The thing that ID creationists don't understand is that "intelligent design" - even if it were true - cannot be seen as a scientific explanation, only a philosophical explanation. This is because science deals with proximate causes whereas philosophy/theology concerns itself with ultimate causes. When Paley delivered his watchmaker argument, he never intended it to be a scientific explanation, only a religious argument.

Wortfish wrote:The thing that ID creationists don't understand is that "intelligent design" - even if it were true - cannot be seen as a scientific explanation, only a philosophical explanation.

Much more important before it can even be demonstrated to be true: it does not actually explain anything.

Wortfish wrote:When Paley delivered his watchmaker argument, he never intended it to be a scientific explanation, only a religious argument.

There's no such thing. There's logical arguments, period.
Putting religion into it doesn't magically make it it's own category of arguments that's immune from scientific and/or logical criticisms.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Wortfish wrote:When Paley delivered his watchmaker argument, he never intended it to be a scientific explanation, only a religious argument.

There's no such thing. There's logical arguments, period.
Putting religion into it doesn't magically make it it's own category of arguments that's immune from scientific and/or logical criticisms.

The point is that Paley was making a religious argument for the existence of God. He was not trying to explain how watches are designed. The ID movement claims to have an explanation for biological complexity when all they have is a religious interpretation.

Wortfish wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Wortfish wrote:When Paley delivered his watchmaker argument, he never intended it to be a scientific explanation, only a religious argument.

There's no such thing. There's logical arguments, period.
Putting religion into it doesn't magically make it it's own category of arguments that's immune from scientific and/or logical criticisms.

The point is that Paley was making a religious argument for the existence of God. He was not trying to explain how watches are designed. The ID movement claims to have an explanation for biological complexity when all they have is a religious interpretation.

The ID movement, what there is of it, which isn't much, also does not try and explain how watches are designed. All they have is the very same claim as creationists: design, because reasons.

The mistake they make is the same as Paley's, focusing on the irrelevant watch while ignoring the heath. Eppur si muove.

Wortfish wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Wortfish wrote:When Paley delivered his watchmaker argument, he never intended it to be a scientific explanation, only a religious argument.

There's no such thing. There's logical arguments, period.
Putting religion into it doesn't magically make it it's own category of arguments that's immune from scientific and/or logical criticisms.

The point is that Paley was making a religious argument for the existence of God.

I just explained to you there's no such thing.
What the fuck is a religious argument?

Wortfish wrote:He was not trying to explain how watches are designed. The ID movement claims to have an explanation for biological complexity when all they have is a religious interpretation.

A religious interpetation =/= a religious argument.

To paraphrase someone else:
Creationist are walking on a beach of watches in a universe made of watches and therefore have no bais to determine what is or isn't designed.
- Matt Dillahunty

Wortfish wrote:The point is that Paley was making a religious argument for the existence of God. He was not trying to explain how watches are designed. The ID movement claims to have an explanation for biological complexity when all they have is a religious interpretation.

Negative. Paley had an explanation for the origin of complex mechanisms that need to be assembled whole from manufactured components, like watches. Watchmakers. He was insisting that the same explanation could/should be used for the origin of living organisms that grow and reproduce themselves, like chickens.

That his aim was to infer the necessity for god does not place the argument in some non-overlapping magisteria bubble where we stop applying critical thought.

Hoi Thomas

Prettig verjaardag.

Scot Dutchy wrote:Hoi Thomas

Prettig verjaardag.

Dank je Scot.

Yes, Happy Birthday Thomas!

Greyman wrote:Negative. Paley had an explanation for the origin of complex mechanisms that need to be assembled whole from manufactured components, like watches. Watchmakers. He was insisting that the same explanation could/should be used for the origin of living organisms that grow and reproduce themselves, like chickens.

Wel, the watchmaker may be the ultimate explanation for why a watch exists on the heath, but it is not a sufficient explanation that informs us how and why the watch was assembled in the way that it is. That's why his argument is a religious/philosophical one and not a scientific one.

felltoearth wrote:Yes, Happy Birthday Thomas!

Thanks!

Wortfish wrote:

Greyman wrote:Negative. Paley had an explanation for the origin of complex mechanisms that need to be assembled whole from manufactured components, like watches. Watchmakers. He was insisting that the same explanation could/should be used for the origin of living organisms that grow and reproduce themselves, like chickens.

Wel, the watchmaker may be the ultimate explanation for why a watch exists on the heath, but it is not a sufficient explanation that informs us how and why the watch was assembled in the way that it is. That's why his argument is a religious/philosophical one and not a scientific one.

Again, there's no such thing as a religious arguments.
And saying goddidit, is not an argument. It's an assertion and a baseless one at that.

Wortfish wrote:

Greyman wrote:Negative. Paley had an explanation for the origin of complex mechanisms that need to be assembled whole from manufactured components, like watches. Watchmakers. He was insisting that the same explanation could/should be used for the origin of living organisms that grow and reproduce themselves, like chickens.

Wel, the watchmaker may be the ultimate explanation for why a watch exists on the heath, but it is not a sufficient explanation that informs us how and why the watch was assembled in the way that it is. That's why his argument is a religious/philosophical one and not a scientific one.

That doesn't make sense, Wortfish. What also doesn't make sense is any religion-based explanation of a watch that is found on a beach. The only way to get the detailed explanation you want is to look for the manufacturer's mark on it, then look up what information is available on the internet, or in catalogues, or contact the manufacturers, if that des not give enough detail.

DavidMcC wrote:
That doesn't make sense, Wortfish. What also doesn't make sense is any religion-based explanation of a watch that is found on a beach. The only way to get the detailed explanation you want is to look for the manufacturer's mark on it, then look up what information is available on the internet, or in catalogues, or contact the manufacturers, if that des not give enough detail.

The watchmaker argument doesn't claim that God made the watch found on the heath. It claims that the watch was designed and made by a watchmaker.

Wortfish wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:
That doesn't make sense, Wortfish. What also doesn't make sense is any religion-based explanation of a watch that is found on a beach. The only way to get the detailed explanation you want is to look for the manufacturer's mark on it, then look up what information is available on the internet, or in catalogues, or contact the manufacturers, if that des not give enough detail.

The watchmaker argument doesn't claim that God made the watch found on the heath. It claims that the watch was designed and made by a watchmaker.

It's not as simple as that, Wortfish:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy#William_Paley

...
Paley went on to argue that the complex structures of living things and the remarkable adaptations of plants and animals required an intelligent designer.
...

In other words, he was claiming that god(s) are required to explain us.

Wortfish wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:
That doesn't make sense, Wortfish. What also doesn't make sense is any religion-based explanation of a watch that is found on a beach. The only way to get the detailed explanation you want is to look for the manufacturer's mark on it, then look up what information is available on the internet, or in catalogues, or contact the manufacturers, if that des not give enough detail.

The watchmaker argument doesn't claim that God made the watch found on the heath. It claims that the watch was designed and made by a watchmaker.

As a direct analogy to god creating the universe.
Again, according to the watchmaker argument, the universe is made of watches, you're walking on a beach of watches and thus have no comparison to claim they're designed.

The problems with Paley's watchmaker pseudo-argument being, of course, twofold. One, that a watch stands out as being observably different from the other entities on the beach. Two, that we have other evidence for watches being the products of human fabrication. Neither of these applies to the biosphere.

nvm