Why Do I Have To Wear Glasses If Eyes Are So Well Designed?

[thesometimesaint]

Log:

It is really quite simple to disprove Evolution. No great mind is required, no diligent research in long forgetten tombs of ancient lore. A shovel, a good back, and some way to record what is seen is all that is needed. Darwin did it with a piece of paper and a pencil. Are you up to it? Now go find a fully modern human skeleton in a previously undisturbed layer of Pre-Cambrian dirt.

Behe's cause celeb in "Darwins Black Box" is irreducible complexity. Which has been demonstrated to be false.

In his book Darwin's Black Box (The Free Press, 1996), biochemist Michael Behe claims that many biological systems are "irreducibly complex", that in order to evolve, multiple systems would have to arise simultaneously. He claims that such systems exist in biology and that the existence of "irreducible complexity" argues for an intelligent designer. Behe describes in detail several biochemial systems and alludes to others, claiming that they are "irreducibly complex."

Edited April 19, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[shalamabobbi]

For me, the ID argument being tauted by the traditional fundamentalist Christian community makes sense. The logic escapes me behind someone espousing it who is LDS, since creation of man literally from an ingredient list is not an LDS position. The 1st presidency made the official statement that Adam began life the same as everyone else, as a tiny germ or embryo. The ID position is that Adam is essentially an android without a father himself. Evolution or infinite regression, androids aren't on the menu..

[changed]

Why Do I Have To Wear Glasses If Eyes Are So Well Designed?

come to think of it, why do we have any ailments of any kind? why are we mortal at all?

For now we see through a glass, darkly .... 1 Corinthians 13:12

[altersteve]

come to think of it, why do we have any ailments of any kind? why are we mortal at all?

See: Plan of Salvation.

(LOL, "see." I honestly didn't even plan that.)

Edited April 19, 2012 by altersteve

[Log]

Log:

It is really quite simple to disprove Evolution. No great mind is required, no diligent research in long forgetten tombs of ancient lore. A shovel, a good back, and some way to record what is seen is all that is needed. Darwin did it with a piece of paper and a pencil. Are you up to it? Now go find a fully modern human skeleton in a previously undisturbed layer of Pre-Cambrian dirt.

Any such skeleton would be explainable via the concept of evolutionary convergence and does not, in any event, answer the question I've asked. Do you understand the question I've asked? What is the logical negation of evolutionary theory?

Behe's cause celeb in "Darwins Black Box" is irreducible complexity. Which has been demonstrated to be false.

In his book Darwin's Black Box (The Free Press, 1996), biochemist Michael Behe claims that many biological systems are "irreducibly complex", that in order to evolve, multiple systems would have to arise simultaneously. He claims that such systems exist in biology and that the existence of "irreducible complexity" argues for an intelligent designer. Behe describes in detail several biochemial systems and alludes to others, claiming that they are "irreducibly complex."

I find your gloss of Darwin's Black Box to be utterly inadequate on all levels - it is, in fact, on par with the stereotypical anti-Mormon's description of the claims of Mormonism. Also, using someone else's work instead of your own (in this case, TalkOrigin's laughable hatchet job on Behe), and failing to disclose that you have done so, is called plagiarism.

Here's a better gloss: http://www.designinf...Resp_to_Orr.htm

Edited April 19, 2012 by Log

[Log]

The ID position is that Adam is essentially an android without a father himself.

I invite you to substantiate this claim with references to Behe, Dembski, Meyer, West, or any other of the rest of Discovery Institute's fellows: http://discovery.org/fellows/ . I would appreciate you giving Berlinski a call and posting an MP3 of the conversation. The laughter would do me good to hear.

I have no doubt they'll even write back if you ask them in which of their published works on design theory they made any such claim.

Edited April 19, 2012 by Log

[shalamabobbi]

I invite you to substantiate this claim with references to Behe, Dembski, Meyer, West, or any other of the rest of Discovery Institute's fellows: http://discovery.org/fellows/ . I would appreciate you giving Berlinski a call and posting an MP3 of the conversation. The laughter would do me good to hear.

I have no doubt they'll even write back if you ask them in which of their published works on design theory they made any such claim.

ID is simply a rehash of the creationist movement. "Of Pandas and people" was edited to replace the word "creationism" with the phrase "intelligent design".

http://www.talkreason.org/articles/HistoryID2.cfm

Let's let the designer be anything, maybe an alien.

FSCI = functionally specific complex information.

William Dembski's blog complains about "materialism" on its front page.

So, it looks as though these people object to science looking for natural explanations for natural phenomena, and want to bring the supernatural into play.

I think that both the modern version of I.D. and the old William Paley version have evolved from Christian creationist culture.

An interesting question would be: how could the designer possibly contain less "FSCI" than bacteria? (If more, they require design by I.D. arguments).

The I.D. arguments all require a supernatural designer in order to exempt the designer from those very arguments.

Incidentally, while you're here, and as you read Dembski, perhaps you're the right person to explain something to us. How can a designer design something that contains "FSCI" without having a brain/mind that contains "FSCI"? In other words, isn't I.D. automatically a failure as an explanatory theory for the origin of "FSCI", as it makes it a prerequisite for itself?

from a thread in EVC forum

So you are left again with evolution or infinite regression..

[Log]

ID is simply a rehash of the creationist movement.

That is false.

So you are left again with evolution or infinite regression..

That is a category error: intelligences produce CSI but do not require it to exist. In fact, it is such a glaringly obvious category error on a topic Mormonism actually speaks to that it is difficult to understand how a Mormon could make it in good faith. Atheists could potentially make that error through ignorance.

Am I to understand that you are conceding once again you made an unsubstantiable claim?

Edited April 19, 2012 by Log

[thesometimesaint]

Log:

Actually he is correct. http://en.wikipedia....elligent_design

and

http://mormonscholar...ex-by-specialty

and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jye_Ye886Xk

Edited April 19, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Log]

Actually, both you and he (and the biased editors at Wikipedia) are not correct.

http://www.designinf....com/desinf.htm

Which actually suffices for any similar claim.

Have you read this book, by the way?

Here's a short update to it.

Edited April 19, 2012 by Log

[thesometimesaint]

Log:

Demski has been proven wrong. http://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/IntelligentDesign.html

Do you even read the Links I provide for you?

Discovery Institute is a political organization masquerading as scientists.

http://www.discovery.org/about.php

Discovery Institute has a special concern for the role that science and technology play in our culture and how they can advance free markets, illuminate public policy and support the theistic foundations of the West.

Scientific societies that reject ID.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_societies_explicitly_rejecting_intelligent_design

[changed]

See: Plan of Salvation.

(LOL, "see." I honestly didn't even plan that.)

yea yea, I know, this is a fallen world with all that goes along with it, must needs be opposition in all things and all that!

[Log]

Log:

Demski has been proven wrong. http://www.nationala...gentDesign.html

Dembski is not even mentioned. Do you know what Dembski's work is even about?

Do you even read the Links I provide for you?

Do you even read the "Links" I provide for you?

Discovery Institute is a political organization masquerading as scientists.

http://www.discovery.org/about.php

Are you saying none of the Discovery Institute's Fellows hold the credentials they claim?

Discovery Institute has a special concern for the role that science and technology play in our culture and how they can advance free markets, illuminate public policy and support the theistic foundations of the West.

And?

Scientific societies that reject ID.

http://en.wikipedia....elligent_design

And?

When will you, by the way, get around to answering the simple, specific question I asked you: what is the logical negation of evolutionary theory?

We're what, 10, 20 posts away from when I first posed it to you? And you show no signs of understanding, much less answering, the question.

Edited April 19, 2012 by Log

[changed]

Log:

Demski has been proven wrong. http://www.nationala...gentDesign.html

Do you even read the Links I provide for you?

Discovery Institute is a political organization masquerading as scientists.

http://www.discovery.org/about.php

Discovery Institute has a special concern for the role that science and technology play in our culture and how they can advance free markets, illuminate public policy and support the theistic foundations of the West.

Scientific societies that reject ID.

http://en.wikipedia....elligent_design

Yes, it's unfortunate that the DI has given ID a bad name... now scientists have to use terms like "artificial selection" instead of ID... have to separate the wheat from the tares, as in all things there are partial truths on each side.

[shalamabobbi]

That is false.

of course..

http://www.amazon.com/Intelligent-Design-Between-Science-Theology/dp/083082314X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1334867699&sr=1-1

He is currently a Research Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Center for Cultural Engagement at the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary at Fort Worth, Texas, and a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Dembski

Our program on Religion and Civic Life defends the continuing relevance of traditional religious faith to public life within a pluralistic democracy. Specifically, it seeks to defend the importance of Judeo-Christian conceptions of the rule of law, the nature of man and the necessity of limiting the power of government.

http://www.discovery.org/about.php

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/03/14/whats-the-difference-between-the-institute-for-creation-research-and-the-discovery-institute/

All candidates must agree to ICR doctrinal statements and tenets.

http://www.icr.org/jobs/

The first human beings did not evolve from an animal ancestry, but were specially created in fully human form from the start.

Principles of Biblical Creationism

All things in the universe were created and made by God in the six literal days of the Creation Week described in Genesis 1:1-2:3

note that the latter falls under the heading "Principles of Biblical Creationism".

And just for fun..

http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2011/08/01/icr-attacks-discovery-institute-again/

[shalamabobbi]

That is a category error: intelligences produce CSI but do not require it to exist.

Yes. That's an ubsubstantiated claim, but one that I happen to agree with so I'll let it slide..

I have to assume you don't by into infinite regression by the nature of your response(your argument for the ability of intelligences to create CSI, indeed the ID argument would be pointless for someone who accepts infinite regression which makes you a heretic in the eyes of other more orthodox than thou posters on this forum BTW, as much as I would be in your view at least).

So again if you think Adam was created from the dust by God directly without having a father you are disagreeing with the 1st presidency who formally declared that Adam began life as we all do as a human germ or embryo.

The other thread got cut off by the mods so try to control your righteous indignation this time (unless that's your goal of course).

From your last remarks on the closed thread (just before your demand that I discern your academic credentials) you seemed to accept the facts upon which evolution was based but simply disagreed with the interpretation that God was not behind it, or at least could not be determined from the data. Is that an accurate assesment?

[Log]

of course..

http://www.amazon.co...34867699&sr=1-1

Still false - but tell you what, why don't you read the book?

Since ICR and DI are clearly unrelated, and ICR clearly takes exception to DI, I'm curious what point you think you're making within the context of this thread.

[thesometimesaint]

There is natural selection(where man is not involved), and selective breeding(where man is). However I don't know what you mean by DI unless it is Deseret Industries.

[Calm]

And just for fun..

http://sensuouscurmu...nstitute-again/

I've got to ask, does the ICR want the Bible to be used in schools as a science textbook and posssibly the only science textbook (or any other subject for that matter otherwise wouldn't the Bible not be considered "authoritatively relevant"?

[Calm]

There is natural selection(where man is not involved), and selective breeding(where man is). However I don't know what you mean by DI unless it is Deseret Industries.

Discovery Institute....

Edited April 19, 2012 by calmoriah

[Log]

Yes. That's an ubsubstantiated claim, but one that I happen to agree with so I'll let it slide.

Great. Makin' progress.

So again if you think Adam was created from the dust by God directly without having a father you are disagreeing with the 1st presidency who formally declared that Adam began life as we all do as a human germ or embryo.

Adam [is] the son of God.

You seemed to accept the facts upon which evolution was based but simply disagreed with the interpretation that God was not behind it, or at least could not be determined from the data. Is that an accurate assesment?

Not exactly. I acknowledge that this is a charitable reading of my posts, and for that, I thank you. However, my full position will have to be spelled out at a different time in a different thread, if at all.

My actual point in reference to the data is that it does not support the evolutionary hypothesis, as the example of dog breeding illustrates.

Edited April 19, 2012 by Log

[Duncan]

interesting as all this is but what does it have to with my terrible eyesight? thanks for the responses!

[Calm]

http://www.wikihow.com/Exercise-Your-Eyes

[shalamabobbi]

..my full position will have to be spelled out at a different time in a different thread, if at all.

My actual point in reference to the data is that it does not support the evolutionary hypothesis, as the example of dog breeding illustrates.

Yes but dog breeding acknowledges the lines and descent. So this would not be a valid comparison. You are rejecting the data that shows common descent not just the idea that God was not behind any of it. Isn't that correct?

Incidently I would be interested in your views of how physical bodies were created before any existed to see if it lines up with my speculations.

Edited April 19, 2012 by shalamabobbi

[shalamabobbi]

I've got to ask, does the ICR want the Bible to be used in schools as a science textbook and posssibly the only science textbook (or any other subject for that matter otherwise wouldn't the Bible not be considered "authoritatively relevant"?

Basically they believe that their view of creation is correct and they have been fighting to give their viewpoint a time slot in the science classroom as an alternative to evolution even though it is not science and has been ruled so by the courts time and again.

When creationism was ruled against by the courts to be taught in the science classroom (note we are talking about the discipline of science, there are institutes of religion for the study of theology and matters of faith as there have always been) they relabeled it as intelligent design. In fact they were caught simply taking previous textbooks and using a word processor to replace "creationism" with "intelligent design" and reprinting the book. The correction didn't work in context in a few spots and the sham was discovered and so ID has been knocked out of the courts as well.

The problem with ID as science is that it is simply assertion. If it is correct in its viewpoints it will fall out of the data and study only by an application of the scientific method, not by the application of ID as a discipline because it isn't a discipline and it does nothing, leading to a cessation of growth in knowledge and investigation of the natural world.