Craig Crushes Ayala
Here.
Ayala gives two objections to design: (1) The design we see is suboptimal; and (2) the cruelty we see in nature precludes an inference to a good designer.
Craig first shows a picture of a dilapidated old East German Trabant, one of the worst cars ever made. He then shows a picture of a shiny new Mercedes E Class.
Then he makes the following argument.
1. The Trabant is obviously designed.
2. The Trabant design is obviously sub-optimal.
3. Therefore, the fact that a design is sub-optimal does not invalidate the design inference.
Conclusion: Known designs exhibit various degrees of optimality. Therefore, there is simply no reason to restrict design inferences only to maximally optimal designs. If a structure meets Dembski’s criteria for inferring design, that inference is not nullified by the mere possibility that the structure could have been better designed.
Craig then shows a picture of a medieval torture device and makes the following argument.
1. The torture device is obviously designed.
2. The designer was obviously not good.
3. Therefore, the possibility that the designer is not good does not preclude a design inference.*
Conclusion: The design inference says absolutely nothing about the moral qualities of the designer.
*Theologians have answers to the “cruelty” objection, but those answers are not within the province of the ID project as such.
uncommondescent.com
......
even if God were the designer and God was perfect, it doesn’t follow that the design had to be perfect nor that even if it started out perfect that it had to remain that way.
.........
The argument by Craig is extremely relevant. He shows that Ayala is not telling the truth in his objections. They are not anti-design arguments.
As far as sub-optimal or evil designs, this is another failure. It is a religious, moral argument, not a scientific one. Once you acknowledge that it is a moral argument you have to find a basis for that morality. The terms “optimization” or “good” and “evil” can only be done in the context of what purpose the designs are trying to serve. If God is trying to demonstrate in nature the inadequacy of the natural man, and the terrible effect of sin on the natural world, then a perfect design which removed all suffering would be in fact sub-optimal.
...........
lpadron August 15, 2012 at 5:43 pm
mphillips,
Thanks for the reply. It seems to me that we still don’t know precisely what cruelty is and by who’s standard it should be measured.
Why should it be cruel for a spider to be devoured in this way? And from a wasp’s perspective this process probably doesn’t seem cruel at all.
I dunno. “Cruelty” sounds like something we add to nature, a moral characteristic, even though nature knows nothing of cruelty, right, wrong or and all the rest. How does one test for cruelty?
37
bornagain77 August 15, 2012 at 5:51 pm
I know how Darwinists are always griping about how poorly designed the human body is just so to try to make a theological case against God and for neo-Darwinian evolution, but this study that came out a few days ago does not bode well as to the neo-Darwinists ever successfully making their case that the human body is poorly designed:
Modular Biological Complexity – Christof Koch – August 2012
Summary: It has been argued that the technological capability to fully simulate the human brain on digital computers will exist within a decade. This is taken to imply that we will
comprehend its functioning, eliminate all diseases, and “upload” ourselves to computers (1). Although such predictions excite the imagination, they are not based on a sound assessment of the complexity of living systems. Such systems are characterized by large numbers of highly heterogeneous components, be they genes, proteins, or cells. These components interact causally in myriad ways across a very large spectrum of space-time, from nanometers to meters and from microseconds to years. A complete understanding of these systems demands that a large fraction of these interactions be experimentally or computationally probed. This is very difficult.,,,
This is bad news. Consider a neuronal synapse — the presynaptic terminal has an estimated 1000 distinct proteins. Fully analyzing their possible interactions would take about 2000 years. Or consider the task of fully characterizing the visual cortex of the mouse — about 2 million neurons. Under the extreme assumption that the neurons in these systems can all interact with each other, analyzing the various combinations will take about 10 million years…, even though it is assumed that the underlying technology (in computers used to try to understand the biological interactions) speeds up by an order of magnitude each year. ,,,
Improved technologies for observing and probing biological systems has only led to discoveries of further levels of complexity that need to be dealt with. This process has not yet run its course. We are far away from understanding cell biology, genomes, or brains, and turning this understanding into practical knowledge.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cont.....31.summary
Further notes:
The Multi-dimensional Genome — by Dr Robert Carter – presentation starts approx 12:00 minute mark – video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3faN5fU6_Y
The Extreme Complexity Of Genes – Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin – video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/8593991/
The following is interesting:
“The thyroid gland, pituitary gland, thymus, pineal gland, and coccyx, … once considered useless by evolutionists, are now known to have important functions. The list of 180 “vestigial” structures is practically down to zero. Unfortunately, earlier Darwinists assumed that if they were ignorant of an organ’s function, then it had no function.”
“Tornado in a Junkyard” – book – by former atheist James Perloff
HMMM seems like the exact same argument that Darwinists are currently using for ‘junk’ DNA! i.e. if Darwinists are ignorant of function then that means it has no function in their view! Why? Because their theology demands it!
.......
GilDodgen August 15, 2012 at 9:02 pm
I watched the Craig-Ayala debate some time ago. Ayala, despite his credentials, essentially made a fool of himself. Ayala was obviously completely uniformed about ID theory, its argumentation, and evidence. I actually felt sorry for poor Ayala because he was so completely outclassed by Craig.
Design in living systems is so evident (complex functionally-integrated information and the associated computationally-controlled machinery) that I remain completely mystified by the fact that intelligent, rational, educated people remain so obstinate in their denial of reality, as discovered and elucidated by modern science.
Oh, I almost forgot. If such people actually accepted the evidence, they would be required to abandon their materialistic worldview, accept intelligent design as an objective feature of the universe and living systems, and admit that they were wrong about everything that ultimately matters.
For such people, hanging on to a scientifically preposterous thesis is preferable to admitting error and pursuing the evidence where it leads.
Of course, they don’t like where the evidence leads, so they deny it, and mount increasingly ludicrous defenses of the indefensible.
............
There isn’t any physio-chemical connection between the codon and the amino acid it codes for.
..........
|
