Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (3299)	12/27/2009 1:51:00 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

Inferring Design from Technology by Bilbo I've written previously on what I thought the problem was with Paley's watch: The person finding the watch in the heather would already be familiar with complex machines and metallurgy, and from that evidence would easily infer that the watch had been designed. A better example would be the hypothetical case of a caveman, who knew nothing about complex machines and metallurgy, finding the watch. I concluded (correctly, I think) that the caveman wouldn't be able to infer that the watch had been designed. But let's take a third example: A society that has invented large, crude complex machines (such as wheels and axles), and has recently discovered metallurgy. Now imagine people from this society stumbling across the watch on the heather. Even though their technology is not advanced enough to design and make the watch, it is advanced enough to let them know that with further technological progress, they could design this watch. Further, by this point they know enough about the world to reasonably doubt that the watch was a product of blind, non-intelligent processes. So would they infer that the watch was designed? I think so. And because of the discovery of the watch, they would now be inspired to develop the technology needed to make one of their own. Is there a lesson for us? I think there should be. We're finally understanding the workings of the cell. It's made up of complex machines and automated factories, directed by coded information. Technology we're familiar with and still developing ourselves. But the cell's technology is at so tiny a level that we would need to call it nanotechnology. We've only scratched the surface of developing nanotechnology, much of it inspired by observing and mimicking the workings of the cell. But many are confident that sooner or later we'll be able to develop nanotechnology to point that we might be able to design cells ourselves. But does that mean that the original cells were designed? There is still the question of whether blind, non-intelligent processes could produce a cell. Many are betting on the RNA world scenario. But if Robert Shapiro and other chemists are right, the RNA world is a dead-end. At this point in time, the design hypothesis is at least a reasonable alternative. And for my money, it's the best hypothesis. telicthoughts.com Good points in the comments about which ends the discussion: It's a miracle. Or It evolved (in some way we can't reconstruct).

To: Brumar89 who wrote (3299)	12/27/2009 6:52:23 PM
From: LLCF	1 Recommendation Respond to of 69300

<It was around before Christ and rebukes recent materialist assertions that ID is creationism.> As I said.. the only reason this is even an ISSUE is that IDers somehow got the wacko's jumping on their ship and running around espousing ID as a reason not to teach "Darwinism". Sort of stupid, as ID is evolution anyway... and Darwinism (as has been shown, isn't even a single theory... in fact is simply a broad idea with many possibilities) doens't preclude God. What the wacko's like about ID is simply the idea that a design shows a god... they don't give a rats ass that is might be a HUGE UPGRADE in evolutionary thought. FURTHER... the WACKOS WILL HAVE TO SWALLOW THIS: If ID is correct... then Evolution MUST BE creationism unfolding... further it probably also shows God must be Immanent... or at least "have those attributes". Swallow that wacko's!! Or get off the ID ship before it destroys your puny world view. dAK