Biological Design Argument?

[rossum]

rossum

He is selected, from various signs, as the reincarnation of the previous Dalai Lama.

Who decides he is the reincarnation, and where does their authority to decide originate?

This is off topic for this thread. See here for more details.

rossum

 

[Charlemagne_II]

“When the Dalai Lama dies, a group of elder monks is held responsible for finding the next leader of their people. They select a young boy who shows a connection to the recently deceased Dalai Lama. The boy is then brought to the monks who raise him and prepare him for the great undertaking he will face when he comes to the end of his youth. The current Dalai Lama was identified at the age of two in his small village.”

Wonder what he did at the age of 2 that made it obvious he should be the next Dalai Lama.

 

[ngill09]

Wikipedia:

It is said that, amongst other omens, the head of the embalmed body of the thirteenth Dalai Lama, at first facing south-east, had mysteriously turned to face the northeast—indicating the direction in which his successor would be found. The Regent, Reting R(name removed by moderator)oche, shortly afterwards had a vision at the sacred lake of Lhamo La-tso indicating Amdo as the region to search—specifically a one-story house with distinctive guttering and tiling. After extensive searching, the Thondup house, with its features resembling those in Reting’s vision, was finally found.

Thondup was presented with various relics, including toys, some of which had belonged to the 13th Dalai Lama and some of which had not. It was reported that he had correctly identified all the items owned by the previous Dalai Lama, exclaiming, “That’s mine! That’s mine!”[9]

Seems legit.

 

[tonyrey]

“Through him all things were made.” The universe is a rational, ordered creation. With what does one order things? With the mind; with reason.

This question assumes that the faculties of love and reason are mutually exclusive, which is patently false. Can a person not be rational and loving at the same time? The obvious answer is yes, they can.

They differ in content and context, not conclusion. You say this as though they contradict one another. They do not. The Gospel of John focuses on the philosophical/theological dimensions of Christ, where another may focus on his relationship to the Jewish people and OT prophecy, etc. So no, I am not being partial, in any biased sense. No more so than one is biased in using a road map rather than a climate map to plot a course.

:thumbsup:Cute, cogent and concise!

 

[tonyrey]

Richard Dawkins describes biology as “the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose”. If so it is necessary to explain:

1. The appearance of Design.

and:

1. The origin of human design - given that it is not an illusion.

 

[ngill09]

Richard Dawkins describes biology as “the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose”. If so it is necessary to explain:

1. The appearance of Design.

and:

1. The origin of human design - given that it is not an illusion.

Then you should read the rest of the book from which you mined that quote.

 

[tonyrey]

Then you should read the rest of the book from which you mined that quote.

It would be far more to the point for** you** to refute the statements I have made on this thread rather rely on false assumptions about my knowledge of The Blind Watchmaker the author of which has revealed his inability to explain his power of reasoning - on which he so confidently relies to assert that it is derived from unreasoning processes!

Garbage in garbage out - as in your case since it is evident that you are one of his disciples…

 

[ngill09]

It would be far more to the point for** you** to refute the statements I have made on this thread rather rely on false assumptions about my knowledge of The Blind Watchmaker the author of which has revealed his inability to explain his power of reasoning - on which he so confidently relies to assert that it is derived from unreasoning processes!

Garbage in garbage out - as in your case since it is evident that you are one of his disciples…

Actually, of the “Four Horsemen of the New Atheist Movement”, I’ve only read anything by Sam Harris, and I wouldn’t consider myself a great fan of him either. I think Dawkins has a very immature view of religion, but he does know his field, and I think it’s very strange for someone to quotemine that sentence which comes from a book whose entire purpose is to explain the appearance of design.

Why does reason work? Because we have a brain that reasons, and developed to reason because that attribute is beneficial to survival. Pretty simple actually.

And don’t start that nonsense about “Nothing that is the result of physical laws can have the ability to reason”. People once thought that chess was a perfect example of something that requires humanities unique reasoning ability - but now we have computers, governed entirely by physical laws, which can beat even the best chess grandmasters.

Now here’s my question for you. Why does many people’s reasoning ability fail? I don’t just mean people who are wrong sometimes, but also people who are currently in mental hospitals because their brain is malfunctioning.

 

[tonyrey]

Actually, of the “Four Horsemen of the New Atheist Movement”, I’ve only read anything by Sam Harris, and I wouldn’t consider myself a great fan of him either. I think Dawkins has a very immature view of religion, but he does know his field, and I think it’s very strange for someone to quotemine that sentence which comes from a book whose entire purpose is to explain the appearance of design.

His knowledge of biology does not entitle him to pontificate on the nature of reality - which is a metaphysical issue.

Why does reason work? Because we have a brain that reasons, and developed to reason because that attribute is beneficial to survival. Pretty simple actually.

You are begging the question - which is** how **unreasoning processes succeeded in magically endowing themselves with insight into, and understanding of, not only themselves but the whole of reality! Quite a feat.

Now here’s my question for you. Why does many people’s reasoning ability fail? I don’t just mean people who are wrong sometimes, but also people who are currently in mental hospitals because their brain is malfunctioning.

Having worked in a mental hospital for two years I can assure you that very often people fail to reason properly even when there is nothing whatsoever wrong with their brain. That is a very crude, outdated hypothesis.

 

[ngill09]

His knowledge of biology does not entitle him to pontificate on the nature of reality - which is a metaphysical issue.

Now who’s changing the subject? We’re talking about the appearance of biological design, which is a biological issue.

You are begging the question - which is** how **unreasoning processes succeeded in magically endowing themselves with insight into, and understanding of, not only themselves but the whole of reality! Quite a feat.

Few people would claim to have a complete understanding of all of reality. That is much different than having a brain that works.

Having worked in a mental hospital for two years I can assure you that very often people fail to reason properly even when there is nothing whatsoever wrong with their brain. That is a very crude, outdated hypothesis.

I’m only talking about those people who suffer from neurological disorders.

 

[tonyrey]

His knowledge of biology does not entitle him to pontificate on the nature of reality - which is a meta

The appearance of biological design is a a metaphysical issue. Biology is not concerned with any form of design but with structure, function, growth, development, distribution and classification of physical organisms. The Nobel Laureate Jacques Monod devised the neologism “teleonomy” to distinguish biological purpose from “teleology”,

You are begging the question - which is** how **

unreasoning processes succeeded in magically endowing themselves with insight into, and understanding of, not only themselves but the whole of reality! Quite a feat.
Few people would claim to have a complete understanding of all of reality.

The issue is not the whole of reality but the origin of reasoning for which no one has given an intelligible scientific explanation.

That is much different than having a brain that works.

Exactly! There is no verifiable evidence that mind = brain.

Having worked in a mental hospital for two years I can assure you that very often people fail to reason properly even when there is nothing whatsoever wrong with their brain. That is a very crude, outdated hypothesis.

I’m only talking about those people who suffer from neurological disorders

You referred specifically to “people who are currently in mental hospitals because their brain is malfunctioning” in answer to the question “Why does many people’s reasoning ability fail?” - which is the logical consequence of your statements:

Why does reason work? Because we have a brain that reasons, and developed to reason because that attribute is beneficial to survival. Pretty simple actually.

.
Now you are attempting to wriggle out of the hole you have dug for yourself - in the earth from which you suppose all living beings without exception are derived…

 

[rossum]

The issue is not the whole of reality but the origin of reasoning for which no one has given an intelligible scientific explanation.

Then your question has nothing to do with abiogenesis. A bacterium is part of biology and yet no bacterium can reason. The origin of reasoning is nothing to do with the origin of life and nothing to do with a great deal of biology.

What about reasoning? Does a dog exhibit some reasoning? More than a worm? Less than a human? Is so then there is evidence that reasoning can develop in some living organisms over time and that over time the amount of reasoning exhibited can increase.

You might also want to look at the results of the Mirror Test.

rossum

 

[Charlemagne_II]

rossum

**What about reasoning? **

Yes, what about it?

How is it that abiogenesis as a process must be reasonable if there was no reasoning behind abiogenesis?

 

[DrTaffy]

rossum;10690600:

You have to support your assertion if you want to convince me or, probably, pretty much anyone.

No - I wrote that.

I have supported my reasoning with the simple fact - which is recognised by any unbiased person who has no vested interest in denying it - that there are overwhelming odds against the occurrence of one specific set of circumstances in all possible universes.

Again, that is not support. It is just repeating your assertion along with the assertion that it “is recognised by any unbiased person who has no vested interest in denying it” - whereas I have explained why I think it is not just an unsupported assertion, but one that is unsupportable at our current level of knowledge.

tonyrey;10688054:

I have supported my reasoning that fortuitous abiogenesis is highly improbable but you have rejected it without giving any reasons for an alternative explanation.

You have not

supported that assertion, you have simply repeated it over and over. I have explained (e.g. in this comment) why I think this is an almost impossible assertion to support, but you have not even tried to do so.

False! I pointed out:

(i) Scientists are not indulging in a guessing game when they refer to the likelihood of life on specific planets.

A rather confused statement, and one which in no way seems to support your assertion that “fortuitous abiogenesis is highly improbable” - if anything it seems to contradict it, or at least imply that scientists disagree with it.

It might help if you cited the statements by “Scientists” that you are referring to.

As far as giving “any reasons for an alternative explanation” - I don’t need to do so in order to point out flaws in your reasoning.

(iii) The total number of possible universes far exceeds one universe with the conditions necessary to support life as we know it.

An unsupported assertion followed by another unjustified restriction of life to “life as we know it.”

DrTaffy;10686092:

For example, why should a universe in which the laws of chemistry make it likely

for complex self-replicators to arise not also have large numbers of asteroids smashing into it’s life-friendly niches?

You automatically equated living organisms with complex self-replicators(…)

No I didn’t. I used the development of complex self replicators as an example of an important possible step in the development of life, just as I used asteroid impacts as an example of a possible cause of the extinction of life.

The origin and survival of life over billions of years are based on the same fundamental conditions.

As I just showed, no! The origin of life and the survival of life depend on totally different conditions.

How many other universes are possible?

I don’t know. Any answer from ‘zero’ (if ‘possible’ universes exclude those only made ‘possible’ by supernatural intervention) to ‘infinity’ (and bearing in mind the various infinities defined by mathematicians) is defensible, more or less.

You are the one making positive assertions about other universes. You enumerate them, if it matters.

False deduction! The fact that scientists have specified a few planets where they consider life to be likely to exist doesn’t imply that abiogenesis is fortuitous.

Are you claiming that those scientists assert supernatural reasons for life being “likely” on those planets? Again, I think it is time you cited these scientists.

DrTaffy;10692405:

In other words I have not made the bold unsupported assertion you want, nor am I going to run around shouting “There is no God, Jesus never had a beard, Mary Magdalene was an apostle!” just to give you an easy target to attack!

Your sarcastic comments are out of place on a philosophy forum, infringe the conduct rules and reveal more about your personality and antipathy to Christianity than anything else.

There is nothing sarcastic or antipathetic to christianity in saying that I will not make such assertions. If you cannot defend your assertions, that does not require me to make baseless assertions just to give you an easy target to attack - nor would you doing so in any way justify your original assertions.

Nor do veiled threats against me in any way strengthen your case.

You have again evaded the question. Do you deny that the number of unrestricted possibilities is far larger than the number of possibilities restricted by specific conditions?

Again, that depends on the conditions. I gave one example of a condition that in no way restricts the original set of possibilities.

You make the assertion that only a tiny fraction of the ‘possible universes’ could give rise to life, so you need to support that assertion. Any form of life, not just ‘life as we know it’, if you want it to mean anything. Otherwise it is just a post de facto observation, like rolling a die a million times and then claiming that the infinitesimal chance of that particular series of numbers being rolled is proof of God.

If you had predicted the series in advance, sure, or if there were something unque about the series, maybe, otherwise not so much.

 

[rossum]

rossum

**What about reasoning? **

Yes, what about it?

How is it that abiogenesis as a process must be reasonable if there was no reasoning behind abiogenesis?

Abiogenesis produced a very very primitive organism; even simpler than a modern bacterium. Since modern bacteria have never exhibited anything resembling reasoning, we can conclude that reasoning was not produced by abiogenesis.

Organisms which do exhibit reasoning, such as dogs, chimps etc. arrived on the scene a lot later. They did not arise by abiogenesis but by evolution. We can observe that different animals exhibit different degrees of reasoning. A dog is not as good as a chimpanzee which is less good than a human. There is obviously a scale of reasoning, and where there is a scale, evolution has a chance to work.

Reasoning appears to be an emergent process. It is a philosophical mistake to reify it as tonyrey appears to do.

rossum

 

[Charlemagne_II]

rossum

Abiogenesis produced a very very primitive organism; even simpler than a modern bacterium. Since modern bacteria have never exhibited anything resembling reasoning, we can conclude that reasoning was not produced by abiogenesis.

Since neither of us was present at abiogenesis, neither of us is a witness as to how complex the most primitive organism was. What we can know is that the process of coming into being had to be reasonable. But how reasonable can abiognesis be if it was not subject to the laws of reason to begin with? You contend abiogenesis could have happened all at once and by accident (there could not yet be any evolution). That to me does not seem reasonable. Prove to me that it is. You can’t. No one can. And no one ever will be able to prove it.

Case closed!

 

[rossum]

Since neither of us was present at abiogenesis, neither of us is a witness as to how complex the most primitive organism was.

Since neither of was present at, or a witness to, the Declaration of Independence then we can conclude that the Unites States of America does not exist?

Your understanding of the scientific method is at fault. Were you present to observe when the earth coalesced from the accretion disc around the sun? Does the earth exist? Please avoid these inane talking points which Ken Ham and his ilk are so fond of.

What we can know is that the process of coming into being had to be reasonable.

I disagree. It had to be possible; reason had nothing to do with it. Since abiogenesis is possible under the rules of chemistry then there is no scientific problem. All we are doing is looking at the details of how it probably happened. So far we have shown that we can produce lipid bilayers, purines, pyrimidines, ribozymes, amino acids etc. purely with chemistry. What have the design theorists produced so far? Where are the amino acids produced with intelligent reasoning (name removed by moderator)ut by the proposed designer?

Prove to me that it is. You can’t. No one can. And no one ever will be able to prove it.

Your use of the word “prove” in this context is incorrect. Proof is for mathematics; science deals in evidence, not proof.

All science is open to potential disproof by new discoveries, as Newton’s gravity was disproved (science does use disproof) by Einstein and by Eddington’s observations.

There is ample scientific evidence for abiogenesis. There is no scientific evidence for design as a part of the process of abiogenesis. Show us the scientific evidence, and science will change just as the theory of gravity changed. Without evidence then personal incredulity has no weight.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

Since abiogenesis is possible under the rules of chemistry then there is no scientific problem.

It is only possible if you make the unverified assumption that abiogenesis is possible under the undirected rules of chemistry! After all, life has a direction whereas inanimate molecules do not…

There is ample scientific evidence for abiogenesis.

There is no verifiable evidence that that abiogenesis is possible under the rules of chemistry without any other factor!

There is no scientific evidence for design as a part of the process of abiogenesis.

There is plenty of philosophical evidence that design is an intelligent activity.

Show us the scientific evidence, and science will change just as the theory of gravity changed. Without evidence then personal incredulity has no weight.

Show us the philosophical evidence, and philosophy will change just as spiritual development - which presupposes intelligence - changed. Without evidence personal incredulity has no weight.

 

[tonyrey]

Reasoning appears to be an emergent process. It is a philosophical mistake to reify it as tonyrey appears to do.

Reasoning is a mental activity not a physical process. It is a philosophical mistake to discard it as rossum appears to do, thereby ruling out spiritual development.

 

[ngill09]

It is only possible if you make the unverified assumption that abiogenesis is possible under the undirected rules of chemistry! After all, life has a direction whereas inanimate molecules do not…

What do you mean, inanimate molecules don’t have direction? They are directed by the laws and properties of chemistry, just like organic lifeforms are.

There is no verifiable evidence that that abiogenesis is possible under the rules of chemistry without any other factor!

Miller-Urey experiment.

There is plenty of philosophical evidence that design is an intelligent activity.
Show us the philosophical evidence, and philosophy will change just as spiritual development - which presupposes intelligence - changed. Without evidence personal incredulity has no weight.

Are snowflakes designed by intelligent beings?

How about these nearly boulders which, on first glance, seem like they must have been shaped by some intelligence?
imagegossips.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/most-amazing-natural-phenomenon-Moeraki-Boulders.jpg

*In reality, they are formed by waves.

And what about these strange rock formations? Surely such a geometrically specific shape could not form naturally?

imagegossips.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/most-amazing-natural-phenomenon-Columnar-Basalt.jpg

*They’re formed by lava cooling under specific natural conditions.

The point is that the appearance of design does not necessitate design. In fact, of the many interesting and complex things we see on earth, very few are actually designed with intelligent intent. Everything from tornadoes to coral reefs, from clouds to crystals, from rainbows to the rings of Saturn, are created not by intelligence but by nature.