RAZD, in response to your post, I will put out this additional reading material, which obviously you have the freewill to undervalue for your own reasons.
"what makes something designed, anyway? Can we determine if lifeforms are?" So to look at what a scientific theory theorizes, to the contrary of "design", is another undertaking. You might then think, "you dismiss the whole of what science says about it?" But that's not my argument either, I have said some things about science in this following blog entry; http://creationworldviews.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/isnt-rejection-of-evolution-rejection.html
No, what I mean to say, is not that your points aren't merited, but rather to say that if we asked as to what makes a well cooked cake, then to then discuss a very famous chef, or the history of cooking, would be extraneous to the logic of the evaluation.
'What makes something designed?' Is the question. We are evaluating that specifically, without mentioning evolution.
All of the elements of a design make something a design. (Z)
X has all of the elements of a design,
Ergo X is designed. (Z)
(Disclaimer: you are right to then ask questions, such as, "what about none of the elements or a few?" but that opens a very great can of worms, I am only addressing the fullness of design, so to speak.)
Firstly, my first premise, "all of the elements make something a design", is a truism. It is sound because we have studied something that is actually designed, and those elements make something "designed", so if something has all of those elements, we can conclude it is designed, because those elements are that which makes something designed. Here is an equal analogy; If I am every element that makes a human, then I am reasonably a human. (Truism) (Law of Identity, X is X)
"X" Has all the elements of design, this premise is formally correct, as it qualifies itself, but the premise is false or true depending upon whether X truly does have all of the elements of sophisticated designs.
So the syllogism is sound, as long as the evaluation is sound. I will go through the elements of that which make something designed. (notice that it is pointless to question the elements, because they are only inferred from looking at ACTUAL, agreed upon "designs" anyway, such as cars or watches. (all people agree these things are designed.)
So let's come across that watch in a field again. WHY is it a design? What are those elements that make it so? Some investigation gives us the answers.
Precise Construction. Construction, where materials are manipulated into strange, specific, orderly relationships.
Artificiality, (so to speak). What I mean by this, is that materials that don't ordinarily have any natural use, have been taken and used. Manipulated into having a purpose that is intended for something.
Contingency Plans. When something exists that has complexity, problems, or potential problems arise, from that things very existing, so then if a problem arises, we see contingency plans put in place to deal with the problem.
Viability. This element includes contingency plans but also the solving of engineering problems. The two aren't quite the same, an engineering problem is a complex problem that arises, that could thwart the design itself. A design has viability, it works if all problems have been solved, and plans are in place.
Aesthetics. Usually sophisticated designs have an element of aesthetics. We see a Ferrari car is very attractive to the eye, or a butterfly or ladybird or flower or Peacock's tail. Usually there will be symmetry and colour. Aesthetics is an element of design because it's like the final touch, there is an Artistic element to design.
Wisdom/Intelligence. Whether it is a sophisticated code, such as binary code in computers, or whether it is an ingenius idea, to solve a very difficult problem. This much is obvious, when we look at a design. When we look at a differential, look how cleverly the simplicity of the meshing gears are, ultimately a simple arrangement, yet it took a very clever idea to come up with.
Conceptual/ Imagination. When we look at designs, we know that someone had to firstly have an idea, or imagine something that they wanted to achieve. When we OBSERVE a designed thing, the ultimate goal of the thing, SHOWS the idea behind the thing. To look upon a helicopter, we know just by looking at it that someone had to have an original idea, they imagined achieving a machine that could fly. We don't need to anything other than to see the concept in action, because with designed things, that is what we're seeing, someone's imagination, displayed.
Design itself, seems quite simple. This is misleading in that complicated science might seem to "trump" something simple-science, but really there is no argument that says that the answer must be a complicated, natural and scientific answer. Notice science is used here, operationally, just not in the same manner as tenuous, historical, inductive science. Darwin pitted a historical theory against the fact of design. But circumstancial evidence doesn't trump deductive, incontrovertible fact.
To say, "an eye is designed to see" is not a claim, it is a description of a fact. That's all.
Thursday, 17 April 2014
Over-emphasis on the Fossil order of organisms, can sometimes be conflated with the evolution theory.
Evolutionists will commonly ask, "Why isn't there a human in the Cambrian rocks?"
It can be hard to spot the fallacy, but it's a conflation of a theory with actual evidence. It can SEEM to favour evolutionists, but then that is the real trick isn't it.
Logically I can prove it doesn't favour evolution. on the below diagram I show a table with some balls I have scattered on to the table randomly. I have then split the table-top into three sections, and now, at a later stage somebody has come along and theorized that there is an order to the balls. That they tend to go, left to right, from red colour to blue, and then to green. If the person that believed that theory then said, "now you must show a green ball to be found in the Pre-Cambrian section of the table!", would they be right to make that demand?
They would be wrong because I actually wouldn't find a green ball in the Pre-Cambrian section of the table, because none were scattered there, and where they were scattered has nothing to do with their theory, which came after the scattering, and is a separate matter, logically.
As you can see, the order of the balls has nothing to do with the theory of an order of balls. And in the very same way, evolution has nothing to do with what types of organism you will find in Cambrian rock. You can CLAIM there is an evolutionary reason for it, but as you see with my example, even if you can't find things you want to find, "out of place" this in itself proves precisely nothing.
You will never find a human in the Cambrian era because they did not happen to be preserved there. Largely marine life is preserved in that era. ( just like you wouldn't expect me to prove to you that you would find meat in a vegetarian restaurant but if you didn't know it was vegeterian when we entered the restaurant, that would be far more impressive. (predictive as opposed to none-predictive.)
Like with the restaurant, we already know the order of fossils.
The Fossil Order and the Ideal Archetypes both preceded Darwin's theory, and are both posteriori (after the knowledge) facts. These two posteriori set of facts are now conflated, and the fossil order is synonymous with an evolutionary order, and ideal archetypes are now referred to as homologies. But as you can see, both set of facts were known before evolution and shouldn't be regarded as examples of evolution.