A Question for Creationists

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Unless those difference are part of the "design". Which they clearly are.

There's a subtle argument against an intelligent designer in the fact that an intelligent designer need not have created life with all of thesenested hierarchies, but a godless universe with common descent will show us only one of these possibilities perforce. By itself, it isn't a particularly compelling argument, but with the other examples f the same thing occurring elsewhere, it is.

For example a universe created by a god might feature a god that can be known by the senses or not, but in a godless universe, such a belief could only be held by faith.

In a universe created by an omniscient, omnipotent god, there need be no physical laws or fixed physical constants, but a godless universe cannot function without them.

In a universe created by an omniscient, omnipotent god, the beasts might have been formed into a peaceable kingdom, with no suffering. In a godless universe, we don't expect to find that.

In a universe designed for us, we might hold a special place in it at its center, and with the earth possibly being the only planet. In a godless universe, we expect that we do not hold a special place in it.

In a universe with a loving, caring god, we might find no needless suffering. In a godless universe, we are not surprised to find suffering, even in the undeserving of it.

And so on. In every case, when a god could have done it otherwise, but a godless universe would have to be much more restricted, we find those restrictions.

This is called consilience - when multiple events that individually aren't that persuasive begin to accumulate, the argument becomes much more persuasive, like the tax cheat who makes 21 errors on his tax returns, each in his own favor. No one of them makes the case for tax fraud, but collectively, they do.

So yes, perhaps what you mentioned was designed. But why in the way that it would be in a godless universe? And why are so many other things as we would expect in a godless universe?

 

[osgart]

So God is off the table, but design isnt?

 

[Looncall]

So God is off the table, but design isnt?

The notion of design is just a way of saying that the universe has properties, which everyone must admit, but with the intent of illegitimately sneaking in gods.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So I'm not a creationist.

My Faith and and holy writings even declare evolution correct.

There are plenty of good arguments for evolution.

This, however?? This is not one of them.

You see, there's a philosophy in Computer Science called "Don't Repeat Yourself", or DRY. Basically the philosophy states you should never design the same thing twice, and you should use code that you have already written if it performs the same functions as your new project needs to leverage.

So, an intelligent designer, when writing computer code, will reuse things whenever possible to create a sleek, efficient design.

If there was a designer who designed all of the existing animals in their current form, they would reuse their genetic code whenever it served their purpose. Doing so is simply good design.

Again, evolution is obviously true, but that doesn't mean that this particular argument you make here isn't a bad one.

So then cases where this rule is violated (e.g. cephalopod eyes and mammalian eyes doing basically the same job but with radically different designs, or cetacean horizontal tail fins vs. fis vertical tail fins) are evidence of bad design?

 

[PureX]

There's a subtle argument against an intelligent designer in the fact that an intelligent designer need not have created life with all of thesenested hierarchies, but a godless universe with common descent will show us only one of these possibilities perforce. By itself, it isn't a particularly compelling argument, but with the other examples f the same thing occurring elsewhere, it is.

For example a universe created by a god might feature a god that can be known by the senses or not, but in a godless universe, such a belief could only be held by faith.

And this is evidence of ... nothing. Because it's not evidence. It's just unanswered speculation. This God could just as easily and just as likely have chosen not to make a universe that could detect it's presence.

In a universe created by an omniscient, omnipotent god, there need be no physical laws or fixed physical constants, but a godless universe cannot function without them.

Again, and for the same reasons, this is evidence of nothing.

In a universe created by an omniscient, omnipotent god, the beasts might have been formed into a peaceable kingdom, with no suffering. In a godless universe, we don't expect to find that.

Expectations, in this instance, would only be evidence of a bias. As they are based on the assumption that because an omnipotent could continually create a universe of any sort, it need not have structure, or rules expressing it's manifestation. And that somehow this would be more 'moral'. When in fact we have no possible way of supporting such expectations, except bias.

In a universe designed for us, we might hold a special place in it at its center, and with the earth possibly being the only planet. In a godless universe, we expect that we do not hold a special place in it.

Even in a universe designed specifically for us, we would still not know the designer's intent. And so we could not logically apply these assumptions.

In a universe with a loving, caring god, we might find no needless suffering. In a godless universe, we are not surprised to find suffering, even in the undeserving of it.

We don't know what "loving and caring" would look like from a god's perspective. What we see as "unnecessary suffering" may be only a small and momentary aspect of the overall picture of mankind's experience of being. And one that's necessary to make the overall experience far better than it would otherwise be. Again, you are making assumptions based on ignorance and bias.

And so on. In every case, when a god could have done it otherwise, but a godless universe would have to be much more restricted, we find those restrictions.

And in every case, these are baseless speculations being proposed to support and unreasonable bias.

This is called consilience - when multiple events that individually aren't that persuasive begin to accumulate, the argument becomes much more persuasive, like the tax cheat who makes 21 errors on his tax returns, each in his own favor. No one of them makes the case for tax fraud, but collectively, they do.

This is called make-believe biased nonsense trying to pose as "evidence".

So yes, perhaps what you mentioned was designed. But why in the way that it would be in a godless universe? And why are so many other things as we would expect in a godless universe?

Your expectations, here, are biased and logically unfounded. And are evidence of nothing. That feeling you have that they should add up to something is just your own bias echoing inside you.

 

[Grandliseur]

All of this makes perfect sense under evolutionary theory, but no sense at all if species were intelligently designed.

That is your viewpoint. To me it makes perfect sense.

Tell me honestly, do computer programmers make heavy and constant use of already debugged subroutines? Do we see engineers in their various fields - also making use of their products across the product lines where possible? Just because you have different makes of cars, in how many of the various cars, even varying the maker, use the same generators? the same kind of fuel injection systems, radiator systems, brake systems? This is clearly where we see a huge impact of intelligent design. It makes implementing a new product faster, cheaper, and better.

Would you not expect a DNA programmer to utilize similar DNA routines where possible? Aren't we in the end talking about how the cell works in all animals, organisms? If I were to include a digital clock into a cheap car and an expensive car, the digital tic-toc mechanism might actually use the same basic design for calculating time while on the features offered in the expensive car, you might have all kinds of extras, with alarms, stop watch features and what not. Likewise, basic DNA features might be quite similar across a large number of organisms, while the extra higher functions would have to be specialized.

 

[Sanzbir]

So then cases where this rule is violated (e.g. cephalopod eyes and mammalian eyes doing basically the same job but with radically different designs, or cetacean horizontal tail fins vs. fis vertical tail fins) are evidence of bad design?

Yes, assuming everything was designed as is, it would be a violation of DRY principles and overall an inefficient design.

As I said, there are a plenty of good arguments that can be made for evolution. Pointing out that everything "as is" is designed inefficiently would be a good one.

OP's point where he points to the elements that would be good design, though, that is a bad argument. Similarity in DNA says nothing, as that's what I'd expect any competent designer to do (like in a video game, the code behind vastly different enemies is probably mostly the same). Different DNA that does the same function is a much better approach to showing evolution is behind things, because an intelligent designer wouldn't do something that inefficient.

 

[PureX]

Yes, assuming everything was designed as is, it would be a violation of DRY principles and overall an inefficient design.

By who's criteria? How do we know what is inefficient and what isn't without knowing the design's full intended purpose?

 

[Sanzbir]

By who's criteria? How do we know what is inefficient and what isn't without knowing the design's full intended purpose?

We're straying off track a bit here, since talking about where the DRY principles of design do NOT apply is quite literally the opposite thing that OP was arguing.

Basically OP and the guy I was replying to with my comment both seem to be arguing against the variation of "intelligent design" where everything that exists now was created the way it was and there is no change or evolution at all.

So if we assume that, then yes, instances of two differently-emerging traits that perform the same function is inefficient design. By who's criteria?? By the DRY standard of design that I explained earlier.

There's one big caveat, of course: that being if the design was supposed to evolve, then those instances of separately-developing things that serve the same functions would make sense. In a designed world where evolution is a feature, we would expect to see such things happen.

But based on the comments i was replying to, the type of "intelligent design" that the OP is arguing against here is strictly the type of "intelligent design" where evolution does not exist. And in that case some of the design choices would be in violation of some standards of computer science design. That's all.

 

[Quintessence]

Usually when people invoke a god it has those traits. But if someone wants to claim a limited god then I would be willing to engage them on that.

Fair enough. It was too much to presume that you'd infer from my listed religion that I'm not going to be coming from a perspective consistent with Christian mythos.

Since gods are human creations expecting human behavior from them is perfectly reasonable.

...

Well, this seems to be the problem. The conclusion only follows if the premise is granted. Considering theists aren't going to agree with you that the gods are human creations, if you expect to understand the many varieties of creationism - all of which are inherently theistic ideas - you need to grant theistic premises. If you want to cook soup, you need water, yeah?

Say we grant your premise, though. Let's grant that somehow I believe that humans created the universe and everything in it. As patently absurd as that is, it'd be equally absurd to suggest everything mirrors human behaviors. Everything isn't human. I mean, one of the gods I worship is the sun. The sun doesn't have anything remotely resembling human anatomy, so it isn't even physically capable of human-like behaviors. Expecting it to be like a human strikes me as pretty close to the opposite of reasonable.

Let me put it this way, there is no reason that a god could not make a creature that breaks phylogeny.

There's also no reason why you needed to type out a response to my post. But you did, and that's the reality of things. It seems to me you're basically invoking a rhetorical question, which isn't compelling to me. Reality is what it is. Of course there's no reason why reality couldn't be something other than what it is now, but it is what it is. If reality was different than it is now, we could still be asking this same rhetorical question.

I just don't follow the logic of the OP. At all. Certain forms of creationism have significant faults when contrasted with other philosophies, but this argument seems really weak to me. It basically boils down to "reality is the way it is instead of being something different." Kay?

 

[PureX]

We're straying off track a bit here, since talking about where the DRY principles of design do NOT apply is quite literally the opposite thing that OP was arguing.

Basically OP and the guy I was replying to with my comment both seem to be arguing against the variation of "intelligent design" where everything that exists now was created the way it was and there is no change or evolution at all.

So if we assume that, then yes, instances of two differently-emerging traits that perform the same function is inefficient design. By who's criteria?? By the DRY standard of design that I explained earlier.

There's one big caveat, of course: that being if the design was supposed to evolve, then those instances of separately-developing things that serve the same functions would make sense. In a designed world where evolution is a feature, we would expect to see such things happen.

But based on the comments i was replying to, the type of "intelligent design" that the OP is arguing against here is strictly the type of "intelligent design" where evolution does not exist. And in that case some of the design choices would be in violation of some standards of computer science design. That's all.

The problem is in the interpretation of what "evolution" includes. The creationists generally agree that genetic variation allows for both natural and unnatural selection to occur, and to effect the characteristics of the life forms to which they are applied. What they object to is the evolutionist's assertion that new species have been or could be created by this process.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, assuming everything was designed as is, it would be a violation of DRY principles and overall an inefficient design.

As I said, there are a plenty of good arguments that can be made for evolution. Pointing out that everything "as is" is designed inefficiently would be a good one.

OP's point where he points to the elements that would be good design, though, that is a bad argument. Similarity in DNA says nothing, as that's what I'd expect any competent designer to do (like in a video game, the code behind vastly different enemies is probably mostly the same). Different DNA that does the same function is a much better approach to showing evolution is behind things, because an intelligent designer wouldn't do something that inefficient.

@PureX is right: what constitutes "good design" depends on the objectives of a designer.

In your "don't repeat yourself" approach, the objectives are a function of a constraint: the time and effort of the designer. Why would a god who isn't constrained at all go with your approach? Why wouldn't a god absolutely optimize their "code" instead of making it somewhat less than perfectly ideal for the sake of making it reusable?

 

[PureX]

@PureX is right: what constitutes "good design" depends on the objectives of a designer.

In your "don't repeat yourself" approach, the objectives are a function of a constraint: the time and effort of the designer. Why would a god who isn't constrained at all go with your approach? Why wouldn't a god absolutely optimize their "code" instead of making it somewhat less than perfectly ideal for the sake of making it reusable?

Perhaps perfection and efficiency were not part of the goal, but instead, increased opportunity and variety were. Or were at least a part of the goal. In any case, it's illogical to assume that the result of the universal creative process (natural design) was not the intended result.

 

[Thief]

When we compare human DNA with the DNA of chimps and bonobos, we see 98-99% similarity. When we compare with other apes, such as gorillas, slightly less, and slightly less still for orangutans and other monkeys (if my memory is correct). The similarities decrease when we look at other mammals to around 80-something percent for dogs and maybe around 70-ish for mice (these are rough figures from my memory, but the general idea is correct). As we move toward other taxonomic groups of animals other than other mammals, we see increasingly less similarity. In other words, DNA analysis is confirming previous assumptions about genetic relationships based upon morphology (appearance). How can you reconcile this data with intelligent design? Genetic similarities clearly indicate common ancestry, with closer genetic relationships (higher percentage of DNA in common) indicating more recent common ancestry, and lower percentages of DNA in common indicating more distant common ancestry. All of this makes perfect sense under evolutionary theory, but no sense at all if species were intelligently designed.

and 50% of what we are we share with plants.....

it means.....God built the process of life one tweak followed by another

 

[jonathan180iq]

It's not an illusion. It IS design. When the expression of energy is being guided by a set of parameters that produce a specific result, that set of parameters is called process "design", and it infers intent.

I disagree.
And I think you'd be hard pressed to actually support the claim any further.

Not unless you somehow can infer that the design, as it exists, was not God's intent. But since the intent is built into the design by it's result, that would be logically impossible to infer, I think.

Since you (or Creationists if you're playing Devil's Advocate) have claimed design in the first place, you'll also have to support the flaws in design as being intentional... That's another huge task.

This sounds like more of an easy-out than an explanation, to me.

 

[jonathan180iq]

and 50% of what we are we share with plants.....

it means.....God built the process of life one tweak followed by another

You mean, through Evolution?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Fair enough. It was too much to presume that you'd infer from my listed religion that I'm not going to be coming from a perspective consistent with Christian mythos.



...

Well, this seems to be the problem. The conclusion only follows if the premise is granted. Considering theists aren't going to agree with you that the gods are human creations, if you expect to understand the many varieties of creationism - all of which are inherently theistic ideas - you need to grant theistic premises. If you want to cook soup, you need water, yeah?

Fine, sounds good. One question, how does one test one's idea of "God"?

Say we grant your premise, though. Let's grant that somehow I believe that humans created the universe and everything in it. As patently absurd as that is, it'd be equally absurd to suggest everything mirrors human behaviors. Everything isn't human. I mean, one of the gods I worship is the sun. The sun doesn't have anything remotely resembling human anatomy, so it isn't even physically capable of human-like behaviors. Expecting it to be like a human strikes me as pretty close to the opposite of reasonable.

Hold it, I never claimed nor implied that humans created everything. I only said that humans created gods. All gods appear to be fictitious. And sorry, the Sun is a hot ball of gas that was made by gravity. It is hardly a "god" at least not in a human sense. If you are going to redefine terms please warn people first.

There's also no reason why you needed to type out a response to my post. But you did, and that's the reality of things. It seems to me you're basically invoking a rhetorical question, which isn't compelling to me. Reality is what it is. Of course there's no reason why reality couldn't be something other than what it is now, but it is what it is. If reality was different than it is now, we could still be asking this same rhetorical question.

I just don't follow the logic of the OP. At all. Certain forms of creationism have significant faults when contrasted with other philosophies, but this argument seems really weak to me. It basically boils down to "reality is the way it is instead of being something different." Kay?

And you responded to my response. Around and around we go. My main disagreement is with creationists. A literal reading of the Bible is not only wrong scientifically, it is totally amoral and close to being psychopathic. I can tell that you are not a literalist when it comes to the Bible at all, but what would you think of someone that advocated killing homosexuals. Stoning disobedient children? Killing women who were raped in the city? All of that and more can be found in the Bible.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

When we compare human DNA with the DNA of chimps and bonobos, we see 98-99% similarity. When we compare with other apes, such as gorillas, slightly less, and slightly less still for orangutans and other monkeys (if my memory is correct). The similarities decrease when we look at other mammals to around 80-something percent for dogs and maybe around 70-ish for mice (these are rough figures from my memory, but the general idea is correct). As we move toward other taxonomic groups of animals other than other mammals, we see increasingly less similarity. In other words, DNA analysis is confirming previous assumptions about genetic relationships based upon morphology (appearance). How can you reconcile this data with intelligent design? Genetic similarities clearly indicate common ancestry, with closer genetic relationships (higher percentage of DNA in common) indicating more recent common ancestry, and lower percentages of DNA in common indicating more distant common ancestry. All of this makes perfect sense under evolutionary theory, but no sense at all if species were intelligently designed.

By that rationale, a Chevy pickup displaying many of the same features as a Ford pickup, is compelling evidence that one morphed into the other through accidental mutations.

 

[Jose Fly]

Similarity in DNA says nothing, as that's what I'd expect any competent designer to do (like in a video game, the code behind vastly different enemies is probably mostly the same).

I hope you're not thinking that the science behind comparative genomics and the general conclusion that it supports common ancestry is as simplistic as "they share similar sequences, therefore they're related". Surely you have a better view of scientists than that.

You see, it's not just "similarities" that point to common ancestry, it's specific types of similarities, most notably shared genetic errors. A good analogy is how telemarketers protect their lists of names and numbers by randomly inserting fake names and numbers. That way, if a competitor steals the list, all the company has to do is go to a court, show them their list with the fake names and numbers highlighted, and then show how the alleged stolen list has the same fake names and numbers. That easily proves that the second list is a copy of the first. After all, what other explanation can the defendant offer for how they came to have a list with the same fakes? Coincidence is certainly not plausible.

It's the same with comparative genomics and how it points directly to common ancestry. Shared genetic errors (e.g., pseudogenes, transposable elements, microsats) between taxa that were already hypothesized to be closely related is very powerful evidence of their common ancestry. Just like with the telemarketers lists, coincidence is not a plausible explanation.

Different DNA that does the same function is a much better approach to showing evolution is behind things, because an intelligent designer wouldn't do something that inefficient.

We don't even need genetics to see that. We see different anatomical strategies to address the same issue all around us. A good example is breathing oxygen in aquatic organisms. Fish do so through gills, whereas marine mammals do so through lungs even though they live in the same environment. Why different strategies to do the same thing? Again, evolutionary common ancestry provides the answer. Because cetaceans (whales, dolphins, porpoises) are descended from terrestrial mammals, their evolutionary solution was to modify the anatomical structures they inherited from their terrestrial ancestors.

 

[Quintessence]

Fine, sounds good. One question, how does one test one's idea of "God"?

You don't. Definitions of words are not testable hypotheses, they're just how people use words. Various peoples worldwide throughout history have conceptualized deities in many different ways. Speaking of which...

Hold it, I never claimed nor implied that humans created everything. I only said that humans created gods. All gods appear to be fictitious. And sorry, the Sun is a hot ball of gas that was made by gravity. It is hardly a "god" at least not in a human sense. If you are going to redefine terms please warn people first.

I'm not redefining anything. It sounds like you're either unaware of or dismissive of the many theologies where the sun is a deity. I thought I used a pretty common and easy to understand example, considering deification of the sun was near universal in human cultures worldwide, and Sun is still worshiped by peoples worldwide (hi, by the way).

Sadly, this narrow scope of understanding theology and god-concepts is not uncommon. The classical monotheists - mostly various Christian groups - were very successful with their genocide campaign to stamp out theological alternatives. Posts like yours remind me of this sad fact on a routine basis.

And you responded to my response. Around and around we go. My main disagreement is with creationists. A literal reading of the Bible is not only wrong scientifically, it is totally amoral and close to being psychopathic. I can tell that you are not a literalist when it comes to the Bible at all, but what would you think of someone that advocated killing homosexuals. Stoning disobedient children? Killing women who were raped in the city? All of that and more can be found in the Bible.

I'm not sure where you're going with all of this. I'm not an adherent of an Abrahamic religion, I'm not a monotheist, and I don't care about the Bible. While it's seemingly faux pas to mention this around here, "creationist" is not synonymous with "follows Abrahamic creation mythos" much less "follows Abrahamic creation mythos literally." I suppose I get annoyed that the discussion ends up revolving around a simplistic (and false) dichotomy instead of a more interesting exploration of the various ways in which the makings of things play a role in various cultures and traditions.