Stu wrote: As usual you completely miss the point. The subtitle of Richard Dawkin's book The Blind Watchmaker reads: "Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design." What is this "design" that Dawkins is arguing against? It is obviously intelligent design, right? He doesn't dispute that "particular shapes, repeated over, time" occur in nature. Likewise, when Dawkins says: "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose", he is not merely saying that things in nature have consistently recognizable patterns. This is obvious because he goes on to argue that the appearance of design in nature is an illusion. Clearly he doesn't think that recognizable patterns repeated over time are an illusion. No, Dawkins is saying that things in nature appear to be designed by an intelligence and this is an illusion. Where is the evidence to back up the claim that the appearance of intelligent design in nature is an illusion?
Stu replied: Well, I don't recall seeing it. So humor me. Show me where either Dembski or Behe incorporate theology into their hypotheses.
Your point being what exactly? That he is talking of intelligent design?. Well ok, let's say he is. Well? So ok, let's say he is talking of an illusion of intelligent design. That would be because in science and biology you can observe, test and monitor that design for a purpose, is the outcome of natural processes. Clearly you mean... Dawkins is saying that when ID'ers state things in nature appear to be designed by an intelligence - this is an illusion.. Quite so. It's in biology, it's in science. There is no intelligent designer observed, found, present, required or essential for what is being called design to come about. To say it must be intelligent design, or need be , appears to be ,or looks like there is, where none is essential or required, is an erroneous representation of what is observed in science and biology to be actually going on. Blind Watchmaker exposes ID blind spots. Not being able to apply the word design unless it has the word intelligent before it is one of them.
Quote from Teleologist: Stu replied: Uhh yeah, we don't observe a designer designing, if we did, then ID would be a fact, and not an inference. We don't have the common ancestor of archae and bacteria in the lab, or even of most lineages, do I have to let you touch them in order for you to entertain evolution scenarios with them as the "causers" of the many features we find in the biotic world? The designer is a hypothetical causer, much like common ancestors are, we don't have any designers or common ancestors in the lab so your observation here cuts both ways. Evidence for common ancestry but no common ancestor. Evidence for design but no designer. The two are equivalent.
Uhh yeah, we do observe "designer designing". We see lots of "designers designing". Perhaps if you were not so condescending on this point, you may give yourself chance to note what you call design, is observed being what you call designed, by what you don't call designers, all the time - naturally. ID is not a fact nor an inference, but it is a deceit. ID is not design. ID is Intelligent Design. Well, you used the word - Lineages. Descendants, kinships ,relations , inherited properties shared. There are 3 basic separate organisms (you omitted eukaryota), biologically connected to all life, all the way through. Accommodating billions of years of evolution. A common antecedence with traceable lineage in all life forms, with Evolution confirming in fact, the processes which drive what you call design. What do you do? pretend ..or rather.. "infer" it isn't so. So no, I don't have to hold, although I do want to know, whether or not there is one common denominator, a single particular means by which all life evolved. Not confirming one common ancestor does not diminish the relevance of all that evidence to there being three. Your intelligent designer âinferenceâ ? .. Nothing. Zilch. Nada. No descendants, no connection, no reason, no cause, no need. Then you may as well pose Fairy Dust as a hypothetical causer. Choosing to call it Intelligent Design instead is just as meaningless. But what are you talking about anyway? Labs are full of natural designers and common ancestors. Non of them are linked in any way to your hypothetical (intelligent) designer or to Fairy Dust. Your ID'er has no biological or demonstrable lineages. 3 basic organisms do. Your ID'er does not. That will be because your ID'er isn't actually any more real than Fairy Dust. No, not equivalent. Evidence for a common ancestor points to 3 of them. Evidence for "design" points to a myriad of natural designs and their designers. Evidence for an Intelligent Designer points only to creationism and turtles.
You are the one in denial. I asked you to show me where Dembski or Behe incorporate theology into their hypotheses. You replied: "You have already been shown, over and over." So back up your claim. Provide one example of either Dembski or Behe incorporating theology into their hypotheses. Should be easy to do if it's true that I've been shown this over and over.
Stu, You are the one claiming that the appearance of intelligent design in nature is an illusion. I asked you to back up your claim with evidence. The evidence you supplied was this: To which I replied: You responded with this: What's that got to do with anything? It is your claim that the appearance of intelligent design in nature is an illusion because we don't observe an intelligent designer designing things in nature, right? My response is that we don't need to see something being designed in order to suspect it was designed. If we could see a designer designing we would have absolute proof of design not just a suspicion of design. For you there is no middle ground between no evidence of design and absolute proof of design. That's the core of our disagreement. The bottom line is this. Could something be designed without there being evidence of the designers? Of course. The issue is then how we would go about inferring such design. Does the ability to accurately infer the design mean we should all be able to reach a consensus such that all ID critics would concede? No. The problem is one of detecting design in a reality where the designer is undetectable. Attempts to short-circuit this question by insisting the designer be detectable is question begging. But keep in mind that all the common ancestors behind common descent are also undetectable, as are the selection pressures and selection coefficients behind these transitions. Yet we infer common ancestors and selection pressures because things look evolved and such proposals seem to be fruitful guides. There is no reason why an ID theorist should play by different rules.