Killing the Watchmaker (Origins)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, June 04, 2011, 16:17 (4921 days ago) @ dhw

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. 
> -And this is where we part: 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.") -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. Yes, the design argument relies on these analogies in order to exist, and yes, there is no argument one can make without an accurate analogy. -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 don't mean it's not a valid question, but that it's a value-less question without a host of answers leading up to it. It puts the cart before the horse. Maybe a better way is for me to describe is as a "non-sequitur for the moment."-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? -We can use analogy to help us understand--as a tool--but we need to ground ourselves upon the knowledge that it is only a tool. A watch is an intricately designed thing designed to count gear ticks. We know this. The universe is intricate. But that's about as far as one can go here; short of a designer appearing we can't know if it was designed nor can we divine its purpose. Further, the watch itself uses laws of energy and motion in the universe--it does not define any laws itself. -I can continue, but wishing the watchmaker--or any of its other analogs--to be a non-fallacious question will not make it so. Watches and universes are not like things without presupposing that the universe has a purpose.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"