Polanyi wrote:

Dawkins is commenting on the appearance of design.

Again, I know what Dawkins is doing, but this begs the question. How does Dawkins know this design is only apparent? Surely Dawkins is not seeing faces in DNA strands that Dawkins knows is not really there? Clearly Dawkins is not making an aesthetic judgment when he says these complicated things look as if they were designed for a purpose?

There's a known psychological mechanism that explains why humans are inclined to see familiar shapes in random structures.
As there's no evidence for true design, that mechanism seems the only reason why Dawkins, as a human prone to the psychological mechanism, sees familiar shapes in randum structures.

Polanyi wrote:

Well, I'm used to being ignored by you, but I've already made my opinion known: For once, I think you're right. It is just an aesthetic judgement, with no rigorous empirical basis to back it up. That's largely Dawkins' point. That is also why the entire basis of the Intelligent Design creationist movement is fraudulent. It attempts to elevate this subjective aesthetic impresssion into a scientific hypothesis. But, of course, matters of aesthetics have no place in science.

But why would Dawkins describe this "appearance of design (which he attributes to natural selection) as overpowering? Note that this doesn't bother Dawkins because he simply attributes this to natural selection, it's not that he thinks these are just appearances of faces that disappear upon closer examination.

As Francis Crick also once noted: “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved” (1990, p. 138).

Do astronomers also have to constantly remind themselves that the earth is not flat, but rather that it's a sphere?

No, astronomers rarely have to deal with flat-Earthers claiming the Earth isn't roundish.

Biologists, on the other hand, are constantly dealing with creationist idiots and their retarded cousins, Intelligent Design advocates, claiming design rather than evolution shaped modern (or ancient) life.

It's not themselves the biologists are re-assuring - they are talking to the audience of people who have been misguided by the lies of creationists.

As we are comepltely bereft of evidence confirming that this deisgn is not simply apparent, along with good explanations of the process that formulates these designs (which is equally bereft of evidence confirming agency), Dawkins is well within his rights to state this design is simply apparent. Unless, of course, you have a good reason to say that it is not. Do you?

Other evolutionists would disagree with you here, Franklin Harold admits in his book "The way of the cell" published in 2001:"..we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations." (p. 205).[1]

Compare this with James Shapiro's earlier statement: “There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.” (Shapiro 1996)[2]

Jerry Coyne goes even further: “There is no doubt that the pathways described by Behe are dauntingly complex, and their evolution will be hard to unravel. . . . [W]e may forever be unable to envisage the first proto-pathways.” (Coyne 1996)[3]

How can we know what you would consider "a good explanation" is not merely a wishful speculation? Clearly this question is not settled simply by saying there are "perfect explanations".

References:

[1] The Way of the Cell: Molecules, Organisms, and the Order of Life (p. 205).

[2] Shapiro, J. In the details . . . what? National Review, 62-65. 9-16-1996.

[3]Coyne, J. A. (1996). God in the details. Nature 383, 227-228.

Polanyi wrote:

Dawkins is commenting on the appearance of design.

Again, I know what Dawkins is doing, but this begs the question. How does Dawkins know this design is only apparent? Surely Dawkins is not seeing faces in DNA strands that Dawkins knows is not really there? Clearly Dawkins is not making an aesthetic judgment when he says these complicated things look as if they were designed for a purpose?

Because there is probably no designer ?

Genetic algorithms disambiguate a designer from the object being designed. If you are a designer of say, an electronic component and you decide to use genetic algorithms to effect the design then it was not you that actually created the design. Equally if you did the calculations the hard way and created a design then it was you. The results may be the same but no one could tell the two designs apart. They are both fit for purpose.

What we find in nature is that genetic algorithms (GA) are at play and so it is still not possible to ever pick an object and say that this was designed by GA and this was designed by a designer. We can't do this with man-made objects so how can we do this with natural objects ?.

Intelligent Designer supporters try to show that there are designs in nature that are so complex that they had to be made by a designer but to date have not presented any examples of these that actually stay in one piece.

So we are left with an assumption that there is or isn't a designer. Theists presume there is one and atheists assume that there isn't one as one is not needed with GA. Theists will not find a designer in genetically designed objects and atheists will simply have confirmation of the null result. The ball is still on the theist side.

Polanyi wrote:

As we are comepltely bereft of evidence confirming that this deisgn is not simply apparent, along with good explanations of the process that formulates these designs (which is equally bereft of evidence confirming agency), Dawkins is well within his rights to state this design is simply apparent. Unless, of course, you have a good reason to say that it is not. Do you?

Other evolutionists would disagree with you here, Franklin Harold admits in his book "The way of the cell" published in 2001:"..we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations." (p. 205).[1]

Compare this with James Shapiro's earlier statement: “There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.” (Shapiro 1996)

Jerry Coyne goes even further: “There is no doubt that the pathways described by Behe are dauntingly complex, and their evolution will be hard to unravel. . . . [W]e may forever be unable to envisage the first proto-pathways.” (Coyne 1996)[3]

Clearly what you would consider a "good explanation" others might consider nothing but a wishful speculation.

References:

[1] The Way of the Cell: Molecules, Organisms, and the Order of Life (p. 205).

[3]Coyne, J. A. (1996). God in the details. Nature 383, 227-228.

Oh, you mean wishful speculation like a creator who cared so much about our existence that it magically created us? You mean that kind of wishful speculation.



What would you rather have them do, make up an answer or admit that we don't have a full explanation yet?

Perhaps I was too hasty with my statement. Would plausible explanations be a better way of stating it?

Also, would you mind referrring me to where Coyne originally made that statement. I can only find in articles written by intelligent design windbags attempting to claim victory over the evil evolutionists.

Polanyi wrote:

I'd like to note that astronomers look out into space and so it is we who must remind ourselves when walking about that the earth is sphericalish and not flat.

Are you saying that Astronomers have to remind themselves that the earth really is spherical? But the earth doesn't look flat, why be reminded that it's not? The deeper we look, the easier it is to see the earth is a sphere.

Are you being intentionally thick? Try reading it again. "Id like to note that astronomers look out into space". I'm here essentially saying that astronomers don't waste time pondering the shape of the earth.

No, astronomers don't run around trying to convince themselves the earth isn't flat. Most poeple today just know it isn't. Not because they have all been into outer space or done experiments to determine it's spherical nature, but because it's simply common knowledge.

The earth looks flat to most people when standing on the ground close to sea-level, that's why in most ancient mythologies, it was considered flat. The earth certainly doesn't look spherical, only when you actually get up to higher altitudes does it's overall shape start to become apparent. Standing on it's surface, it looks flat.. maybe a little bumpy depending on the landscape.

It seems you have started an entire thread where the only thing you do is consistently ask the same question over and over when people don't give you the answer you really want.

You could spare us a lot of meaningless back and forth, and time, by just asking straight out : Why doesn't Dawkins think biological organisms are designed when he says they look like it? Because the evidence tells us life evolved. That's it. Case closed.

It's not themselves the biologists are re-assuring - they are talking to the audience of people who have been misguided by the lies of creationists.

No, I'm afraid Crick here was talking about the Biologists themselves, he writes:

“Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved” (1990, p. 138).

You could spare us a lot of meaningless back and forth, and time, by just asking straight out : Why doesn't Dawkins think biological organisms are designed when he says they look like it? Because the evidence tells us life evolved. That's it. Case closed.

What makes you think this has anything to do with my question? I want to know why he even thinks anything looks designed, and so far, no one has given me a satisfactory answer. Most people describe to me what Dawkins did, others say Dawkins makes an aesthetic judgement. This is like saying Dawkins is seeing faces in the DNA strands.

Polanyi wrote:

It's not themselves the biologists are re-assuring - they are talking to the audience of people who have been misguided by the lies of creationists.

No, I'm afraid Crick here was talking about the Biologists themselves, he writes:

“Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved” (1990, p. 138).

And, again, I don't see a problem with that. To use your own example, if astronomers (or, more appropriately, geologists, or cartographers) failed to take into account the sphericalish shape of the earth, they'd make a lot of really stupid mistakes. Just as the people who delude themselves that organisms are "designed" repeatedly do.

Polanyi wrote:

You could spare us a lot of meaningless back and forth, and time, by just asking straight out : Why doesn't Dawkins think biological organisms are designed when he says they look like it? Because the evidence tells us life evolved. That's it. Case closed.

What makes you think this has anything to do with my question? I want to know why he even thinks anything looks designed, and so far, no one has answered my question. I was asking a simple question, is Dawkins making an aesthetic judgment? Is Dawkins seeing faces in the DNA strands? Does Dawkins think things look designed because small ribosomes are just so cute?

I've answered your question at least twice already: Yes, he is making an aesthetic judgment. (Although I'm not sure he thinks ribosomes are "cute.")

Polanyi wrote:

You could spare us a lot of meaningless back and forth, and time, by just asking straight out : Why doesn't Dawkins think biological organisms are designed when he says they look like it? Because the evidence tells us life evolved. That's it. Case closed.

What makes you think this has anything to do with my question?

Bëcause all you ever do is attemtp to come up with some kind of "aHA - Gotcha" argument against evolution. This thread follows a long line of useless rambles from you containing insignificant quotes from professional biologists.

It's the banana argument all over again. Look at the banana, it fits in my hand, butt, vagina etc. Surely that means someone must have designed it that way, right?

I want to know why he even thinks anything looks designed, and so far, no one has given me a satisfactory answer.

