Can anybody explain to me what Dawkins means, when he says:"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose"[1] ?

Why does Dawkins think these things look designed? I know he doesn't think they really are designed, he's a darwinist, he thinks they evolved. But why think they even look designed?

Is this an aesthetic judgment? Like seeing faces in the clouds? Like thinking rainbows are pretty or baby seals are cute?

Reference:

[1] Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, ), p. 1.

Oh look who's back. You going to visit your archeopteryx thread and respond to the criticism you have recieved there, anytime soon?

I've heard some atheists say that nature looks designed. Not to me; I always wonder what they mean.

Another poe.

Jehannum wrote:I've heard some atheists say that nature looks designed. Not to me; I always wonder what they mean.

Simply because it sometimes appears so well ordered, and organisms appear so complex (e.g.:irreducibly complexity), that some people think it could only have been designed by a mind, with intention, with a purpose, a plan. They postulate a creator where there is none, simply because of perpetuated stories as part of tradition and culture.

Atheists who says it looks designed, do not think it is designed, because they have, at least, a minimal understanding of the mechanisms that are or were at work in bringing to life and sustaining such a system. They still might and do say it appears designed, based sometimes solely on appearance, or function, but they are informed enough to know better.

And people simply tend to see design or rather a pattern, because we're naturally a pattern seeking species.

Polanyi wrote:Can anybody explains to me what Dawkins means, when he says "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose"[1] ?

Why does Dawkins think these things look designed? I know he doesn't think they really are designed, he's a darwinist, he thinks they evolved. But why think they even look designed?

Is this an aesthetic judgment? Like seeing faces in the clouds? Like thinking rainbows are pretty or baby seals are cute?

[1] Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, ), p. 1.

Answering your question if I can, I haven't read The Blind Watchmaker, I think Dawkins is talking about how organisms seem to fit very well into their extant environment, and that this could give an appearance of design.
For example, sharks are very streamlined and "fit" very well in the water... they have adapted very well to their environment and are highly successful oceanic predators.
If one goes through all the organisms in nature, once can certainly find many examples of organisms having adapted well to their specific niche. This is of course what is to be expected from evolving organisms after all, they adapt to their environments. But it is only a tempting appearance after all, nothing more. Evolution perfectly explains why it is so.

Polanyi wrote:Can anybody explain to me what Dawkins means, when he says "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose"[1] ?

Why does Dawkins think these things look designed? I know he doesn't think they really are designed, he's a darwinist, he thinks they evolved. But why think they even look designed?

Is this an aesthetic judgment? Like seeing faces in the clouds? Like thinking rainbows are pretty or baby seals are cute?

Yes.

@Rumraket

In other words Dawkins is not making an aesthetic judgment? This is not like seeing faces in the clouds?

Polanyi wrote:@Rumraket

In other words Dawkins is not making an aesthetic judgment? This is not like seeing faces in the clouds?

No, it's more like seeing boobs in the clouds. I did today... gave me a smile.

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

Hi Polanyi. I look forward to your minimal presence in this thread. See you in about a month when you inevitably start another thread.

Hi Polanyi. I look forward to your minimal presence in this thread. See you in about a month when you inevitably start another thread.

lol, for your information, and this is between you and me, I was banned for a month. It's kind of hard to make posts to your own threads when you are banned..

Polanyi wrote:@Rumraket

In other words Dawkins is not making an aesthetic judgment? This is not like seeing faces in the clouds?

I think he is. It is very much like seeing faces in the clouds. The difference is, he realizes the faces are illusory. You, like all creationists, think the faces are actually there.

MattHunX wrote:Another poe.

Nope, not poe. Polanyi is real all right.

Polanyi, what Dawkins means is that there are organisms that have the appearance of being designed. And it is only that. Appearance of design and not design in itself. This appearance of design is what theists and assorted fundies misrepresent for design in itself, without there being actual evidence of it.

I hope you do understand that something is not always what it appears to be. The stars look like points, but in reality they are like the sun, and in many times bigger than the sun. Some of these we do see as one point; however they are star systems with planets, binary/triple stars etc. etc.

So appearance does not always equal reality.

And of course, could you please return to the other threads of yours where you have still a lot of unanswered questions?

Polanyi wrote:

Hi Polanyi. I look forward to your minimal presence in this thread. See you in about a month when you inevitably start another thread.

lol, for your information, and this is between you and me, I was banned for a month. It's kind of hard to make posts to your own threads when you are banned..

Gee, can't possibly imagine how you got yourself banned. You and ispoketoanangel should start a club.

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 my time, prominent evolutionists never respond to my emails when I ask them questions...

Darkchilde wrote:

MattHunX wrote:Another poe.

Nope, not poe. Polanyi is real all right.

Like I said, I'm still having a hard time telling satires and poes apart from genuine sheep. They really make it hard sometimes. So much, so heavy honest theistic non-sense, I can't tell if it's faked or not. Intelligence can't be feigned, thankfully. As I have seen, poes are often really well-informed atheists who get a kick out of annoying other atheists and wasting their time with fake drivel.

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

I wonder why

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?

Yes, I'm saying exactly that. I personally do not know why Richard Dawkins says why some organisms can look designed.

I have heard the expression before and think I know why some people say it, and can understand their reasonings for saying it. But I don't know if that is exactly how Dawkins is using the word. Therefore, I cannot honestly or realistically be expected to answer on his behalf.

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

Can't say I'm surprised.

Polanyi, what Dawkins means is that there are organisms that have the appearance of being designed. And it is only that. Appearance of design and not design in itself. This appearance of design is what theists and assorted fundies misrepresent for design in itself, without there being actual evidence of it.

@Darkchilde

What you did here is basically describe to me what Dawkins is doing, I know what he is doing, my question is why?

I know Dawkins think these things only look designed, my question is why does Dawkins even think they look designed?

Is Dawkins making an aesthetic judgment? Like seeing faces in the clouds? Like thinking baby seals are cute? Or is this different?

And it's hard to answer all my questions on my old threads especially when you ban me for a month..people basically had a month head start on my topics..