[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:
The ‘something’ is a population of genomes. Every individual instance is a slice of that something. At a locus, you check the variant(s) in each individual, and add them up for the entire population. You will have no more nor less than the total for all individuals, ie 100%.
Allan Miller,
It would be funny if it weren’t so sad that this needs to be said.
?
DNA_Jock,
Oh, I was aware. I was also poking fun.
Oh, this is hilarious!!! non-lin’s blog shows two comments. Check them out!
You can’t just make claims you’re not able to back up.
The smell of irony meters frying…
Alan Fox,
I saw that. The whole page is a source of endless amusement.
Here’s the real test: will nonlin back up the claims they made about atheism being coupled with “belief” in evolution? Or will they continue to play dumb and act like simply repeating the same statement is backing it up?
Schizophora,
Your use of “they” confused me for a moment! 🙂
@ non-lin
Publish and be damned! I’m sure TSZ members can survive your intellectual assault.
Allan Miller,
Okay, so I was wrong about that. Spoon-feeding him the answers (specifically “locus”) takes away absolutely nothing from the fun.
😀
Nonlin’s blog carries a collection of links to instances of his participation elsewhere. I particularly enjoyed his contribution to a fascinating post on Sabine Hossenfelder’s blog highlighting a paper on the insanely cool grasshopper problem, which asks “what is the optimal lawn shape for a one square metre lawn, such that a grasshopper who lands randomly on your lawn is still on your lawn after jumping a distance d?”
Now the authors, Olga Goulko and Adrian Kent, prove that for d > 0.56 a disc (circle) cannot be optimal. They also illustrate (Figure 3) the various cogwheels that are optimal solutions as the d is varied between 0.22 and 0.56 m.
Nonlin comments, applying impeccable nonlin logic.
That is to say: “The authors proved the disk is not optimal for d> 0.564; therefore the disk must be optimal for d < 0.564.”
Despite Goulko and Kent demonstrating otherwise in their paper.
Adrian Kent replies to nonlin
You couldn’t make this stuff up.
🤣🤣😂😂🤣😂🤣😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣
I think there’s good evidence here of something. At least in the US, there is indeed what would emerge as a factor (using factor analysis) which would consist of more religious faith, lower levels of sophistication, greater average age, less exposure to a diverse world, less competent or complete educations, and more aversion to intellectual challenges. I guess the “boundary” here is suspicion of change, and a longing to return to a misremembered simpler world when America used to be great.
Thank you for your honesty. Did I guess right that you think you are better than me because you have faith and I don’t?
Summary: “I may be wrong, but I console myself with the thought that others are more wrong”. How is that even relevant?
I said it before and I’ll repeat it: If you really seek to expose your ideas to criticism, then do so with people whose opinion you respect. I believe the good people at UD didn’t quite agree with your claims either.
Hoo boy!
My educated guess is that this is the core of your misunderstanding in every OP you have published here: You believe evolution is atheist dogma and you believe that rejecting creationism as science is a big no-no for true christians. You are so very, very wrong on both accounts.
You already got yourself into hot water with this, so I won’t delve into it, but I would like to comment on your #3:
I am pretty sure the concept of separating church and state was developed long before the “rise of atheism”, as a direct result of people seeking protection from religious prosecution by other christian denominations. I’d advise you to read up on this topic, preferably even before brushing up on basic genetics. Your rejection of evolutionary theory doesn’t really worry me, but your rejection of religious tolerance does.
Nonlin just knows that they are right, so they don’t need evidence, arguments, or justification for their beliefs — and they don’t need to take seriously and respond to those who disagree.
Allan Miller,
He, he. You’re not getting it. Nonlin has trouble with abstractions. This is why (s)he’s asking for a more “concrete example.” Otherwise, Nonlin won’t get it. Then again, a concrete example would also require some abstraction capabilties, and thus would also be lost on Nonlin. No wonder Nonlin doesn’t understand genetics, or something as obvious as the relationship between genetics and evolution, or that we can test assumptions, or that definitions are not supposed to stand for understanding, or the difference between “that doesn’t look like an objection” and “I do not understand the structure.”
No wonder Nonlin doesn’t get the most basic stuff. Our explanations fly way above her/his head, but Nonlin’s too obtuse to notice.
Blessed are the stupid, for they are not equipped to realize it.
Doesn’t contradict at all. First statement is denying the right of atheists to appeal to Occam. In second one, I am making an appeal to Occam. They support each other for those logically inclined.
This has been discussed extensively in another thread (Evolution affirms the Consequent if not mistaken). Go there and read. This thread is on Paley.
This too should be discussed in another thread. But I do appreciate your impatience.
Right. I meant “population”. You can certainly have a population of one. And then your “100% holly grail” is assured.
“Locatable” or not was not the question. No, you can’t possibly count anything as JF showed and I explained (just 10 bp yields 1 mil alternative alleles not counting additions and subtractions).
That’s what I said. Why do you repeat after me and are not doing your task? Afraid it will show how stupid your idea is?
Aside from said stupidity of your idea, what exactly does it have to do with “evolution”?
So you keep insisting, evidence to the contrary.
Here’s a basic question: how does Paley’s argument differ from Hume’s? By which I mean (as should be obvious) not the conclusions reached but the kinds of reasons presented.
What the fuck is “a population of genomes”?!? No, there’s no such thing. Genomes don’t climb on trees like your regular monkey.
Can’t you see his face? An unvarnished cretinoid. No wonder he’s a ferocious atheist.
This is dumb. You think why. And not on Paley. Why is so often the case that so few “thought” are actually on the current topic?
No! You got as much faith as me if not more. Only yours is misplaced in “evolution”-atheism.
Because your claims are often illogical and you never pursue them to their demise. Also, when cornered, you disappear in the fog you make. Although, if it helps, you’re a “titan” on TSZ and among evo-atheists in general. Hence our extended dialogue.
No, that’s not the proper summary. As far as life’s origin, we can’t both be wrong. It’s either designed or not. Of course, if “not designed” it could still be that “evolution” is wrong as imagined. But we’ll count that as your “win” anyway. Note that I am not making specific claims on “how designed”.
See? That’s what I’m talking about when saying your claims are often illogical.
There is no one person whose opinions I respect unconditionally. Is that your case? Why would that be???
Some do, some don’t. Same as here and everywhere. I gain more by disproving those that don’t. Hence the focus on those like you.
This is not the first time I’m answering these probing questions. What gives?
False. Let’s cover that in a separate upcoming OP. How about Paley?
It’s being taken to a whole ‘nother level. Let’s cover that in a separate upcoming OP. How about Paley?
What the fuck are you talking about? What are all my comments if not pure logical and factual evidence?
This is stupid. My abstract reasoning has been tested many times and I always aced those tests.
Enlighten us!
Ha! As I said, you’re like a two year old who doesn’t understand that she doesn’t rule the world.
You insisted on raising the issue, so I assumed you’d be the first to address how Paley’s reasoning differs from Hume’s such that it is not vulnerable to Hume’s criticisms. You wanted to talk about this, and no one is stopping you. It’s all yours!
A lot of pearls being cast before swine here.
🙂 🙂 🙂
Who’s doing those tests?
Actually, never mind 🙂
It is on Paley. And so is my question, for those intelligently inclined. The clear point of your focus on Paley as it relates to evolution is your thought process that those who “believe” in evolution are atheists. You have yet to present material evidence of this claim. I will, for your benefit, once again go over what does not count as evidence:
1. Linking to a post making the same claims without evidence.
2. Simply repeating the same claim without evidence.
I will ask again: Care to present your evidence? You are frequently insistent on everyone else evidentially backing up their claims, no matter how tangential to the actual discussion. When it comes to you, you “disappear in the fog” of just insisting that any questions are stupid and/or irrelevant. I will predict that you will refuse to present any evidence because you have none other than your belief. Your own belief may be sufficient to “prove” things in your own view, but you clearly have the intention of spreading your influence farther than just literally yourself, else this proselytizing seems to be an inefficient use of your time. Much of the reason for this is that you repeatedly show yourself to be unable to engage intellectually with intelligent people.
And those 1 mil alternatives, should they all exist within actual living organisms, will add up to 100%. How is it so difficult for you to understand this?
Every individual organism has a genome. All organisms within a population will have a genome. It really is difficult to debate someone who so clearly lacks a basic understanding of those things which they attempt to discuss.
Everyone who disagrees with nonlin is stupid and an atheist. Seems to me there are quite a few highly intelligent religious individuals who are stupid atheists by these standards. Do you really want to continue referring to yourself as a paragon of logic and intellect? It is clear to anyone who reads anything you say that those claims are simply untrue.
No one asked you for unconditional. You might be asked to leave the goalposts where they were.
You’ll likely fail to impress those here by touting the results of grade school exams. You might instead try such things as: logic, sound reasoning, evidence to back up your claims. As an addendum, in the real world, you will likely find it insufficient to simply refer to your own claims as logical. But I imagine that you will keep trying, and every time you do you will think that you have won. As such, no progress will be made, and you will never proceed any further than simply insulting people on a forum.
This is insulting. Swine have numerous uses to society: they provide food, companionship, and custodial services, to name just a few.
Nonlin.org,
Why is 100% total frequency only available to a population of 1? Suppose we had a population of 2? What values do you think total frequency could take then?
At a particular chromosomal location, the size of the permutation space is irrelevant. You are counting the actual variants at that location in the population.
According to you, nothing, which makes your obtuse resistance to basic genetic concepts all the more perverse.
Nonlin Takes Genetics. Weeks 1-26: Nonlin struggles with the concepts ‘allele’ and ‘locus’. Week 27: Everything Else and Final Exam.
Nonlin.org,
In statistics, a population is the entire pool from which samples, or subsets (such as those genomes sharing a particular allele) is drawn. It does not have to be composed of organisms, though of course since each individual has a genome, they are coextensive in that instance: N(genome) = N(individual).
Nonlin took his “objections” to Paley from wikipedia, thought that one sentence taken from those, already summarized explanations, were whole “arguments” and proceeded to “answer” those “objections.” Since Nonlin had trouble reading one wikipedia entry, I seriously doubt (s)he’s in any position to discuss Hume’s and Paley’s reasoning.
True, but for some reason they still need to pretend that they are firmly rejecting all objections with solid evidence. Quite intriguing.
I am less than you, but still a “titan” of TSZ. I should be flattered, I guess.
Who did, I wonder?
Make sure there it has “dumkopf” in the title.
William Paley came up an analogy that did a good job of illustrating a very common intuition among creationists: Organisms have complexity and purpose, which suggests they were designed. But the primary purpose of all organisms is to survive and procreate, which makes them self-perpetuate. Charles Darwin realised how winnowing down the surplus of descendants in combination with naturally occurring variation gives rise to complex adaptations. Since this explains both the complexity and the perceived “purpose”, he thereby defeated Paley’s argument.
Let’s examine your counter-argument:
That’s just plain Nonlin-style denialism again. Yes, it works. That’s why it gave rise to an entire discipline within biology. You need to deal with it.
As Paley’s argument gleefully conflates mechanical design with living beings, I do not think the argument is all that great or compelling. The design argument based on complexity is wrong-headed for metaphysical reasons.
Still works against Darwinian evolution though. As we have seen, evolutionists do not even think it relevant to define life or to distinguish biological beings from inert matter, so Paley’s analogy is pretty much unanswerable to them.
Funny, I was involved in a lengthy discussion on this distinction only a fortnight back.
Wait a minute, are you seriously saying that Paley’s crap is not that compelling because you think that life is magic, yet that it “works” against those who do not think that life is magic?
————————
Couple clarifications:
I doubt that “evolutionists” do not find it relevant to define life. They might find it difficult, but not irrelevant.
I doubt that “evolutionists” do not find it relevant to distinguish life from “inert matter”. They might find it difficult, but not irrelevant.
Just some week back or so Felsenstein said there was no necessity to define life, because he has had a splendid career in biology without it. Difficult or not, simply not necessary. According to him, those who try to define life are useless philosophers, unfit for a career in biology.
With whom? What did you gather from the discussion?
If the discussion occurred here, I assume you gathered nothing. You just stood your ground.
I think that’s right — the argument from design requires a conception of life as passive mechanism, so that the source of life’s purposiveness and responsiveness must be found elsewhere than in life itself.
Here we disagree. In part because I don’t think that definitions are as crucial as you think they are. Definitions don’t track essences, because there aren’t any essences to be tracked. So an adequate grasp of essences via definitions is not necessary for knowledge, and so it is not necessary for biologists to define life in order to understand things about it.
For another, although it is not necessary for evolutionary biologists to have a rigorous demarcation of life from non-life in order for them to do what they do, there is some really good philosophy of biology that has been focusing on autopoiesis and biological autonomy as characteristics of life.
(I do not say “essential characteristics” because there are always going to be fuzzy or intermediate cases — proto-cells, autocatalytic sets, viruses, prions.)
So, this is a Felsenstein therefore every “evolutionist” thing? I don’t know Joe’s wording, but I’d say that’s more of a conclusion than a statement about whether he considers it important or not. In the end, the discussion becomes more “philosophical” than scientific. One of those “where do we put those boundaries”? or “should we put those boundaries”? things.
I think it’s interesting stuff, but I see no reason why whether anybody considers life to be magical woo or not has any relevance in whether Paley’s crap is crap. I don’t think that life is magical woo. I still think it important to have better definitions of life. I recognize the difficulties inherent in defining life. Paley’s crap remains crap regardless.
Entropy,
What’s with putting “evolutionist” in scare quotes? Does it suggest thinking that no such person who uses “evolution” ideologically exists; there are no ideological evolutionists because “evolutionism” is just a “made-up” term to describe nothing that anyone actually promotes? = P
That sounds odd. Can you link?
It’s not meant to scare, but to mock. Whether evolutionism exists as ideology or not is irrelevant, the point of the quotes is that “creationists” (see? I might be abusing terms myself, though I doubt that I abuse them to the same degree) tend to use that word to describe anybody who doesn’t believe in a magical being in the sky. I don’t believe in gods, and I don’t think of evolutionary theory as some kind of dogma, let alone something I have to believe to feel comfortable as an atheist. Thus, I’m no “evolutionist”, yet Erik might include me in that category regardless. Same when I read things like “Darwinists” or “darwinistas,” etc. as if Darwin was the alpha and the omega of evolutionary theory. As if science stopped more than a 150 years ago.
I disagree, about both Paley and about Darwin’s response to him.
Paley is often read as expressing a mere intuition. I don’t think that’s right. I think he’s doing something quite important: he’s presenting us with abductive reasoning.
Starting with the observation that biological systems are similar to artifacts — in both cases we observe functional wholes constituted by complex interdependence of parts — the simplest explanation is that the ultimate cause of complex interdependence is the same in both cases: an intelligent designer. Peirce described abduction as (paraphrasing): “fact A is surprising. But if B were the case, A would follow as a matter of course.” That’s what Paley is doing in his version of the argument from design: he is developing the argument from design as abductive reasoning. (This is why Paley is not vulnerable to Hume’s criticisms: because Hume is arguing against the inductive version, not Paley’s abductive version.)
Darwin’s insights (as elaborated, supplemented, etc. by now) explain adaptation and speciation — also by way of abductive inference, by the way — but they don’t explain the basic fact that organisms differ from non-biological physical systems by virtue of having goals and exhibiting purposive behavior.
Put otherwise, evolutionary biology can explain, for any specific organism, why it has the specific goals that it has and how it strives to satisfy those goals as a result of the constraints of its phylogenetic history — but it can’t explain the sheer fact of biological teleology.
This is not to say that teleology is magic — quite the contrary, it is to say only that biological teleology is an emergent property realized by physical systems under some specific conditions. But it is to say that the explanation of this property is not going to come from evolutionary biology; it will come from theories of self-organizing dynamical systems.
In other words, the response to Paley isn’t going to come from Darwin — it’s going to come from Norbert Wiener, Warren McCulloch, John von Neumann, Ludwig von Bertalanfy, Heinz von Foester, Humberto Maturana, Francisco Varela, and other first- and second-generation cyberneticists.
Entropy,
Ah, ok, then the mockery is easier to understand. Otherwise, it just looks like you’re trying to obscure that there are indeed many ideological evolutionists out there these days. I should pause to consider that you’re not one too, but perhaps you just don’t want to be called one. Note, I am not a “creationist”, and I’ve been recently reading quite a few non-creationists who use the terms “evolutionist” and “evolutionism”. Indeed, “creationists” are barely on my radar and I pay them as little attention as possible, so perhaps you are just fixated with them somehow?
It doesn’t need to be treated as “dogma”, just over-used, exaggerated, and part of one’s “worldview”. For you, that worldview, as you say, is atheism. Is your embrace of “evolution” in any way connected with your atheism or are they “totally separate”?
Not a debate. It does. Even admitted by atheists themselves, as well as agnostics. It’s just not on most peoples’ radars yet.
I believe on this we agree, as I don’t think he is either, though perhaps he, along with AR Wallace, and T.H. Huxley and a few others, was for a time in the 19th century..
What is odd about it? Maybe only odd if you assume that Felsenstein indeed is a biologist, instead of a computer guy employed at a biology department.
Anyway, here is the link http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/are-viruses-dead-or-alive/comment-page-2/#comment-273620
This is very good. Thanks.
It did not sound like anything Joe would say, to me.
Let’s copy that here:
And lets now quote your characterization of it:
For those playing at home, how many of the key words Erik used were in Joe’s post?
useless: 0
philosophers: 0
unfit: 0
career: 0
Initially I was thinking quote-mine, but it’s actually well beyond that.
edit; ok, you get a point for `Philosophy` being there essentially. but the rest, so much BS man, such BS.
If my opinions as to what is useful or important are now binding on all biologists, or on all scientists then … that is real progress. However I don’t think that it is really the case!
Erik,
You’re right. He should lose his emeritus status because Erik said he’s not a biologist.
That is an outrageous mischaracterization of what I said. It is not even a quote mine, as there is no quote to that effect in what I posted. OMagain has noted that.
Presuming that Erik can read, he has simply lied about what I said. And I suppose that he somehow thought that he would not get caught.
I don’t see how it could be taken that way when I’m responding to someone who seems to be misusing/abusing the term anyway.
Neither. I’m not one and I don’t want to be called one. I have my own mind. I don’t follow some “messiah.” I don’t follow some “doctrine.”
If you believe there’s a creator, then you’re a creationist in my book, but I’ll be careful not to call you one to avoid paining you with too wide a brush.
Forgive me for remaining skeptical about this.
I don’t see why when responding to a creationist I’m supposed to be fixated on them.
Accepting the evidence and the conclusions for what they are doesn’t make it into an ideology though. Right?
Atheism is not my worldview. Atheism refers to a single question: do you believe in gods, my answer is no. That doesn’t make it into a worldview. I understand the confusion, for a “believer” their god permeates very importantly on their view of the world, the morality they’re willing to accept and how, whether it’s important to know their god’s doctrines, or if they have the appropriate doctrines, etc, but for atheists, that there’s no gods is but a tiny thing. No feature in my worldview revolve around a god or a doctrine around some god, but that’s it.
Evolution and atheism are not related in my worldview. I do not see how evolution, the phenomena, would be false at all. I do see how evolutionary theory could be wrong though. But if evolution, the phenomena, were false, I would still reject the idea of gods “existing” and/or “explaining” anything out of the sheer absurdity of any gods I have read about, or that have been described to me, so far.
Then again, if there was a proposal of some non-absurd gods, and very strong evidence to think that they made our universe, that wouldn’t necessarily mean that evolution is false either. It would just mean that some gods made this thing we’re immersed in.
Perhaps another main thing that “believers” do not understand is how could we reject the idea that there’s gods, without having answers to everything, just like they cannot imagine how atheism is not a worldview, given that theism often comes as a full “package.” But knowing everything is not necessary for disbelief in gods, just like disbelief in gods doesn’t make a worldview.