That's because none of us are Richard Dawkins. An elementary concept that seems to escape you. Maybe you should actually read the book you took the quote from?

Most people describe to me what Dawkins did, others say Dawkins makes an aesthetic judgement. This is like saying Dawkins is seeing faces in the DNA strands.

He could very well be. Tell me, if he does indeed make an aesthetic judgement, are you going to abandon this thread too?

Polanyi wrote:

Dawkins is commenting on the appearance of design.

Again, I know what Dawkins is doing, but this begs the question. How does Dawkins know this design is only apparent? Surely Dawkins is not seeing faces in DNA strands that Dawkins knows is not really there? Clearly Dawkins is not making an aesthetic judgment when he says these complicated things look as if they were designed for a purpose?

Despite this being a stupid fucking question, given that no intelligent design / creationist proponent can ever give a rigorous definition on how they determine something designed by intelligence or crafted by natural forces over billions of years, it's merely an observation of aesthetics. "Shit", he says, "that looks complex".


To anyone uninformed, you'd imagine that it was designed purely for the reason that you'd disbelieve common forces that you've encountered in your feeble lifetime can account for such structures. You've seen erosion along coastlines, sure, but nothing like that, right?

Upon further inspection into what Dawkins deems designoid objects, there's a mass of evidence that says: "this is all reducibly complex, and we've isolated just the known mechanisms that can account for it". You've been told by numerous posters that to the best of our knowledge, it's merely an aesthetic judgment.

Is there any point to this thread besides baiting an argument on semantics? Do you have any substance to offer? Do you have a rigorous mechanism to determine that which is designed from "designoid"?

AusJP wrote:

Polanyi wrote:

Dawkins is commenting on the appearance of design.

Again, I know what Dawkins is doing, but this begs the question. How does Dawkins know this design is only apparent? Surely Dawkins is not seeing faces in DNA strands that Dawkins knows is not really there? Clearly Dawkins is not making an aesthetic judgment when he says these complicated things look as if they were designed for a purpose?

Despite this being a stupid fucking question, given that no intelligent design / creationist proponent can ever give a rigorous definition on how they determine something designed by intelligence or crafted by natural forces over billions of years, it's merely an observation of aesthetics. "Shit", he says, "that looks complex".


To anyone uninformed, you'd imagine that it was designed purely for the reason that you'd disbelieve common forces that you've encountered in your feeble lifetime can account for such structures. You've seen erosion along coastlines, sure, but nothing like that, right?

Upon further inspection into what Dawkins deems designoid objects, there's a mass of evidence that says: "this is all reducibly complex, and we've isolated just the known mechanisms that can account for it". You've been told by numerous posters that to the best of our knowledge, it's merely an aesthetic judgment.

Is there any point to this thread besides baiting an argument on semantics? Do you have any substance to offer? Do you have a rigorous mechanism to determine that which is designed from "designoid"?

Of course, he doesn't.

Oh God, I get it.

The sole, single point of all of this is (well, other than an effort to irritate) : because Dawkins sees design, therefore there MUST BE design, sort of along the lines of "if we can conceive of an allmighty Creator then by virtue of that fact there must be one" drivel.

Say it isn't so, Pol?

Polanyi wrote: I want to know why he even thinks anything looks designed, and so far, no one has given me a satisfactory answer. Most people describe to me what Dawkins did, others say Dawkins makes an aesthetic judgement. This is like saying Dawkins is seeing faces in the DNA strands.

He's likely mentioning things appearing designed because he is addressing what creationists are claiming. If no one was claiming things are designed, there would be no need to counter that point.

As simple as that. Seems so very obvious, to me at least.

mindyourmind wrote:Oh God, I get it.

The sole, single point of all of this is (well, other than an effort to irritate) : because Dawkins sees design, therefore there MUST BE design, sort of along the lines of "if we can conceive of an allmighty Creator then by virtue of that fact there must be one" drivel.

Say it isn't so, Pol?

That's exactly what he's saying. Unfortunately for him, his own examples refute his own arguments. Just because we see faces in the clouds, or perceive the earth as flat, doesn't mean either perception is accurate. That's the problem with ID creationists. They insist that their aesthetically derived misperceptions actually reflect reality.

Polanyi wrote:

In any case, why don't you actually ask Dawkins? I don't have a telepathic connection to his brain.

Are you saying, you don't know why Dawkins thinks these things look designed? That I would have to ask Dawkins himself?

I'm gonna waste his time, prominent evolutionists never respond to my emails when I ask them questions...

Corrected.

It's a sop to the credulous. Dawkins doesn't think these things look designed, but he knows that a lot of people do. He's explaining to those people why it is only the appearance of design, and not design itself. Much like faces in the cloud, they don't actually look like faces, but clouds in the shape of faces. The difference between a critical mind and a credulous one.