The Watchmaker

[Gman]

Gman says (paraphrased by DB): You said in your own words natural selection doesn't explain the origin of life.

DB: Indeed I did and that is true. Behe himself, however, suggests that once the designer made the cell, evolution could have done the rest, in his "Black Box." In other places in that book, he seems to be more wishey-washey. The fact is, he has said it, and when pressed, has admitted the possibility that evolution by random mutation and natural selection is a possible way the designer could have done it.

You finally got his book? It's pretty good, huh... You can find it in any major university's library also...

Ok, I'll give you that... But even if you had one cell, there is still alot of explaining to do. I guess if you throw time at it and natural selection anything could happen... But then again its just speculation unless you have time lapsed photography..

[David Blacklock]

Gman says: "But then again its just speculation unless you have time lapsed photography..."

DB: It is speculation that is very well-informed. The thing is, it consistently makes predictions that work in experimentation and furtherance of knowledge. In the almost a century and a half since its "official" inception, a vast array of new scientific findings have not altered the original premise, except to add to it and strengthen it.

[Gman]

Gman says: "But then again its just speculation unless you have time lapsed photography..."

DB: It is speculation that is very well-informed. The thing is, it consistently makes predictions that work in experimentation and furtherance of knowledge. In the almost a century and a half since its "official" inception, a vast array of new scientific findings have not altered the original premise, except to add to it and strengthen it.

Is that why only 1 in 4 scientists except it? I'm not arguing with you about micro-evolution... Anyone can see that... But when someone says a living organism can morph itself into a complex being such as the human body... I'm sorry, I just don't buy that... That is just too big of a pill to swallow.. I don't think it is good science either.. I'll take my chances with the other 3...

On top of that I don't see God as a dictator.... I see him as a liberator.

[David Blacklock]

Gman says: "Is that why only 1 in 4 scientists accept it?" [evolution]

DB: Where in the world did you get that information? It is completely erroneous.

[Gman]

Gman says: "Is that why only 1 in 4 scientists accept it?" [evolution]

DB: Where in the world did you get that information? It is completely erroneous.

I'm going to take my words back on this... I meant to say 1 in 4 Americans..

Of scientists only 48% believe it evolved over time...

Source? Evolutionist David Deamer..

[Kurieuo]

Given Behe believes God planted the first life, such a life could have been designed with such potentiality as to have unfolded into various other new life forms under certain designed conditions. In fact, this is what many Theistic evolutionists I have come across tend to believe - that God carefully constructed that first form of life or "seed of life" to unfold under certain conditions also carefully designed. Yet, everything was still designed at the beginning point, and true "design" is the main thrust of Paley's Watchmaker argument.

Chance still here remains somewhat of an issue. For one could argue, if the first life was so designed as to unfold naturally, then such suggests there is still a chance it could unfold naturally without having been designed. Yes, this takes away from Paley's Watchmaker argument. Yet, if we factor in complex systems of machinery coming together over and over again (for example, as found in convergent evolution, or as in the belief that life not only arose once, but began and got wiped out several times early on in Earth's history), then such is surely a hallmark of rigged chance (design), rather than simply random or pure chance.

Furthermore, one can only invoke natural selection once a system has already come together, for natural selection only filters out the undesirable parts of a system which do not aid in survival. Yet, natural selection is irrelevant to the Watchmaker argument since it begs the question as to how such a biological system, and the systems of machinery which interact with other parts of the overall system, came to be in the first place.

Throw into the equation that many today do not believe natural selection is able to account on its own for the diversity in life we see around us, but see other mechanisms as being required. In fact, there is not even agreement over these mechanisms which created the diversity in life we see around us (for example, according to http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html). Thus, natural selection does not in fact seem significant to the Watchmaker argument after all, since many believe it is by itself unable to explain the complexity, diversity, and convergent similarities we see in life today.

Of course one can opt to say that evolution (all life naturally evolving from a common ancestor) is a fact based upon circumstantial evidence, and that there is still a chance all the life we see could have happened naturally out of random chance or necessity and without design. Yet, then it simply becomes a matter of which philosophy you ultimately wish to put your faith in. And I see no reason why if one consistently sees signs of design around them, and on the basis of looking for certain criteria even believes they can methologically search for and detect design, that such a person would not be epistemologically justified in believing in a Watchmaker.

Finally, I previously mentioned mechanisms which evolution requires to work. Such mechanisms are built upon a certain set of natural laws, which are required in order for life to be possible or even unfold. Such a ruleset in itself begs the question of why it is so designed as it is, so structured, intricate, complex, and congenial to a universe capable of producing the complexities of life. Surely if chance had its way, the universe could have had entirely random laws? For example, why not the laws as we see them on the quantum level, only at the larger level? Thus, Paley's Watchmaker argument need no simply be applied to life, but can also be applied to the mechanisms which undergird and make life possible.

Kurieuo

PS. I think it is great David that you have read Behe's book to evaluate his own words for yourself.

[David Blacklock]

Let me address your thoughtful arguments point by point:

Kurieuo: Given Behe believes God planted the first life, such a life could have been designed with such potentiality as to have unfolded into various other new life forms under certain designed conditions.

DB: Yes, I'm not disagreeing with this.

Kurieuo: Chance still here remains somewhat of an issue…a chance it could unfold naturally by itself…such is surely a hallmark of rigged chance (design), than simply random or pure chance.

DB: Repeatedly, you are invoking random activity (chance) without the addition of natural selection. Chance and natural selection go together in evolution. To talk about the one without the other is not meaningful.

Kurieuo: one can only invoke natural selection once a system has already come together, for natural selection only filters out the undesirable parts of a system which do not aid in survival.

DB: This is not evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory does invoke random mutation and natural selection as a way a system gets put together, by, as you said, filtering out parts that do not aid in survival.

Kurieuo: …it begs the question as to how such a biological system, and the systems of machinery which interact with other parts of the overall system, came to be in the first place.

DB: I thought we were already allowing that the first cell and its machinery could have been designed.

Kurieuo: many today do not believe natural selection is able to account on its own for the diversity in life we see around us today.

DB: There are always those who disagree. Even among scientists, your statement would hold water, but only with a slim minority, and virtually none in the biological sciences. Even Behe grudgingly agrees.

Kurieuo: there is not even agreement over these mechanisms which created the diversity in life we see around us.

DB: There is no question that genuine scientific controversies in evolution abound. This is true in every field of science, without exception, as it is in every subject in the humanities. None of these controversies question the validity of random mutation/natural selection in evolution.

Let me define it — the process in which reproducing entities must compete for finite resources and thereby engage in a tournament of blind trial and error from which improvements automatically emerge — generating breathtakingly ingenious designs.

[David Blacklock]

Gman: I'm going to take my words back on this... I meant to say 1 in 4 Americans..

Of scientists only 48% believe it evolved over time...

Source? Evolutionist David Deamer..


DB: I'll take your word for this reference, but believe you would find vastly higher percentage figures from other sources.

Still, I prefer evidence to what everybody believes. To borrow a quote from mothers, "If everybody was jumping off the Empire State Building, would you follow?"

[Gman]

Ok, I'm really going to put my foot in my mouth on this to be fair. It was actually a Pew Poll taken in 2005 and it envolved Americans not scientists..

Here it is... I was on a dvd taken last year, I had to dig it up and type it up.. I kind of forgot what it said I guess..

American views on evolution:

Always existed in present form: 42% of those polled.
(Evangelical 70% Mainline 32% Secular 15%)

Evolved over time: 48% of those polled
(Evangelical 18% Mainline 60% Secular 71%)

Guided by a supreme being 18%
Through natural selection 26%

Bottom line: Only 1 in 4 Americans accepts Darwinian evolution.

I'm not sure on the percentage of scientists who believe in evolution... But I'm sure it would be high perhaps since it is still illegal to teach ID in public schools..

G -

[Canuckster1127]

Ok, I'm really going to put my foot in my mouth on this to be fair. It was actually a Pew Poll taken in 2005 and it envolved Americans not scientists..

Here it is... I was on a dvd taken last year, I had to dig it up and type it up.. I kind of forgot what it said.

American views on evolution:

Always existed in present form: 42% of those polled.
(Evangelical 70% Mainline 32% Secular 15%)

Evolved over time: 48% of those polled
(Evangelical 18% Mainline 60% Secular 71%)

Guided by a supreme being 18%
Through natural selection 26%

Bottom line: Only 1 in 4 Americans accepts Darwinian evolution.

I'm not sure on the percentage of scientists who believe in evolution... But I'm sure it would be high perhaps since it is still illegal to teach ID in public schools..

G -

I've seen some polls in the past of scientists that I recall very generally. Scientists in the field of Biology have a much higher percentage of belief in the theory of evolution than other fields.

It is higher however, overall than the general population and again, that should not be surprising.

Bart

[Gman]

It is higher however, overall than the general population and again, that should not be surprising.

Bart

True, many people don't believe in evolution because they were never allowed to debate it...

[Kurieuo]

I'll just tackle the parts I think need clarifying.

Kurieuo: Chance still here remains somewhat of an issue…a chance it could unfold naturally by itself…such is surely a hallmark of rigged chance (design), than simply random or pure chance.

DB: Repeatedly, you are invoking random activity (chance) without the addition of natural selection. Chance and natural selection go together in evolution. To talk about the one without the other is not meaningful.

You misunderstand. I am actually saying that if there is a "chance" that life could unfold naturally without a designer, that such actually takes aways from Paley's Watchmaker argument. I have not even gotten to the natural mechanisms at this point.

Yet, an important point I emphasise which was cut short was: "if we factor in complex systems of machinery coming together over and over again (for example, as found in convergent evolution, or as in the belief that life not only arose once, but began and got wiped out several times early on in Earth's history), then such is surely a hallmark of rigged chance (design), rather than simply random or pure chance. "

To explain further, if we see the same biological systems over and over again, for example, the convergencies seen in "evolution," surely natural selection acting on random mutations, and do not forget to include environmental pressures also (for it really does not ultimately matter to what I am saying)... surely, we might expect the odd chance that certain systems would have evolved without intelligence through such a process once, but to see them evolve over and over again, well I see one would be arrogant to say that a person is not rationally entitled to conclude it looks like a Watchmaker is at work.

Kurieuo: …it begs the question as to how such a biological system, and the systems of machinery which interact with other parts of the overall system, came to be in the first place.

DB: I thought we were already allowing that the first cell and its machinery could have been designed.

As I see it you only allowed this for Behe's perspective, not your own. If you also align yourself to Behe, then where is your issue with the Watchmaker...? Or are you simply desiring to make a clarification about the mechanism the Watchmaker used? As far as I see it, the Watchmaker could have used any mechanism desired, including natural selection acting on random mutations as influenced by environmental pressures.

Kurieuo: many today do not believe natural selection is able to account on its own for the diversity in life we see around us today.

DB: There are always those who disagree. Even among scientists, your statement would hold water, but only with a slim minority, and virtually none in the biological sciences. Even Behe grudgingly agrees.

Actually many in the biological sciences, like those who follow Stephen Jay Gould, believe natural selection is inadequate to account for "all" evolution. And this is something which has been accepted by many scientists for some time. Certainly natural selection is not entirely rejected, but I am not arguing it is. It is rejected by many to the extent that natural selection is unable to account for everything we see around us. As Gould clearly states in his 1981 article Evolution as Fact and Theory: "renewed debate characterizes our decade, and, while no biologists questions the importance of natural selection, many doubt its ubiquity." (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/ ... heory.html)

Kurieuo: there is not even agreement over these mechanisms which created the diversity in life we see around us.

DB: There is no question that genuine scientific controversies in evolution abound. This is true in every field of science, without exception, as it is in every subject in the humanities. None of these controversies question the validity of random mutation/natural selection in evolution.

I would not suggest otherwise. Yet, what is questioned, is the validity of natural selection (and all which is related to the working of this mechanism), as being able to account for the evolution of all the "breathtakingly ingeniuous designs."

Kurieuo

[angel]

Angel,

This link goes beyond science and into promoting a philosophical position at the end that
there is no creator or intelligent designer.

Is that the position you are promoting?

I am sorry Bart I seem to be looking for troubles. It is not the case, honestly.
I am not promoting anything. My point is just what Kurieuo and you are pointing out about my link.


Kurieuo's link "goes beyond science and into promoting a philosophical position", as well.
Doesn't it?
The fact that nobody seems to criticizing it, is just because it does not go against our
faith and we are ready to accept it.
In my experience it is the sort of thing which can cause troubles when it is mentioned
in a discussion with a scientist or a non believer.

I am not promoting evolutionism, I just think that if a Christian wants to go out there
and confute evolutionism it would be better for all of us if he or she is ready to show
objectiveness in judgements and competence about what is criticizing.

David Blacklock ( http://discussions.godandscience.org/po ... html#40279 )
pointed out with different words the same problem with the original link. It is criticizing something
which is probably not recognized as evolutionism by scientists.
It is just as Kurieuo noticed about my link (which honestly was what I hoped to be worth
noticing about my link): It portrayed antievolutionary position as something about mechanics
which is not what evolution is about. Not what a xstian is talking about.

I believe this site is wonderful if it keeps discussing real arguments pro and cons. Only by
real discussions one can learn how to effectively counterargument and support xtian view.
I went through the purpose of the board and I believe the aim is to support xtian
in our discussions with non-xtians, not our discussions with ourselves.

I discussed a lot in the pasts with scientists about faith and science and I think I know how
they reason and argument. Many times I found myself in troubles. Many times I found their
arguments challenging.
I am taking their side not to promote their view but to see how one could counterargument.
Do you have an expression similar to the devil's lawyer?
I think David is sometimes doing the same. I think you did the same in many occasions.

As usual if you still believe that my position is improper, please let me know.

[Canuckster1127]

Angel,

I just asked what I intended to be an honest question.

We do seek for honest interaction and I've never tried to do anything less with you or anyone else on the board.

When you link to a site that is clearly anti-Christian and anti-Theist, then I raise the question. We are unapologetically (pun intended) biased here and this is clear in our Purpose and discussion guidelines. That doesn't mean we can't and won't look at material outside of that bias (or better stated perhaps, our faith position) nor that we can't intellectually consider counterpoints and acknowlege that other positions exist. There's a fine line however, and I simply felt, given the context of that entire site you referenced that the question was fairly asked and with it a reminder given.

Thanks,

Bart

[August]

August,

I just asked what I intended to be an honest question.

We do seek for honest interaction and I've never tried to do anything less with you or anyone else on the board.

When you link to a site that is clearly anti-Christian and anti-Theist, then I raise the question. We are unapologetically (pun intended) biased here and this is clear in our Purpose and discussion guidelines. That doesn't mean we can't and won't look at material outside of that bias (or better stated perhaps, our faith position) nor that we can't intellectually consider counterpoints and acknowlege that other positions exist. There's a fine line however, and I simply felt, given the context of that entire site you referenced that the question was fairly asked and with it a reminder given.

Thanks,

Bart

Freudian slip?