I am about to do a sequel of sorts to one my early SkeptiCamp presentations; going into what an Intelligently Designed life form would actually look like, as opposed to the evolved life forms we are used to seeing. I wanted to cover the difference between what Creationists think artificial objects are like, vs. what they are actually like. I figured I would post this, in case anyone reminds me of something to add.
Here is a short list of "Hallmarks of Intelligent Design" creationists like to claim, along with a brief counterpoint about them:
1. Sheer Complexity, to the point of appearing Irreducible!
Counter-Points: Computer programs can show such features emerging from evolutionary processes. And, the theory ignores the concept of co-option, anyway.
2. Claims of Optimum Design
Counter-Points: Designs really aren't very optimal: our eyesight, for example, is quite weak compared to some other animals, due to its "design" flaws.
3. Information/Language/Code of DNA
Counter-Point: We have well developed ideas for how DNA could emerge naturally (see various abiogenesis-related ideas). And, it is not even a very good language. For one thing, it is very heavily dependent on its medium.
4. Man-Centered Features
Counter-Points: A lot of examples of this are actually from artificially selected life forms. See also Douglas Adams' point about the rain puddle believing it was specifically designed to fit into the hole it found itself in.
5. Extreme Similarity of Features
Contradicts point number 6.
6. Extreme Diversity of Features
Contradicts point number 5.
Here, on the other hand, are examples of Signs of Actual Artificial Creation. Note that we almost never see any of these in life forms on Earth:
1. Easily Replaceable Parts
2. Access and Maintenance Features, such as door hinges
4. Tooling Marks
5. Clearly Printed Maker Labels or Inspection Labels
And most importantly:
6. External Documents: Design diagram drafts, instruction manuals, etc.
Can anyone think of anything I missed?
Here is a short list of "Hallmarks of Intelligent Design" creationists like to claim, along with a brief counterpoint about them:
1. Sheer Complexity, to the point of appearing Irreducible!
Counter-Points: Computer programs can show such features emerging from evolutionary processes. And, the theory ignores the concept of co-option, anyway.
2. Claims of Optimum Design
Counter-Points: Designs really aren't very optimal: our eyesight, for example, is quite weak compared to some other animals, due to its "design" flaws.
3. Information/Language/Code of DNA
Counter-Point: We have well developed ideas for how DNA could emerge naturally (see various abiogenesis-related ideas). And, it is not even a very good language. For one thing, it is very heavily dependent on its medium.
4. Man-Centered Features
Counter-Points: A lot of examples of this are actually from artificially selected life forms. See also Douglas Adams' point about the rain puddle believing it was specifically designed to fit into the hole it found itself in.
5. Extreme Similarity of Features
Contradicts point number 6.
6. Extreme Diversity of Features
Contradicts point number 5.
Here, on the other hand, are examples of Signs of Actual Artificial Creation. Note that we almost never see any of these in life forms on Earth:
1. Easily Replaceable Parts
2. Access and Maintenance Features, such as door hinges
4. Tooling Marks
5. Clearly Printed Maker Labels or Inspection Labels
And most importantly:
6. External Documents: Design diagram drafts, instruction manuals, etc.
Can anyone think of anything I missed?
via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/HgFTbkG
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire