The Watchmaker

[Iamme]

You could begin by pointing out that watches don't tend to reproduce themselves, which makes them a piss-poor analogy for evolution.

This quote is from post number 2 on page one. This is the first I have read this thread.


My response is this: Maybe...but maybe not. It could be this instead: The watch is complex. It took man with a brain to design it. And because nature is even MORE sophisticated, and has as one of it's features, procreation, that this then could imply that not only were brains behind the design of making organisms, which are far more complex...FAR more complex... than the watch...but procreation seals the deal, in believing that an endless God, would design in his supreme creation, something that would endure, endlessly, with procreation...which is the only means by which entropy can be defeated. Only a God could defeat entropy.

There. That'll seal the deal for me being granted passage to heaven.

 

[Earthborn]

Ah, yes... The old Watchmaker argument. Repeated over and over again by Creationists and IDers alike. It's probably their best argument. The problem is, none of them ever come close to presenting it as eloquently and persuasively as William Paley himself, in the 1809 book Natural Theology. I invite everyone to read it here. It really is a persuasive argument.

It just isn't an argument against Darwinian evolution, which hadn't been conceived of yet. Darwinian evolution provides explanations for things that would otherwise require a "contriver". To use the Watchmaker argument against it is like using epicycles against heliocentrism; at the time it may have been a good argument, but the new theory explains everything it explains and more.

And Creationists and IDers always forget about the most elegant part of Paley's argument. In Natural Theology, the watch does reproduce.

SUPPOSE, in the next place, that the person who found the watch, should, after some time, discover that, in addition to all the properties which he had hitherto observed in it, it possessed the unexpected property of producing, in the course of its movement, another watch like itself (the thing is conceivable); that it contained within it a mechanism, a system of parts, a mould for instance, or a complex adjustment of lathes, files, and other tools, evidently and separately calculated for this purpose; let us inquire, what effect ought such a discovery to have upon his former conclusion.

The first effect would be to increase his admiration of the contrivance, and his conviction of the consummate skill of the contriver. Whether he regarded the object of the contrivance, the distinct apparatus, the intricate, yet in many parts intelligible mechanism, by which it was carried on, he would perceive, in this new observation, nothing but an additional reason for doing what he had already done,--for referring the construction of the watch to design, and to supreme art. If that construction without this property, or which is the same thing, before this property had been noticed, proved intention and art to have been employed about it; still more strong would the proof appear, when he came to the knowledge of this further property, the crown and perfection of all the rest.

 

[Art Vandelay]

And the implication "the Christians claim" means 'all Christians claim', because "the Christians" is an entire group. You were speaking about an entire group.

So then does "Either way seems to be turtles all the way down, whether supernaturalistic or naturalistic ones" mean "all supernaturalistic [sic] and naturalistic [sic] explanations are turtles all the way down"?

If I say that Iraqis invaded Kuwait, am I claiming that every single Iraqi citizen went into Kuwait?

All of it,

To be clear: you just stated that you don't understand all of "How about actually responding to what people say, rather than presenting strawmen?".

which is why I responded to the ignorant things you wrote and are unable to defend.

And are you stating that every single thing that I wrote was ignorant? The only accusation of ignorance you've made has been based on pedantry.

Now what?

I suppose now you'll continue to pretend that your statement about cells being complex is actually responding to someone's point, rather than being yet another strawman.

Ah, yes... The old Watchmaker argument.

Actually, it's not the old watchmaker argument. I was thinking of posting a refutation of that one, but I realized it doesn't really apply to this one. The old one says that if you were to find a watch, you would assume that it has been designed. My refutation to that is that the reason one assumes watches are designed is that we have a lot of experience with watches, and we have good reason to believe that the ones that we've already encountered were designed, so when we come across a new one, it makes sense to assume that it is designed as well. This logic simply does not extend to life, because we are starting with the assumption that it is designed, rather than proceeding from previous cases of known design.

As I said, this refutation does not apply in this case, since here the argument doesn't actually give the watchmaker argument, it just presents a strawman, alludes to the old watchmaker argument, then declares its point to be proven.

 

[Meadmaker]

There was also some unpleasantness with Fra Bruno, no house arrest in that case as I recall. But it's so often Galileo that people bring up.

Bruno was burned at the stake for teaching pantheism, not for his science or science-like musings.

 

[RandFan]

Bruno was burned at the stake for teaching pantheism, not for his science or science-like musings.

Seems reasonable. Damn pantheists, that'll teach 'em.

 

[Meadmaker]

Art, you wrote a whole bunch, and I'll pick one or two things to comment on. If you would really like a response to something in particular that you said, repost it.

But evolution is obviously correct, and anyone who doesn't buy into it is uneducated.

Sort of. My point was that you could know a great deal of information about a great many things, including biology, geology, etc. and yet you might not believe in evolution and/or you might believe in intelligent design. I would agree that if you set out with an unbiased mind to determine whether or not evolution happened, you would have to conclude that it did, in fact, happen. However, you could learn a heck of a lot of information about an awful lot of things, and not make that conclusion. The real message is that you won't persuade anyone by trying to tell them that they are uneducated, or by telling them that their "authorities" on the subject are uneducated. They might be extremely educated, and extremely intelligent, but they might never have approached this particular subject with an unbiased mind. They think they are educated, and they appear to be educated, so it doesn't do any good to say, as part of an argument, that they aren't.

To be persuasive, you have to convince people that their education, or that of the authorities on whom they depend, has failed them.

So if I am not entertained by the sixth season of 24, would you ask why the show is not entertaining?

If the show gets cancelled for lack of viewers, I would call it not entertaining, despite the fact that somewhere, there is someone who was entertained. Likewise, I'll call the arguments against ID unpersuasive, because they aren't persuading.

Sure, some people are persuaded, but in America, somewhere around 50% are not.

Then that'sa a rather limited form of belief in evolution. It's like saying "Yeah, I believe in gravity, but I also believe that there are fairies that can make anything float any time they want to." What's the difference between that and not believing in gravity at all?

(This was in reference to Michael Behe, who believes in ID and evolution.)

Behe believes that all life is descended from common, single celled, ancestors. That's evolution. However, he doesn't believe that natural selection is adequate to drive evolution. He believes that God had to help it along by making sure the mutations occurred at just the right times. So, it's arguable whether he believes in "the theory of evolution".

 

[Meadmaker]

So you haven’t been keeping up with pope b and his ID leanings.

I have followed Ben's comments. He is leaning toward theistic evolution, which has been compatible with the position of the church ever since the subject came up, which was before Darwin. I haven't seen any comment he has ever made that seems to endorse intelligent design, although I have seen comments he made misinterpreted in that manner.

Relating this more directly to the thread topic, when arguing against The Watchmaker, it helps to understand the differences between intelligent design, creationism, and theistic evolution. The Watchmaker supports ID. It is neutral on the other two.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Relating this more directly to the thread topic, when arguing against The Watchmaker, it helps to understand the differences between intelligent design, creationism, and theistic evolution. The Watchmaker supports ID. It is neutral on the other two.

I believe that there is much less difference than they would have us believe. ID is motivated by creationist and Christian viewpoints, and while it pretends to be neutral about theidentity of the designer, it's clear that it's meant to be God, and that the proponents are proceeding from a Christian worldview.

If the show gets cancelled for lack of viewers, I would call it not entertaining, despite the fact that somewhere, there is someone who was entertained. Likewise, I'll call the arguments against ID unpersuasive, because they aren't persuading.

I guess my point got lost in the ambiguous verb tenses of English. I meant for my question to be in the present tense. Currently, the sixth season of 24 hasn't aired, so if I say that it doesn't entertain me, the logical conclusion is that it's because I haven't seen it, not because it isn't entertaining. Similarly, if half of Americans are unpursuaded, it is not a legitimate conclusion to conclude that the arguments for evolution are unpersuasive. Many people have never heard the arguments, and of those that have heard them, most don't really listen. When I look at creationist "rebuttals" to pro-evolution arguments, in the overwhelming majority of cases, it's quite clear that the author is not honestly looking at the pro-evolution argument.

 

[CapelDodger]

Bruno was burned at the stake for teaching pantheism, not for his science or science-like musings.

Because that was what was on the charge-sheet? Not the same as what he was burned for, or put another way, the reason why he was burned. Could he in fact have been burned on a charge of science? What was the evidence of his pantheism - his suggestion that there are many inhabited worlds in the Universe? Which naturally removes our world from the centre of things, with implications for a (no longer unique) pope supposedly at the centre of the world. Nobody ordered that, thank you very much. It was the Pope and the papabile in the Curia that were most keen on torching him. I rest my case.

 

[CapelDodger]

Seems reasonable. Damn pantheists, that'll teach 'em.

Fra Bruno should be a Sci-Fi legend. Straight from Copernicus to stars being suns, with planets, with people, with their own popes - frickin' A! In the 16thCE. Damned if I can remember the pope of the time, don't much care. The Wars of Religion were bearing down - and Catholicism came out of it as a third-world religion . Bless.

 

[Meadmaker]

I believe that there is much less difference than they would have us believe. ID is motivated by creationist and Christian viewpoints, and while it pretends to be neutral about theidentity of the designer, it's clear that it's meant to be God, and that the proponents are proceeding from a Christian worldview.

The designer is most certainly God, although some of them pretend it isn't in the hopes of sneaking past some legal rulings. That's not the point. There is still a difference between ID, creationism, and theistic evolution. When you're arguing against them, it is good to know which you are arguing against.

 

[Meadmaker]

What was the evidence of his pantheism

Type "pantheism" and "Bruno" into google. I haven't done it myself, but I'm quite confident there will be ample evidence.

I don't think pantheists ought to be burned at the stake, and I'm glad that doesn't happen anymore, but it has nothing to do with being a scientist.

 

[Ossai]

Tricky

With a few exceptions, especially as regards birth control. They accept the "rhythm" method, and so women are now allowed to use mathematics to control their child-bearing, but are still forbidden to use physics or chemistry.

Know what they call the lady that uses the rhythm method as birth control? Mother.

Yes it is an old joke, but it’s still true. They rhythm method has been shown to be unreliable. Google, if you’re interested.

Meadmaker

I have followed Ben's comments. He is leaning toward theistic evolution, which has been compatible with the position of the church ever since the subject came up, which was before Darwin.

Theistic evolution, intelligent design
tomato, tomahto


Ossai

 

[Ossai]

Meadmaker
I though you would have responded to my other post by now, but this still cried out for attention.

Relating this more directly to the thread topic, when arguing against The Watchmaker, it helps to understand the differences between intelligent design, creationism, and theistic evolution. The Watchmaker supports ID. It is neutral on the other two.

ID wasn’t even around when the Watchmaker argument was presented. By you declaring such you underscore the similarity of creationism, theistic evolution and ID; primarily ID and theistic evolution. They are identical. Read the definition; handily supplied by any number of Christian sites.

Ossai

 

[Kochanski]

I need help! My brother sent me this, and I need suggestions on something to counter it.

Someone at work just sent it to me yesterday. I had to seriously resist the urge to tell her that this 200 year old chestnut was refuted 150 years ago. Now, if someone outside of work had sent it...there would be NO HOLDS BARRED.

 

[CapelDodger]

Type "pantheism" and "Bruno" into google. I haven't done it myself, but I'm quite confident there will be ample evidence.

Ample hits, but come on ... The records of the case and the proceedings are fragmentary. Bruno was up-front, public sort of chap. He made speeches, lectures, wrote down his thoughts and had them published. The evidence of pantheism out to pretty clear.

What is certain is that the case for clemency was advanced by prominent individuals and that the Pope and Curia wanted him torched, which he duly was.

If you want to pick gems from Google dross, knock yourself out.

I don't think pantheists ought to be burned at the stake, and I'm glad that doesn't happen anymore, but it has nothing to do with being a scientist.

Why was the Papal cabal so keen on making an example of Fra Bruno? That can only be understood in the light of the times. The removal of the Earth from centrality in the Universe - a scientific discovery - was too obvious an analogy for the removal of the Pope's centrality in Christendom, which was already being challenged. So it did have to do with science, and I think it's reasonable to call Bruno a scientist.

 

[Meadmaker]

Meadmaker
I though you would have responded to my other post by now, but this still cried out for attention.
ID wasn’t even around when the Watchmaker argument was presented. By you declaring such you underscore the similarity of creationism, theistic evolution and ID; primarily ID and theistic evolution. They are identical. Read the definition; handily supplied by any number of Christian sites.

Ossai

Surely creationism was around when the watchmaker arguement was first presented, and if they are all identical, then ID must have been around too. However, I digress. I was just pointing out the self contradictory nature of your post.

I was referring to "The Watchmaker", the piece of propaganda that started this thread, not to the general argument from design, cast by Paley in terms of Watches. "The Watchmaker" is about intelligent design. It is not about creationism, nor is it about theistic evolution.

Quick definitions: Theistic evolution - the belief that evolution occurred, guided by God.

Intelligent Design - The belief that the existence of a designer can be inferred from characteristics of life.

Creationism - The belief that plant and animals species were created in something like their current form, with little or no evolution occurring since.

Those strike me as quite different things. The first and third are actually contradictory. Of course, there are people who believe more than one of them simultaneously, but that doesn't make them identical.

 

[Meadmaker]

Ample hits, but come on ... The records of the case and the proceedings are fragmentary. Bruno was up-front, public sort of chap. He made speeches, lectures, wrote down his thoughts and had them published. The evidence of pantheism out to pretty clear.

And it is. "De la causa, principio et uno" is especially pantheistic.

So it did have to do with science, and I think it's reasonable to call Bruno a scientist.

Hmm. What science did he actually do? He accepted and preached Copernican theory. Does that make him a scientist? It seems to me that he was a philosopher allied with scientists.

 

[Ossai]

Meadmaker

I was referring to "The Watchmaker", the piece of propaganda that started this thread, not to the general argument from design, cast by Paley in terms of Watches. "The Watchmaker" is about intelligent design. It is not about creationism, nor is it about theistic evolution.

What I was pointing out was the watchmaker argument was in support of creationism. ID didn’t exist because ‘creationism’ hadn’t yet been banned from being taught in public schools. ID is creationism with a bit more hand waving and that hand waving is theistic evolution.

Quick definitions: Theistic evolution - the belief that evolution occurred, guided by God.

Intelligent Design - The belief that the existence of a designer can be inferred from characteristics of life.

ID proponents, Behe and his ilk specifically, believe that the design can be inferred due to theistic evolution.

Ossai

 

[Meadmaker]

ID proponents, Behe and his ilk specifically, believe that the design can be inferred due to theistic evolution.

Ossai

Most ID proponents are creationists who don't believe in evolution, theistic or otherwise. Behe believes in evolution, but because he also believes in intelligent design, he believes that the evolution must have been theistic. It is possible to believe in theistic evolution without believing in intelligent design.

One sure way to lose an argument is by telling someone else what they think, and getting it wrong.