
Make combination of insertions and deletions that add up to plus zero base pairs, and you have one of the other 4^x possible alleles.
he wrote
You appeared to accept this, replying:
So when you subsequently write:
The lack of a functional brain would be yours.
No, ‘fraid not. This is just awkward.
You haven’t watched the video yet, have you? If you have any coherent questions about it, we’ll answer them.
You should probably watch the whole series of videos.
DNA_Jock,
Youch. Missed that piece of confusion. And I’ve gone and mentioned the definition of ‘word’! 🤐
I’ve asked non-lin several times now if anyone, anywhere, ever has shown the least interest in his ideas. Certainly his own blog is a wasteland. He appeared at Uncommon Descent without a ripple, ditto at BioLogos and Peaceful Science. And yet he still appears to think he is making points that challenge mainstream science.
What is the point?
Alan Fox,
Like one of Dr Who’s more thermodynamically unlikely villains, sustained by our ongoing puzzlement.
Nonlin.org,
Waiting …
It’s not obvious; it’s utterly false. You just made that up. That’s why you can’t support that claim.
I’ll just add it to the many, many things you repeatedly tell yourself, but are actually not true.
Have you ever considered the possibility that you are incapable of explaining any of these things because they are not true?
You’re just repeating a retard statement. I’m done explaining to you.
And as such, it’s very vague. Therefore not something you can add. Much less to 100%. See above.
This is bullshit. An allele or a particular gene need not have the same number of base pairs as “the original”. Anyone knows that. Why don’t you?
False. And stupid per above.
And why not? Did you get your degree at YouTube? I mean this VAGUE concept from 1902 (per JF) is due for an upgrade. Something quantifiable perhaps. You know, something that can be added in phase one and maybe even to 100% in phase two.
Anyway, you’re adding bullshit “to 100%” as clearly shown. But why spend that much time on this nonsense? Is “evolution” in such trouble that it hangs on this weak thread? What was that connection again?
You explain nothing, simply repeat some dumb call for empirical evidence that all of something is 100%. But I’m pleased to hear you’re planning to shut your yap about it.
It is sufficiently non-vague to be able to count instances, since each is digitally distinct. Pick a locus, count (or sample) the variants. People do this all the time. How come, if it’s too vague to do what people actually do?
Nonlin.org,
How ’bout the set of different genetic sequences at a given chromosomal location? Is that quantifiable? 🤔
I said it and you got it.
For such a defender of “evolution”, you know frighteningly little about the history of the concept. But perhaps that explains your devotion to that nonsense.
Look, since you insist so much, this is my theory on atheism that explains that statement: http://nonlin.org/atheism/
I would publish it, but the weak response (and I expected push-back) on Paley makes me think the TSZ crowd is too weak in the brain. Sorry.
Yes, of course. But then I ask for the “fitness function”, examples of “divergence of character”, etc. and note that the replies are anything BUT what you were asked to produce. So how can I be wrong when you’re incapable of pursuing your own ideas to their inevitable collapse?
Like this last time you bragged and then returned empty handed… as always:
Nonlin.org,
I have to say, you’re really terrible at this. When asked for any evidence for your statement, you simply link to a page on your ghost town of a blog repeating the statement. I’ll ask you once again, for the benefit of Corneel: Do you have any evidence, whatsoever, to back up your claim?
Come on now, you keep asking everyone to “experimentally demonstrate” things. Hold yourself to the same standard.
Nonlin.org,
Also, this statement from Section 4 on that page is particularly hilarious:
In the animal world, a farm animal would be an atheist while a wild one would not be one.
Nonlin.org,
Oh no, the whole page is only gems of brilliance:
Con: Atheism is not a religion.
Pro: Sure, atheists “are not a religion” just like alcoholics that “don’t have a drinking problem”.
What an argument! And what an understanding of a Pro/Con list!
This is stupid. We’re not talking of “something”. Alleles do not add up to “something” and they are not slices of “something”.
