Killing the Watchmaker (Origins)

by dhw, Thursday, June 02, 2011, 13:53 (4712 days ago) @ xeno6696

Matt asked: "Why does the eye only see one band of light when there would definitely be an advantage if humans could also see IR?" I pointed out that cars would be better if they used no harmful fuel, never broke down etc., but that did not prove that they weren't consciously designed.-MATT: Cars eh? Ah...you already forgot Hume!!!-I expected you to pounce on that, and it gives me a chance to refine the objection to analogies. The moment you criticize the "design" of an organ like the eye, you are ALREADY indirectly introducing analogies, because if you were not aware of possible improvements ... e.g. through our old friend Hubble ... you would have no basis for your criticism. There is no analogy for the origin of the universe, or of life and the mechanisms of evolution. However, virtually every human invention is an extension of some natural faculty/organ/ability, and in my view analogies between eyes and telescopes, hearts and pumps, bodies and engines are perfectly valid, especially in the context of chance vs design. -However, this apparently was not your point: "Remember, chance vs design isn't a compelling question for me. We're a long way from being able to answer it. I was asking the question that does criticize special creation." The possible attitude of a possible God towards humans is scarcely an issue between us. (It might be between Tony and us, if he follows the Bible's description of humans as "the most loved of all creation.") However, it's precisely BECAUSE we're a long way from being able to answer it that chance vs design seems to me to be one of the most compelling questions! You criticize David for believing in a designer. In post after post he has supplied further evidence of the astonishing complexities uncovered by researchers, so your virtual dismissal of the argument is hardly the most convincing of responses. If a theist tells you that God is all good and loves all of his creatures, and you ask about the origin of evil and the indiscriminate slaughter of God's creatures in disasters brought about by his own engineering, will you be content with the answer "it's not a compelling question for me"? I am tempted to use your now infamous term: "dodging the hard problems"!-You quoted "The statement God does not exist is falsifiable", and I didn't see the point. You now say that "if someone claims that God exists, it IS up to that individual to do the work; so really the fact that the statement is falsifiable certainly means that one is willing to change." I still don't see the point. You are now apparently asking the individual to prove that God exists ... and you know that the only possible proof would be for that person to make God appear! By the same token, it is presumably up to the atheist scientist to prove that "life originated by chance", which is also impossible. Of course, this statement too is theoretically falsifiable, because God might appear and show us how he did it. But he can postpone his appearance indefinitely, thereby proving...um...what?-******-I didn't listen to the whole podcast about the whale etc. I got irritated when they went on about the "guilty dog" experiment. I will try to find time to listen to the rest.