> >PM>I still do not understand specified complexity? You
> are looking backwards from the end result and claiming
> that this was somehow >specified beforehand?
>
> >SJ>Yes.
>
> PM>That is a poor method based upon the idea of design
> which has already been shown circular. You observe
> complexity and assume it >has to be specified and
> therefore it requires a designer. Highly >circular.
>
> SJ: No. I "observe" *specified* "complexity and assume
> it...requires a designer". It really is "specified", in
> the sense that the genetic code in DNA specifies via RNA
> to cellular protein-enzyme systems to make a specific
> amino acid:
>
PM: But you conclude from this 'specifying' that there is the
need for an intelligent to perform this specifying. You
observe a complexity in which there is an organization of
functions. How you could conclude from looking at this
that there is an intelligent designer is beyond me. There
is no need for such an assumption, no evidence for such
an assumption. I see something I do not (yet_) understand
and assume an intelligence did it ? Is that the argument?
Pim, I have been lurking for 3-4 months on your dialog between
yourself and Stephen Jones. I subscribed to learn more about
the arguments on evolution. Frankly, I don't always follow
some of the more technical dialog but I think that I have
something to contribute along the lines of the general
arguments. While I am not a biologist or chemist, I do regard
myself as quite logical in my thinking. (So much for my
introduction).
The phrase of yours that particularly bothers me is, "How you
could conclude from looking at this that there is an intelligent
designer is beyond me." Are you really serious when you make
a statement like that or are you just posturing? I see all sorts
of things around my house that have varying degrees of complexity.
I conclude that from the end product that someone designed them.
Is that an unreasonable conclusion? Must I go to China and confirm
that a certain individual there designed my shoes before my
conclusion would be a reasonable one? For all intents and purposes
this is an unseen designer as far as I am concerned. Do you
wish to challenge my conclusion on this matter? Your next
sentence is, "There is no need for such an assumption, no evidence
for such an assumption." My question to you is: Do you personally
verify all objects in your house as to whether or not they are
designed? If you do, then how many trips out of the country have
you made for verification purposes? If you don't, then why do you
tell Stephen, "How you could conclude from looking at this
that there is an intelligent designer is beyond me."? Would I
be safe in assuming that not only did someone design my shoes but
that someone also designed the machinery used to manufacture them?
If your incredulity is based upon Stephen Jones' "circular reasoning"
then I would be glad to respond to it -- though I feel like Stephen
did a fine job in correcting your statement you used to explain where
he was using "circular reasoning".
Bill Kipp