Problems with the ID position - Lessons from Gilbert Scott

This forum is for the discussion of the evidence for evolution. Anyone is welcome to post, however, scripture is not allowed. As the title says, Science Only please!

Moderator: Moderators

Problems with the ID position - Lessons from Gilbert Scott

Postby Luke Thomas » Sun Mar 29, 2009 1:28 am

When faced with evidence of the commonality of features of life - the ubiquity of polynucleotides etc. - ID proponents will more often than not counter that common features (design) are evidence for a common designer. To counter this, it is worth comparing the Battersea power station and a 'K2' red public telephone box. Neither structure is really remotely similar - they differ in scale, function, colour and the materials they are composed of - and yet Sir Giles Gilbert Scott designed both.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8b/Battersea.power.station.london.arp.jpg/739px-Battersea.power.station.london.arp.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3529/3253900900_de5264b58a.jpg

What does this tell us? That i) a common designer does not necessarily imply similar design, and the corrollary ii) similar design does not necessarily imply a common designer.

That is, an omnipotent designer is not constrained to use only 22 of the 390 naturally ocurring amino acids in proteins, nor to use only three of the many possible organic polymers, nor even constrained to use only five of the 102 naturally ocurring nucleosides in DNA and RNA. Since there is no constraint on an omnipotent designer, ID remains unfalsifiable; any and every possible organismal feature is permitted by the thesis of an omnipotent designer. On the other hand, descent with modification absolutely predicts and is constrained to this commonality of features.
Young Earth Creationism - The belief that the reliability of scientific data is inversely proportional to the degree with which it contradicts the bible.
User avatar
Luke Thomas
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 4:26 pm

Postby psiloiordinary » Sun Mar 29, 2009 8:09 am

I personally find the biogeography evidence to be the most useful when talking to creationists - I think this is perhaps simply because it doesn't get much attention in the spotlight of the press coverage.

Why design thing to meet similar environments very differently around the world? Why spread them around to look like family groupings?

Talking of wide sweeping basic points of evidence - McIntosh once simply conceded to me that he has no idea why the fossils are layered as they are - he made two points - one that I couldn't draw a conclusion from his lack of knowledge - hypocrisy of course - and that all fossils are really complex.

I thought he would simply talk of sorting by the flood waters but no he just conceded the point - strange.

Still I find creationists almost as fascinating as science ;-)

Regards,

Psi
User avatar
psiloiordinary
 
Posts: 798
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2006 11:03 am
Location: Yorkshire


Return to Science Only

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron