The Ant and the Blade of Grass

[hexag1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you see a watch in a field you can infer it had a designer without requiring an explanation for the designer.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is entirely correct. Since watches as we know them do not self-replicate and have genes, there is no reasonable mechanism by which a watch could exist without a designer.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think youve misspoken here. watches have genes? you must have meant "do not self-replicate or have genes". But you haven't addressed the other half of NotReady's statement: "....without requiring an explanation for the designer."
The designer must also be explained to explain how the watch got there.

[TimM]

[ QUOTE ]
I think youve misspoken here. watches have genes? you must have meant "do not self-replicate or have genes".

[/ QUOTE ]

Right it should be OR.

[ QUOTE ]
But you haven't addressed the other half of NotReady's statement: "....without requiring an explanation for the designer." The designer must also be explained to explain how the watch got there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not if all you want to do is infer that the watch was designed.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">If the universe as a whole is designed by God, Who is not Himself a part of the universe, then logic doesn't require that He be designed. </font>

But why God? Why not an alien, or a gremlin, or a simulation ran on a super computer? Could God be any of these things to you? What do you mean by God?

The ONLY reason you postulate your particular god, and not Allah, or an alien, or an omnipotent gremlin, (or evolution?), is because your bible TELLS you to! That's it. Had you been born in Pakistan, you'd be believing in Allah, because the Koran told you to. So surely you can see why not everyone is as convinced as you are.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

But why God? Why not an alien


[/ QUOTE ]

I believe the ID movement would agree with you. So you agree it isn't unreasonable to infer design?

[hexag1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think youve misspoken here. watches have genes? you must have meant "do not self-replicate or have genes".

[/ QUOTE ]

Right it should be OR.

[ QUOTE ]
But you haven't addressed the other half of NotReady's statement: "....without requiring an explanation for the designer." The designer must also be explained to explain how the watch got there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not if all you want to do is infer that the watch was designed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats not all that we're trying to do. We are trying to find an complete and intellectually satisfying explanation for the origins of life. If you find yourself getting hung up on this point, keep in mind the larger context of the thread. I wrote all this in response to NotReady posting this:
[ QUOTE ]
Why is it logical and rational to look at nature, see apparent purpose and design, and conclude non-design, and irrational to look at nature, see apparent purpose and design, and conclude design. That's the big gap of logic in people like Dawkins.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But why God? Why not an alien


[/ QUOTE ]

I believe the ID movement would agree with you. So you agree it isn't unreasonable to infer design?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree things are the way they are for a reason. I think evolution mimicks design. I think a supreme being or an alien simulation would mimick design also.

What I don't agree with is that we should leap to any conclusions. So far, evolution does a fine job of explaining it. So much so, that there's no reason yet to posit a god or alien simulation. Even though I won't deny both are possible.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Even though I won't deny both are possible.


[/ QUOTE ]

Nice maybe. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[TimM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But you haven't addressed the other half of NotReady's statement: "....without requiring an explanation for the designer." The designer must also be explained to explain how the watch got there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not if all you want to do is infer that the watch was designed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats not all that we're trying to do. We are trying to find an complete and intellectually satisfying explanation for the origins of life.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well to some extent I enjoy debating. I only wish the opposition were more skilled. In my post I was just showing how several correct premises does not make an argument valid.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how that escapes the " I believe IT but I don't know what it is" problem. Remember we're not talking about potential theist or theists-in-waitng, these are actual people who believe ... yet don't know in what.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yet who cant explain what it is very clearly.

[ QUOTE ]
Shouldn't a person hold off on the belief part until the groping stage is over?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
I think so. I think the rational choice if you have no belief is to remain that way until you have evidence either for or against (I dont accept the often posited "faith=belief without evidence" definition). The trouble is, some find ourselves in the position of being a believer - what do I do now? I cant snap my fingers and not believe any more easily than I can snap my fingers and believe there are little green men buzzing isolated rural areas in flying saucers.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I certainly have a healthy respect for evolution, but just how on earth did this worm evolve to know not only to invade the brain of the ant, but to then have an exact effect on the brain that causes it to climb up the blade of grass? That just seems too big of a stretch for me. Too wide of a gap to be passed on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Same reason a flock of birds or a school of fish move in unison. The concept is called "Emergence" Google it. Basically it describes how complex systems and patterns arise from multiplicity of simple rules.

In this situation the ant and the worm are just both obeying some simple rules. For instance the worm can have a rule that instructs it "to eat ant brains" and the ant can follow a rule like "have a head headache getout in the sun".

Stu