Since you’re a vampire and won’t go near the light, I am bringing the light to you. It’s my observation that:
“4. Atheism is mostly encountered in stable environments where people are subject to the illusion of control (i.e. “we are the masters of our own destiny”). Young, healthy, employed, urban, males in affluent societies are prime candidates, as this cohort has little exposure to life’s uncertainties outside their bubble of stability. More precarious living reminds people of their limitations and that they were gifted with abilities they did not earn. In the animal world, a farm animal would be an atheist while a wild one would not be one.”
Deal with that.
Nonlin.org,
Oh, I read that, and I dealt with it. It’s not evidence. It’s still just a claim that you’re making based on “your observation”. Now, once again: Evidence? Any? Ever?
Don’t you agree that people that live on the boundary are much more religious than the cuddled city folk?
“Evidence” for what? Do you have a question or not?
Nonlin.org,
WAIT…this claim you make further on:
Con: There’s no God because of Occam’s razor: “among competing
hypotheses that predict equally well, the one with the fewest assumptions
should be selected”.
Pro: We are not comparing hypotheses but Beliefs. Besides, “should be
selected” does not mean “it’s always right”. In addition, the atheistic Belief
does not have fewest assumptions – at best it has incomplete assumptions.
DIRECTLY contradicts this point from your very own OP:
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.
It’s actually kind of amazing how bad you are at this whole “logic” thing.
Allan Miller,
When you spoon-feed him the correct answers, it takes away from the fun, and yet fails to move the conversation along. At all.
I’ll forgo commenting on the implicit nature of your ‘inevitable collapse’ premise, and rather note that our (in)capability in any area is obviously orthogonal to your wrongness…
Nonlin.org,
Obviously. You’re welcome to play (or not play) stupid, but the question is: You posited that the rise of atheism is associated with the rise in belief in evolution. Do you have any evidence to back this up, or was it pulled from your own ass?
Things that don’t count as evidence:
1.Links to other instances of you making similar claims without evidence.
2. You simply making the same claim again and not providing any evidence.
Care to engage, or will you play dumb?
And if you pick yourself as “locus”, then you can be sure that the “frequency” of your alleles adds up to 100% at that “locus”. Can’t you see how stupid this “locus” is?
Why don’t you think for yourself?
I’d ask how arbitrary is “a given chromosomal location”? And what’s “the set of different genetic sequences”? That’s why you need to think through an example.
This is stupid. Go check Corneel’s comment. He agrees with that. Why don’t you let him pursue his own ideas. What are you, his chaperone?
Yes Corneel, he said “associated” as in correlated.
Nonlin.org,
Well, cuddled city folks are warmer.
Education is a confounding factor that nonlin will need to adjust for.
Nonlin.org,
He doesn’t, and it’s stupid to say he does. I’m interested in your answer also. So, care to play? Any evidence?
DNA_Jock,
What, nonlin’s education? I imagine nonlin’s education is unlikely to confound nonlin’s faith in nonlin’s massive intellect.
You can’t pick yourself as “locus”, that’s nonsensical, and the frequency of alleles in an individual Is clearly not what I’ve been talking about all these long weeks since I first mentioned that allele frequencies in a population must sum to 100%.
Once you’ve said where it is, it hardly matters. ‘Page 37 para 4 line 6’ is an arbitrary location in a book, but is still locatable.
If I’m interested in all the alleles of a specified gene on (say) the short arm of chromosome 6, I’ve identified a location and can proceed to count the alleles.
I think maybe you need to think through an example. The set of different genetic sequences ought to be self-explanatory to anyone with a clue, and a grasp of such concepts as ‘locus’, ‘set’, ‘different’, ‘genetic’ and ‘sequence’.
Schizophora,
Naah, I was just making fun of nonlin’s assertion regarding the lack of religious belief among
which I suspect is probably driven by the well known level-of-education effect, rather than being “cuddled”.