>Excuse me for butting in after months of semi-retirement, but...
>
>Glenn, you appear to be arguing that if evolution *could have* occurred,
>then it *did* occur. I don't that's going to convince many YEC's, either.
Then I am badly mis-stating my case here. I will try to break down the
argument some more.
The design people say that complex objects, like watches and mousetraps are
too complex to have evolve. Thus when Paley finds a watch in the field, he
knows that it is too complex to have just happened and thus it was designed.
I am trying to say that that is not how Paley knows his watch is designed.
The logic goes like this.
This object is incredibly complex
Complex objects are designed objects
Therefore this object is designed.
I am objecting to the second assumption of this syllogism. Complex objects can
only be assumed to be designed IF AND ONLY IF it is proven that complex
objects can not be developed in a stepwise fashion from simpler systems. What
I am trying, very poorly to say is that the logic involved in the
mousetrap/Paley's watch argument is nothing more than assuming the conclusion
that evolution is impossible. With living systems the logic above is modified
as follows.
This biological system is an incredibly complex object
Complex objects are designed
Therefore biological systems are the result of design
The secondary assumption assumes the conclusion that evolution can't occur.
Now, does that mean that evolution is therefore proved by our inability to
prove design? No. But until you can prove that there is no way complex
objects can evolved, you can not prove design. This is a chicken/egg
situation. By the same token, you can not prove evolution until you can
disprove design. Consider the following logic:
This biological system is an incredibly complex object.
Complex objects evolve from simpler system
There for this biological system evolved.
The logic is mirror image and is not conclusive in either case. In this latter
case must prove that design is incapable of proving evolution which would
require the following:
This biological system is an incredibly complex object.
Complex objects are incapable of resulting from design.
Complex objects evolve from simpler system
There for this biological system evolved.
Going full circle, the full logic of the Paley's watch argument is:
This object is incredibly complex
Complex objects can not be evolved
Complex objects are designed objects
Therefore this object is designed.
This additional assumption is required to close the argument up tight.
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm