Post Reply
Page 1 of 6  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Switch to Forum Live View ORIGIN OF lIFE - Question #6 - How Do Evolutionists Know That Living Things Weren't Designed?
3 years ago  ::  Mar 05, 2012 - 7:03PM #1
iamachildofhis
Posts: 10,675

iama: Why should science be restricted to naturalistic causes rather than to logical causes?

6. Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed? Richard Dawkins wrote, “biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.”4 Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, wrote, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.”5 The problem for evolutionists is that living things show too much design. Who objects when an archaeologist says that pottery points to human design? Yet if someone attributes the design in living things to a designer, that is not acceptable. Why should science be restricted to naturalistic causes rather than logical causes? See: creation.com/design_legit.

15 Questions for Evolutionists - Question 6

.
The wonder of Christmas is that the God Who dwelt among us, now, can dwell within us. - Roy Lessin
.
"Father, forgive them for they know not what they do."
.
Justice is receiving what you deserve.
Mercy is NOT receiving what you deserve.
Grace is receiving what you DO NOT deserve.
.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 05, 2012 - 7:07PM #2
Abner1
Posts: 6,403

"Evolutionists" don't know that living things weren't designed.  That isn't part of the theory of evolution (or any other part of science) in any way.  No part of science claims that the universe or any part of it wasn't designed.  It just explains *how* that part of the universe works.  In the case of the theory of evolution, it explains how living creatures change over time.  That living things change over time does nothing to claim that they or the universe they live in was not designed.


This is another thing that has been explained to you over and over again.  Pity you can't learn it.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 05, 2012 - 7:31PM #3
MMarcoe
Posts: 16,892

Mar 5, 2012 -- 7:03PM, iamachildofhis wrote:


Yet if someone attributes the design in living things to a designer, that is not acceptable.


That's an easy one. But I'm not going to tell you the answer. You have hardened your heart and destroyed your own faith. What a pity.


Why should science be restricted to naturalistic causes rather than logical causes?


Naturalistic vs. logical? Wow. I don't think I've heard that one before. Does your nose hurt from scraping the bottom of the barrel so much?



.




1. Extremists think that thinking means agreeing with them.
2. There are three sides to every story: your side, my side, and the truth.
3. God is just a personification of reality, of pure objectivity.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 05, 2012 - 8:10PM #4
Ken
Posts: 33,859

Mar 5, 2012 -- 7:03PM, iamachildofhis wrote:


6. Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed?

.


Living things don't look at all as if they were designed. If you think they do, you must have some pretty peculiar ideas about design.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 05, 2012 - 8:54PM #5
MMarcoe
Posts: 16,892

Mar 5, 2012 -- 7:03PM, iamachildofhis wrote:



6. Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed?






I take it that CMI doesn't offer a course in the proper construction of dichotomies.

1. Extremists think that thinking means agreeing with them.
2. There are three sides to every story: your side, my side, and the truth.
3. God is just a personification of reality, of pure objectivity.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 05, 2012 - 9:36PM #6
Blü
Posts: 25,073

iama


Why should science be restricted to naturalistic causes rather than logical causes?


Because 'logical causes' are imaginary.


Like Genesis creation, the flood, Babel, the Seven Plagues and so on.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 05, 2012 - 9:47PM #7
iamachildofhis
Posts: 10,675


iama: Evolution believers have submitted answers to question 6.  Do you have scientific evidence in support of either the "answer" or the "rebuttal"?



6. Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed?


Answer 1: They don’t, but to say they are is a mere argument from ignorance.


Rebuttal: If evolutionists admit they don’t know, isn’t that by definition an admission that they’re arguing from ignorance? Also, as stated in part 1, the argument from design is based on what we do know.


Answer 2: If there were a designer, we should see designs tending toward simplicity, not complexity. Yet that is the opposite of what we see.


Rebuttal: So life is too complex for it to be designed? This is a new one! In any case, this is only a form of argument from bad design, refuted in a number of articles under What about claims of ‘bad design’?


Actually, the critic also forgets the Fall, so we should see degeneration, as pointed out in our book By Design. We have previously noted that many parasites are genetically depleted compared to free-living equivalents—see articles under How does biblical Christianity explain the origin of poisons, and pathogenic bacteria and viruses. Thus it should be called devolution not evolution (a downhill change is consistent with the biblical Creation-Fall model). This was backed up by an interview with famous evolutionist Lynn Margulis in Discover April 2011:


“Both the treponema that cause syphilis and the borrelia that cause Lyme disease contain only a fifth of the genes they need to live on their own. Related spirochetes that can live outside by themselves need 5,000 genes, whereas the spirochetes of those two diseases have only 1,000 genes in their bodies. The 4,000 missing gene products needed for bacterial growth can be supplied by wet, warm human tissue. This is why both the Lyme disease borrelia and syphilis treponema are symbionts—they require another body to survive.”

Answer 3: Vestigial organs provide evidence of evolution: these are structures which once had a purpose but no longer do.


Rebuttal: 100 years ago, there were dozens of organs and systems were thought to be vestigial. Today, we know of uses for every organ on those lists. In some cases, an organ serves no essential or known function in the adult, but in the developing stages it serves a critical role. See a few examples under Performing surgery upon evolutionary thinking (interview with pediatric surgeon Dr Ross Pettigrew).










Just because we don’t know of a function for a certain organ or system doesn’t mean there is none.










Furthermore, it’s ironic that this critic accused us of using an “argument from ignorance”, then did just that! Just because we don’t know of a function for a certain organ or system doesn’t mean there is none. One important and recently discovered function of the appendix—a safe house for beneficial bacteria—should have been a lesson. At least, that should have been the argument 100 years ago. Today, we know better. See also Do any vestigial organs exist in humans?.


Answer 4: There are structures that would be horrendously designed, but they’re easy to explain if they evolved. The laryngeal nerve is one example of this.


Rebuttal: See our article on the laryngeal nerve.


Answer 5: It’s very lucky that everything works out just so it looks like it were designed, but if it weren’t, we wouldn’t be around to notice it.


Rebuttal: It’s a simple explanation—except it’s not an explanation. The analogy that we have borrowed to show the inadequacy of the explanation is if I were surrounded by an execution squad comprising expert marksmen, each person with a rifle, and they all fired, but I was still alive afterwards, it’s equally true that if it hadn’t happened that way I wouldn’t be around to observe it, but that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t be surprised by it. So that we exist doesn’t make it any less surprising that we do.



.

The wonder of Christmas is that the God Who dwelt among us, now, can dwell within us. - Roy Lessin
.
"Father, forgive them for they know not what they do."
.
Justice is receiving what you deserve.
Mercy is NOT receiving what you deserve.
Grace is receiving what you DO NOT deserve.
.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 05, 2012 - 9:49PM #8
amcolph
Posts: 17,692

Mar 5, 2012 -- 9:47PM, iamachildofhis wrote:



iama: Evolution believers have submitted answers to question 6.  Do you have scientific evidence in support of either the "answer" or the "rebuttal"?






I will ask you the same questionhere, although I know not to hold my breath waiting for an answer.


The 'rebuttals' are false and only appear plausible to those, like yourself, who have no deep understanding of the underlying math and science.



But you have a bigger problem to contend with than that:



Even if the universe was designed (which is not a testable proposition, by the way, and could be true without invalidating any part of evolutionary science) but even if it was true it is not logical to conclude creationism from it.



How do you get over this difficulty?

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 05, 2012 - 10:18PM #9
Ken
Posts: 33,859

Mar 5, 2012 -- 9:47PM, iamachildofhis wrote:


iama: Evolution believers have submitted answers to question 6.  Do you have scientific evidence in support of either the "answer" or the "rebuttal"?



I told you that living creatures do not look designed. Respond to that.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 06, 2012 - 7:39AM #10
EarthScientist
Posts: 3,448

Iama, why not just jump ahead to the spamming of 96" long screeds of bible verse and non sequiturs, you know you want to, and it will save us all teh frustration of banging our heads against the wall.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 6  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook