This was really my point. I know that God's intentions are not supposed
to be completely unknowable, but I was merely pointing out that it is
a fallacy to use the inscrutability (is that a word?) of God's will as a
logical argument.
>> No, but if you are arguing that imperfect designs are deliberate, then
>> you should be able to back up that argument by providing some good
>> reasons why an imperfect design was employed when a perfect one would
>> have been just as easy.
>
>I think that a the idea of a "perfect" design is rather nebulous, and
>therefore "imperfect" is also.
You're right; this was an error on my part. I didn't mean to say "perfect",
but rather "better". And there are certainly many aspects of organisms'
anatomy that could have been done better.
>From what perspective are you judging? I
>had argued previously against the charge of imperfection by pointing out
>that our knowledge of developmental biology is so limited for more complex
>animals (above fruit flies and worms) that it is quite possible that
>things which *seem* examples of bad design *might* have underlying
>molecular necessities.
Maybe, but you'll have a hard time convincing me that that's true in some
cases. For example, the layout of blood vessels in mammalian retinas is what
gives us our "blind spot". However, the squid's retina has no such flaw.
Why would a designer have given us this disadvantage and not squids?
>I used the example of the prostate and the
>urethra. Having recently heard a lecture on prostate cancer, I know that
>it is now thought that the surrounding tissues (including, perhaps, the
>epithelial cells of the urethra) strongly influence the development of the
>prostate. This *may* be an example of a developmental necessity for the
>aposition of the two.
That's a possibility. Anybody out there know more about this?
>> SJ>The argument from imperfection assumes incorrectly that the Designer
>> >has only one motive - engineering excellence:
>>
>> No, it assumes that the person arguing intelligent design should be
>> able to provide a good argument for it.
>
>I have a thought on this and I cannot support this argument rigorously,
>but I have a certain authority as one who studies the cell professionally
>and especially how it accomplishes signal transduction: The cell looks
>awfully well designed to me. Even those who are nominal atheists fall
>into anthropomorphic language when they talk about how things work in the
>cell.
True, but we also do that when describing the behavior of subatomic
particles, or a variety of other natural phenomena. That is just a human
quirk; we tend to put things in terms that we understand.
>Either "design" or "intelligent design" is obvious, or the
>idea is so complex as to defy definition. I think a number of people work
>on this at the theoretical end--attempting to define design and
>complexity. Bill Dembski is one and Hubert Yockey is another.
I am very skeptical that such a thing is even possible. The problem is
that concepts like "design" are basically human labels. And the whole
argument that there is a qualitative difference between "intelligent
design" and "apparent design" is based on the assumption that there is
a qualitative difference between intelligent beings, like humans, and
other living things -- or even the assumption that there is a qualitative
difference between life and non-life. It seems like one big circular
argument to me.
>> We know when a feature causes an inherent disadvantage (such as the
>> blindspot in mammals, or the dangerous layout of the human urethra,
>> which makes it prone to blockage when the prostate swells), and many
>> of these features cannot possibly be seen as an advantage. However,
>> if Behe, Stephen Jones, or anybody else has examples of how such
>> features might prove advantageous in "the big picture", they are welcome
>> to present that evidence.
>
>I suggest that it may be only humility to suggest that we don't know the
>"big picture" that God (assuming there is one) knows.
Of course. However, admitting that one doesn't know the big picture
and then turning around and using that lack of knowledge to try and
prove something is not a very good argument.
>Isn't this demand a
>bit out of line, even (especially) if you take the Christian picture of
>the world?
Not at all. Those who are trying to scientifically prove the existence
of a Creator are obligated to present scientific evidence. I don't see
anything out of line about that.
>It might be easier to satisfy your demand if you could define
>terms such as "advantageous".
I was only borrowing the term from those who argue that flawed features
like the blind spot might be advantageous on some level. I, too, would be
interested to know what their definition of "advantageous" is.
>Sorry if I'm not being clear.
So far you're being clear. This debate is definitely becoming confusing,
though...
>> SJ>In fact, the argument from imperfection assumes without warrant that
>> >we would infallibly know what was in the mind of the Designer:
>>
>> It only assumes a certain level of common sense. Surely an omnipotent
>> being would be capable of that.
>
>I think SJ is right. What do you mean by common sense?
The ability to look at two different designs and say, "this one is
clearly better". Again, for an example, I will use the differences
in the retinal design of mammals and squids. Clearly having no blind
spot is better than having a blind spot.
>> SJ>But archaeology has major problems in understanding why *human*
>> >minds did what they did, as no less than Daniel Dennett points out:
>>
>> And even we fallible, imperfect humans can see ways that life could
>> have been designed better.
>
>To what end?
To make life a little better, a little more comfortable. If nothing
more, that is a good enough reason.
_____________________________________________________________
| Russell Stewart |
| http://www.rt66.com/diamond/ |
|_____________________________________________________________|
| Albuquerque, New Mexico | diamond@rt66.com |
|_____________________________|_______________________________|
If Rush is Right, then I'll take what's Left.