Intelligent Design, Edward Feser's views

[Dan123]

Take away environmental pressures and they bend back toward the mean,

There’s no such thing as taking away environmental pressures even though you keep saying this.

 

[MikeInVA]

And some mutations aren’t beneficial or harmful right away, but may, by chance, have a benefit later.

Seems like a lot of wishful thinking. I think it takes more faith to believe in evolution than to believe in ID.

 

[buffalo]

There’s no such thing as taking away environmental pressures even though you keep saying this.

Sure there is. Is you claim an organism that is suited in a niche is always under stress? That the stress does not fluctuate within certain norms?

 

[mVitus]

Seems like a lot of wishful thinking. I think it takes more faith to believe in evolution than to believe in ID.

We can actually see cases of that. With the Black Death, some people had genes that ended up helping them survive. Those weren’t particularly useful before, but they ended up being so.

 

[Dan123]

We recognize design when we see it because it was cognized by a mind.

Last time you claimed this I asked for an example. You posted a picture of Mt Rushmore and suggested that picture had both designed elements and undesigned elements. You never got back to me on which elements weren’t designed.

 

[buffalo]

Well, it’s been mentioned before how some features were beneficial for other reasons. And some mutations aren’t beneficial or harmful right away, but may, by chance, have a benefit later.

These are so very rare. Even beneficial mutations that have a short term benefit, usually effect the organism negatively somewhere else.

 

[MikeInVA]

Take a look at the Bombardier Beetle link I posted earlier.

 

[Dan123]

Sure there is. Is you claim an organism that is suited in a niche is always under stress? That the stress does not fluctuate within certain norms?

A creature well suited to it’s environment would be under pressure to not change. You’ve pointed out a dozen times across as many threads that natural selection often works to keep things the same, are you going to claim the opposite now?

The pressures can change but that doesn’t mean they’re removed. All you’re claiming is when pressures go from A to B to A, the animals adapt from A to B to A.

 

[buffalo]

Last time you claimed this I asked for an example. You posted a picture of Mt Rushmore and suggested that picture had both designed elements and undesigned elements. You never got back to me on which elements weren’t designed.

To make it simple - the heads have high levels of FSCI. The surrounding rocks that were not cut into do not.

 

[Dan123]

Take a look at the Bombardier Beetle link I posted earlier.

I did, there was several paragraphs explaining how precursors to the current biology exist elsewhere in other beetles. Then there was a sentence claiming intelligent design proponents don’t agree. Somehow I didn’t find that compelling.

Since you claim a gliding species can’t even under go a small mutation that would let it glide slightly longer I’m not going to try and discuss even more complex adaptations.

 

[mVitus]

If something’s a 1 in 1,000,000 chance, but there are 1,000,000,000 chances, that’s 1,000 occurrences. Rare doesn’t mean non-existent. And rare among large numbers ends up getting decent numbers itself.

 

[buffalo]

A creature well suited to it’s environment would be under pressure to not change.

Why would you call this pressure if they are in their sweet spot?

 

[Dan123]

So no one designed the mountains?

 

[buffalo]

You’ve pointed out a dozen times across as many threads that natural selection often works to keep things the same, are you going to claim the opposite now?

No, NS is a conservative process not a creative one.

 

[mVitus]

To make it simple - the heads have high levels of FSCI. The surrounding rocks that were not cut into do not.

So the rocks had no design?

 

[Dan123]

Why would you call this pressure if they are in their sweet spot?

Pressure to not change is still pressure. Mutations and variations would be more likely to be selected against unless they even more closely suited the current environment. But by definition a create well suited for the current environment is well suited for the current environment.

If the environment changes from A to B and animals adapt to B, that would be the new ‘normal’ for them. If the environment in turn changes back to more closely resemble A, the adaptions aren’t ‘removed’, selection simply favors offspring that retain more of the traits they previously had, likely sitting in dormant genes, or new adaptations that similarly assist it.

You’re trying to define a ‘normal’ then saying everything will return to that, but how do you objectively define what the ‘normal’ environment is.

 

[buffalo]

So no one designed the mountains?

They have a much lower level of FSCI since they are naturally occurring. If you asking me if they are part of the total design of creation? Then yes they are designed too.

We see wave patterns on the beach. Then we see the words SOS spelled out. We immediately know an intelligent mind who knows the code wrote them knowing that someone who sees it knows what it means. Codes, which need a sender, receiver and cypher always come from a mind.

 

[Dan123]

No one claimed it’s a creative process, it only selects from what exists. It largely favors remaining unchanged as long as the animal is well adapted. Not all animals are well adapted for the current environment, and the environment isn’t static.

 

[buffalo]

Pressure to not change is still pressure.

Close to zero?

Darwin’s finches had a certain beak size and shape at the start. Then it changed. Then it went back. in the end the finches are still finches.

 

[Dan123]

They have a much lower level of FSCI since they are naturally occurring. If you asking me if they are part of the total design of creation? Then yes they are designed too.

So Mt Rushmore is a big designed thing inside a big designed thing surrounded by big designed things. So the word design really has no useful meaning does it? You said we ‘recognize’ design but how do you recognize something to which there’s no alternative? It would be like saying “I can recognize a thing that exists vs a thing that doesn’t exist. Go ahead show me a thing and I’ll tell you if it exists or not.”