While it's true that there are a large number of examples in both camps, what makes the argument to intelligent design so strong is that we know based on what we've observed, that we only get artifacts that display the properties of premise one in this way. — Sam26

I think this is an example of one mans modus ponens being another man's modus tollens. Or, rather, it's still just a matter of how we count what is designed and what isn't.

I don't understand? How is it that a cat doesn't have parts, e.g., legs, heart, lung, liver, etc. that work together to achieve higher order functions than any single part alone, and the same can be shown with the tree. — Sam26

Well, I admitted that in some sense I could see how the parts make a whole, and without them the cat wouldn't reproduce. My issue was more that I don't think this is enough for me to conclude that the cat is intelligently designed. It seems to me that the cat doesn't fulfill a purpose which some intelligent being had a desire for. The watch, on the other hand, is exactly like that. In our society we desire to keep accurate accounts of the passage of time, and so we built a watch. In our society we desire to have a place to sit, and so we built a chair. We fashioned the world around us in various ways to fulfill our desires.

In some sense this could be applied to trees and cats and crops and cows -- but here the intelligent designer is human, who applies pressures to these living systems through simple breeding. No more than that.

But the origin of speciation can be understood in terms of simple physical forces acting on living systems. This doesn't rule out some other designer by necessity, but it does make me want evidence of, say, a designer of nature as a whole who set things in motion to create things just as they are. Something akin to our own watches and chairs -- where I understand these are products of thinking beings who want to fulfill their desires, and who thereby create objects with that purpose in mind.

I don't see what the beings of nature do, like that, which our watches and chairs do. And where our watches and chairs have clear designers and builders, I don't see that so clearly in the case of animals and plants.

Actually, there may be something - not in all objects of nature, but specifically in biological organisms - that exhibits such a teleological structure. It is hard not to notice how naturally we think in terms of functions when we think about organisms, both from the perspective of their present-day structure and behavior and from the perspective of their evolutionary development. Indeed, this has been noted both by theoretical biologists and by philosophers (Ruth Millikan being particularly notable among the latter). I refer you to this short SEP article: Teleological Notions in Biology. — SophistiCat

I've actually read that stub before :D. It was awhile ago, so maybe it's changed. But I'm aware that teleological explanation plays a role in biology, though not from the perspective of a person who has put in the work -- merely in passing.

It's an interesting fact, but I think we're on the same page when it comes to whether or not teleological explanation denotes intelligent design. Yes?

Yes. The lesson from the failure of various attempts to come up with a set of narrow criteria that define design - criteria that apply just to the product of design (complexity and such) - is that design properties must be broad: they must encompass not just the thing that is designed but, essentially, the designer as well. — SophistiCat

You should worry more about too many apostrophes ;) — SophistiCat

:D

Stop rolling out your turd, and find out what it really means.

Evolution is not random, it selects from favourable attributes and rejects those which are unfavourable. — Pseudonym

This is not exactly true.
"IT" does not select anything. Nature and the forces of the environment RESULT in the selection of more successful and "fit" living things. The EFFECT is evolution. The process is called natural selection. There is also sexual selection, and domestic selection, in which the criteria of 'fitness' of other than direct survival.

I'm happy to admit the expression could have been more accurate. I was only trying to convey the fact that a process exists which selects otherwise random mutations in favour of those which would appear, to human eyes, to be well suited to some 'purpose' we can identify. Whether the purpose is survival, or conformity to a sexually selected morphology is immaterial to the argument.

Whether the purpose is survival, or conformity to a sexually selected morphology is immaterial to the argument. — Pseudonym

Thepurpose is material in that there is none. There is no goal here. Brute forces of nature simply and indifferently "conspire" to make living things evolve.
Asserting ANY purpose is to assert intelligent design, which is of import to the thread.

"appear, to human eyes, to be well suited to some 'purpose' we can identify."

Please read my posts before responding with such vitriol. I quite clearly stated that the 'purpose' was one that merely appeared to be such to human eyes. That animals 'appear' to be put together to serve some purpose is exactly what this thread is about. I am explaining that the natural process of evolution is what makes them 'appear' that way, not an intelligent designer.

natural process of evolution is what makes them 'appear" that way — Pseudonym

And you know this how? Are you calling upon the famous "selfish gene"?

Evolution literally means "to roll out of." — Jon

↪Jon Stop rolling out your turd, and find out what it really means. — charleton

I don't think you're looking for the actual meaning of the word evolution but rather it's common usage which is partly defined as "the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form."

I think one could consider whether evolution itself is part of the "design". The "purpose" being not the creation of any particular form or species but instead creativity itself "forms wondrous and beautiful". At the same time one should at cosmology as an evolutionary process and at the self-organizing patterns of nature (from a Platonic or final causes perspective).

I also think one should ask why there seems to be an increase in complexity over time (from hydrogen and helium) to stars giving rise to heavier and more complex atoms and then molecules and then life,and so on and so forth. Why is the universe lumpy? If there is no force opposing entropy why is heat death so far off and only a theory at that? Why do we see evolutionary convergence? Why after each mass extinction does life return more complex, more experiential and more intelligent forms re-emerge?

The accidental purposeless universe crowd has more to explain than they like to admit.

If there is no force opposing entropy why is heat death so far off and only a theory at that? Why do we see evolutionary convergence? Why after each mass extinction does life return more complex, more experiential and more intelligent forms re-emerge? — prothero

Isn't life the opposing force to the universal dark force of entropy?

YOU SAID

Whether the purpose is survival, or conformity to a sexually selected morphology is immaterial to the argument. — Pseudonym

This is not correct, since in order to examine the question of ID we have to be able to offer explanations about the APPARENT purpose to human eyes, with the theories given us from Darwin and others.
i.e. Very material to the argument.

I don't think you're looking for the actual meaning of the word evolution but rather it's common usage which is partly defined as "the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form." — Jon

Etymological and semantic arguments are not relevant here.

At the same time one should at cosmology as an evolutionary process and at the self-organizing patterns of nature (from a Platonic or final causes perspective). — prothero

I think you mean Aristotle's fourth cause ortelos.
It's interesting to note that Darwin explicitly credits Aristotle in Physicae Austcultationes for pointing out the accidental nature of physical properties. Specifically that teeth were the result of accident, and do not have a purpose to chew any more that the rain's purpose is to make the crops crow!
http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?keywords=aristotle&pageseq=20&itemID=F385&viewtype=text

The accidental purposeless universe crowd has more to explain than they like to admit. — prothero

Indeed NOT.
All the work has to be done by the crazy crowd that thinks the most complexity pre-existed the start of the universe - since an overall design has to be conceived by an intelligent designer/s who/that has to be at least as complex as the universe.

That's what I mean about reading my post rather than just picking individual sentences you think you can make an argument about.

The 'purpose' I was referring to in that sentence (which you have conveniently taken completely out of context) is the apparent purpose I referred to in the sentence immediately preceding it, as anyone capable of understanding English could have seen. That's the reason we put sentences in order rather than just make random strings of propositions - so that we can specify a subject in one sentence which can then be referred to in a subsequent one without having to redefine it in every single utterance. It really is a basic tool of communication, and as any politician knows, it also makes it easy to fabricate any error you like by taking a sentence out of context as you have done.

I think one could consider whether evolution itself is part of the "design". The "purpose" being not the creation of any particular form or species but instead creativity itself "forms wondrous and beautiful". At the same time one should at cosmology as an evolutionary process and at the self-organizing patterns of nature (from a Platonic or final causes perspective). — prothero

One would like to think that evolution develops towards higher levels of intelligence and awareness. Alas, that is actually not at all part of evolutionary theory, and is to all intents a taboo in current evolutionary theory. Such theories are called ‘orthogenetic’ and - needless to say - as they can’t be accommodated by the neo-Darwinian framework, they’re invariably relegated to some species of creationism.

Me, I like the myth that evolution is ‘the universe becoming conscious’. That is not a new idea, having even been expressed by avowed Darwinians such as Julian Huxley. I have also always liked the Bohr quote, ‘a scientist is the atom’s way of looking at itself’. It’s not totally tongue-in-cheek, that aphorism. But overall it suits modern, materialist culture to believe that life is a material phenomenon which occurs as a kind of chemical reaction and then evolves for no purpose, other than to propagate. It’s like Descartes, except for with a different verb in place of ‘think’. ;-)

I don't think you're looking for the actual meaning of the word evolution but rather it's common usage which is partly defined as "the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form."
— Jon

Etymological and semantic arguments are not relevant here. — charleton

Since you don't like any of my answers why don't you tell me what evolution means literally?

The 'purpose' I was referring to in that sentence — Pseudonym

YOU SAID
Whether the purpose is survival, or conformity to a sexually selected morphology is immaterial to the argument.

I disagree for the reasons I said.

Since you don't like any of my answers why don't you tell me what evolution means literally? — Jon

As I said , it is of no importance the LITERAL meaning of evolution.
In the context of the thread we are interested in the entire body of theory which points to the apparent design through automatically, rather than intelligently guided development.
This is not a lesson in the origin of words, but the origin of species.
The literal meaning gives a completely false view point.
When you unroll a scroll you are revealing what is preordained by the fact that the text is already written. Evolution is about the way species respond from changes in the environment via variation and mutation to produce novel adaptations and new species.
If they were LITERALLY evolving they would just be showing us what was already intended, as by God for instance.

YOU SAID
Whether the purpose is survival, or conformity to a sexually selected morphology is immaterial to the argument.

I disagree for the reasons I said. — charleton

So you think it is material to the argument whether a person sees the illusion of purpose as survival, or whether they see it as morphological conformity? Id really like to know how.

What is the impact on the argument against intelligent design of whether a person interprets the appearance of purpose as being toward survival, or toward morphological conformity? As far as I can tell it makes no difference at all. The argument is that the illusory 'purpose' people consider apparent is the result of naturally occuring selection forces acting on random variation. I really don't see how the exact nature of their illusion makes any difference. Perhaps you could explain?

So you think it is material to the argument whether a person sees the illusion of purpose as survival, or whether they see it as morphological conformity? Id really like to know how. — Pseudonym

No I do not that THAT. I said what I wanted to say and not your straw man version.
And No the choice is not between the illusion of purpose or "morphological conformity" - that is your phrase not mine. [Whatever the hell you what that to mean.]
The choice is between thinking that the living world is designed or not. Without the details I mentioned (which you seem to think are not relevant), such as natural, sexual, and domestic selection it is possible to fall into the illusion of purpose. However, when you have to details of the process of evolutionary change it becomes perfectly clear how absurd is the illusion of a purposefully and intelligently designed universe.
It's an illusion that persisted for thousands of years in the absence of those details that you have told me are of no importance.

I just can't believe that cells made of particles somehow just randomly created entire biological systems. Particles of metal don't randomly organize themselves into rockets. Intelligent intervention is needed to shape inanimate or non-thinking materials into purposeful forms.

I just can't believe that cells made of particles somehow just randomly created entire biological systems. — CasKev

Why not? What other examples have you got?
The chemical pathways are well understood and can be replicated in a test tube.

I just can't believe that cells made of particles somehow just randomly created entire biological systems. Particles of metal don't randomly organize themselves into rockets. Intelligent intervention is needed to shape inanimate or non-thinking materials into purposeful forms. — CasKev

Of course. I just posted a video where some physicists, because of all of the problems with b Relativity, are now positing the gravity is a function of quantum entanglement information sharing . If one substitutes mind/memory for information sharing we can now begin to grasp how the mind/memory creates by sharing at the quantum level. Creation is fundamentally quantum (mind/memory) evolution within a holographic paradigm. We (everything) are evolving by creative experimentation. Our minds are the intelligent designers.

Creation is fundamentally quantum (mind/memory) evolution within a holographic paradigm. — Rich

Can you restate this in simpler terms, perhaps using an analogy?

The reason metals don't do that is because of the unique chemistry of carbon at the temperature-pressures found on Earth differs significantly from the chemistry of metals. The way carbon bonds to itself (and other elements) allows the millions of unique molecules which no other element has the capacity to form.

If you consider quanta as being information or memory, then stuff is created at the microscopic level (such as gravity) by sharing information between quanta. This is called quanta entanglement. Similarly, on a macroscopic level, when two humans create things, they share information (memory). Within a single body, information between cells is constantly being shared via the nervous system. It is all about information sharing. But who or what is doing the sharing? Who or what is performing this creative act? It is the Mind. Mind is embedded in the universe (holographic style) and it's creating using bits of information (memory) or quanta.

Bergson, really nailed it. He said the photographic (holographic Universe) was the result of Creative Evolution of the Élan vital (creative force), Memory, and Will. He had incredible intuitive presence.

The way carbon bonds to itself (and other elements) allows the millions of unique molecules which no other element has the capacity to form. — Moliere

It still begs the question why there do not exist non-living carbon-based structures that combine to serve a greater function. It appears as though only living things attempt to survive, and all seemingly intelligent behavior or structure exists only in living things, or things created by living things.

As I said , it is of no importance the LITERAL meaning of evolution.
In the context of the thread we are interested in the entire body of theory which points to the apparent design through automatically, rather than intelligently guided development.
This is not a lesson in the origin of words, but the origin of species.
The literal meaning gives a completely false view point.
When you unroll a scroll you are revealing what is preordained by the fact that the text is already written. Evolution is about the way species respond from changes in the environment via variation and mutation to produce novel adaptations and new species.
If they were LITERALLY evolving they would just be showing us what was already intended, as by God for instance. — charleton

You're wrong in thinking "the body of theory" points towards anything. Science is as confounded as it ever was about origin so taking any position is merely personal impression and nothing more. I don't know if I can explain to you what evolution has to do with rolling or not because certain concepts have to be present. The first concept is "undulation" the rise and fall of waves which are generated (like in a speaker) through the forces of expansion and contraction. Earth is subject to the forces created by the moon and the sun through respective movements but also we have other wave like forces acting on our environment like gravity. I'm gonna let that concept try and sink in and maybe approach this later.

Science is as confounded as it ever was about origin so taking any position is merely personal impression and nothing more. — Jon

A bold, empty and unsubstantiated position.