Killing the Watchmaker (Origins)

by dhw, Sunday, June 05, 2011, 15:36 (4700 days ago) @ xeno6696

MATT: Comparing Hubble to an eye or a car to a human (forgot the original analogy) creates an abstraction such that you are no longer talking about original phenomena. You're talking about intense abstractions. The only similar thing Hubble has to the eye is in transforming light into a signal--its purpose. (Though, the purpose of the eye isn't so plain as you suggest--"To See.")-Not for the first time, various lines of thought are getting twisted up. Unless my memory is at fault, it was you who introduced the Hubble analogy, as part of your argument ... with which I tend to agree ... that humans were not "special". David had pointed out the ingenuity of the eye's design, you claimed that Hubble was superior to the eye, and I felt it was futile to criticize the "design" of organs (see below).
 
MATT: I don't deny the utility of analogies in regards to arriving at understandings! However, because there is NO accurate analogy that one can construct to compare the universe to anything else, and life to anything else (both are 1-off phenomena with no other analog in existence) we are left with very little to say.-Please note that in the post you have quoted, I said specifically that "there is no analogy for the origin of the universe, or of life and the mechanisms of evolution". However, I wasn't dealing with the origin of life and the universe, but with the absurd argument that the "design" of specific organs is flawed, which apparently shows they were not designed. My analogy: cars break down, so does that mean they are the product of chance? It is a single-track argument, and in this context, I think my question illustrates its illogicality.
 
MATT: Your words have made me think deeper about this, and I mislead you on the chance/design question not being compelling. Though it invites you into my fortress of doubt!-I am already inside my own fortress of doubt, but thanks for the invitation!
 
MATT: It's a question that sits on its own little island--and presently--there are no bridges to it... 
...because we have no real analogy for the universe... 
...because we have no real analogy for life.
So, how are we to reason about the universe? -The problem of chance v. design in relation to the origin of the universe and of life and the mechanisms for evolution does not require analogies. The more we learn about the mechanics of the universe and life, the more complex they become. The information is enough in itself, and the question then is whether we as individuals can believe that such complexities originated by chance.