Sunday, 20 October 2013

An Appearance of Design


Evolutionists, as far as I know, don't have a defense of the assertion, that there is an appearance of design in organisms, other than to say, as far as I know, "because we see that we evolved". Now if I am wrong and there is an argument from appearance, that makes sense, please forgive me because I have never heard it. As far as I know it is simply an empty-headed assertion that has no meat on it's bones.

Let's think of it for a moment. When we have a design, then the parts in the system lead to an overall function. If we had parts that didn't lead to a function, or a function that didn't really need parts, then logically you would have an appearance of design.

For example, if I had a watch, that looked like any other watch, but it had no functioning parts, it would APPEAR to be a watch but would not be one.

Now obviously a watch, or any design, is easy to show as a design by it's parts and it's ultimate purpose or function. Here are some examples;

- a car has parts arranged in order for it to ultimately drive. That is why it's designed.
- a helicopter has parts and very specific, balanced, calculated structures, to make it fly.
- an eye has specific parts arranged very precisely to make it see.

The "design" of these FACTUAL examples, is logically BEYOND dispute, as we have all of the elements that make them designed.

So it's not enough to simply assert that an eye appears to be designed, because an eye shares the aforementioned elements, with artificial designs.

If you were to say an eye appears to be designed, you would also have to treat the artificial design in the same way otherwise it is a double standard, therefore you would have to say, "a helicopter only appears to be designed".

Because the argument of the appearance of design is so poor that it's really not even an argument, it is easy to refute it in a second way, logically, you simply transpose what the argument is predicated on, onto the element in question.

Therefore, evolutionists are saying that an eye only appears to see. Birds only appear to fly, ears only appear to hear..



6 comments:

  1. "Logically beyond dispute?" How can that be possible? The very nature of all science is that any conclusion could be falsified if sufficient evidence were found to overturn it. EVERYTHING is up for dispute, either by questioning the evidence or process used by the claimant or providing counter-evidence.
    You need to define the traits by which you would identify design in the universe. Something more appropriate than 'looks like it to me.' Something, you know, scientific.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your interest, in some past blogs I have given a good definition of design, it is easy to define design because humans design things all the time, so we merely have to look at what makes designs, designed. It's a simply matter really.

      When I say logically beyond dispute, I was referring to logic, not science. Science does not tell us what is true, except scientifically, it can't offer the logic of ascertaining truth, that is the notation of logic, not everything is about science, even if you think it is.

      As far as I can see, it is a vacuous argument to say that Mount Everest is up for dispute, which allows us to conclude that science itself, and what it says, CAN BE IRRELEVANT.

      Delete
    2. Where is your good definition of design?
      And most creationists think that everything in the universe is designed. So it would be next to impossible for them to identify something that is not designed. Are you among them?

      Delete
    3. Um....is Mount Everest a scientific theory? What would 'falsification' of a mountain look like? That's an odd counter to the ideal of scientific falsifiability.

      Delete
    4. You haven't understood my writings yet, as indicated by your many sporadic tangants into many other topics. You need to ISOLATE and thereby remove the need for these extraneous comments. Try firstly concentrating on one point as though it does not lead to many branches, treat each point as monophyletic, as though the whole world depended upon the isolated syllogism and it's premises, it's amino acids, if you will. I can't engage a person that jumps all over the place, as though every subject on earth is linked. Perhaps in your mind it is.

      Delete
  2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete