tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3498725671447004370.post471007568680942257..comments2023-10-26T07:19:41.446-05:00Comments on Science Avenger: Coyotes in the HoodScienceAvengerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00855046387193200080noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3498725671447004370.post-80298859511027515812009-04-05T12:25:00.000-05:002009-04-05T12:25:00.000-05:00Non sequitor. We are not discussing whether or no...Non sequitor. We are not discussing whether or not molecules evolved into man, nor whether spiders and beavers did what they do in the past. We are discussing whether spider webs and beaver dams are sufficiently complex to warrant counting beavers and spiders as "designers" in the context of ID.<BR/><BR/>I say they are, but the IDers deny this because if they allow for the possibility of a subhuman designer, then their argument for the necessity of Designer(tm) falls apart. They'd have no retort to "well, maybe a spider did it". Perhaps you should go actually read the arguments IDers make, rather than speculating as to what they might be.<BR/><BR/>As for your comment about me challenging nonleaders, it is completely baseless, as this entire blog testifies. I've criticized Dembski, Behe, and the writers at the DI on numerous occasions. I hope you know who they are. That comment is also completely out of bounds, and as a result your comments will now be deleted without perusal for one week. Go find somewhere else to play until next Sunday, and when you return, keep your comments substantive, supported by something other than your imagination, and on topic.ScienceAvengerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00855046387193200080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3498725671447004370.post-1257231140368982912009-04-05T12:08:00.000-05:002009-04-05T12:08:00.000-05:00Huge difference.We can SEE that spiders make webs ...Huge difference.<BR/>We can SEE that spiders make webs and beavers make DAMS so it is reasonable to posit that they did so in the past. We can't SEE that molecules evolved into man.<BR/><BR/>I don't know who the "they" are in "They have to," but I suspect it was a non-leader in ID, because you prefer to challenge non-leaders.alexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3498725671447004370.post-29249292476064595652009-04-05T10:46:00.000-05:002009-04-05T10:46:00.000-05:00Alex said: "I don't think that's accu...Alex said: "I don't think that's accurate. I think that ID would say that both the spider web was designed (by the spider) just as they'd say the spider was designed. Then they might say it takes intelligence (not necessarily a soul as you mention later) to design something as complex as a web or a spider."<BR/><BR/>But that's not what they say. They can't, because their whole argument is that design => intelligence => god. I know for PR purposes they try to dress it up differently, but I'm interested in what they actually do, not what they say they are doing. If they admit to a designing intelligence that doesn't require a soul or a human-like intelligence, then their whole argument falls apart. We could claim some spider made the flagellum then. They have to (and do, I've challenged them on this) rationalize that spider webs and beaver dams are not sufficiently complex to invoke the design argument.ScienceAvengerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00855046387193200080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3498725671447004370.post-89248901002037942172009-04-05T06:50:00.000-05:002009-04-05T06:50:00.000-05:00Hi S.A., If this is too long to post, that's O...Hi S.A., <BR/><BR/>If this is too long to post, that's OK. If you want to post part of it, that would be okay with me, too. <BR/><BR/>> Alex, I think that's a fabulous question and it's an issue I wrestle with frequently. Too many people toss around terms like "natural" and "designed" without really being clear about what they mean. <BR/><BR/>I know what you mean. LiveScience, who obviously takes a case against design, uses the term all the time. (Example from today: http://www.livescience.com/culture/090403-hn-cooperation.html -- "TITLE: Single Parents: Not What Nature Intended. EXCERPT: humans were simply not designed to bring up children all on their own.") Uh, does that mean they were designed for something else?! And does Nature "intend" anything?<BR/><BR/>> One of the reasons I find arguments for Intelligent Design so unpersuasive is that they inexorably would lead to categorizing a beaver dam, or worse, spider webs and beehives, with snowflakes as "undesigned" and not with Hondas, lawnmower engines and bacterial flagellum, which are supposedly "designed".<BR/><BR/>I don't think that's accurate. I think that ID would say that both the spider web was designed (by the spider) just as they'd say the spider was designed. Then they might say it takes intelligence (not necessarily a soul as you mention later) to design something as complex as a web or a spider.<BR/><BR/>> However, I've never seen an argument for design that applied to a flagellum that didn't apply to a spider web. One could certainly argue that a spider web or beaver dam isn't really "natural" as a flagellum or Honda isn't but that doesn't really help matters. In the end they either have to endow spiders with souls, or admit that order most certainly can arise from the disorder of a spider's brain.<BR/><BR/>Am I really stuck with only two choices? I think not. Who says that a spider's brain is disorderly? Surely not the ID folks who say it's designed.<BR/><BR/><BR/>> So yeah, back to your original question, if "nature" is defined so broadly as to include us, then anything we created would be "natural" as well. There's merit to this position obviously, since we are biological beings. A lot of the rules that apply to the rest of them are going to apply to us too. We all bleed and get diseases, so a lot of what makes animals sick is going to be bad for us as well. However, we are also able to do some things, if not uniquely, certainly orders of magnitude greater than any other species can. Ergo it also makes sense that sometimes the rules would be different for us. The recognition of legal rights to please the rightwingers, and the concern over global warming for the lefties, are examples of this.<BR/><BR/>Funny, I would've thought that more /left/wingers would be pleased by the recognition of legal rights.alexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3498725671447004370.post-39369764463650532592009-04-02T20:39:00.000-05:002009-04-02T20:39:00.000-05:00I'm a little younger.With /both/ numbers.If you li...I'm a little younger.<BR/>With /both/ numbers.<BR/><BR/>If you liked my question, then you might like to share an article from Nature magazine:<BR/><BR/>"Your Editorial ‘Handle with care’ (Nature 455, 263–264 2008)2 notes that many people define ‘nature’ as a place without people, and that this would suggest that nature is best protected by keeping humans far away. You question the value of this negative definition, arguing that “if nature is defined as a landscape uninfluenced by humankind, then there is no nature on the planet at all”.<BR/> This may be true. However, if we define nature as including humankind, the concept becomes so all-encompassing as to be practically useless."1 ... <BR/>"In this case, an atom bomb becomes as ‘natural’ as an anthill.<BR/> A dilemma therefore arises. If nature is somewhere that humans are not, we lose sight of the fact that we are just another species intimately intertwined in the complex web of biological systems on this planet. However, if we place ourselves within a definition of nature, the definition then becomes essentially meaningless by extending to everything on Earth." <BR/>Her letter ended with: “Is there a better definition of nature?” <BR/>------------------------------------------------<BR/>1. Fern Wickson, “What is nature, if it’s more than just a place without people?”, Nature 456, 29 (6 November 2008) | doi:10.1038/456029b.<BR/>2. Editorial, “Handle with care,” Nature 455, 263-264 (18 September 2008) | doi:10.1038/455263b.alexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3498725671447004370.post-8202492738660048142009-04-02T19:38:00.000-05:002009-04-02T19:38:00.000-05:00BTW Alex, if you don't mind my asking, how old are...BTW Alex, if you don't mind my asking, how old are you? I'm 44 going on 28.ScienceAvengerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00855046387193200080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3498725671447004370.post-62477501011456298132009-04-02T19:37:00.000-05:002009-04-02T19:37:00.000-05:00Alex, I think that's a fabulous question and it's ...Alex, I think that's a fabulous question and it's an issue I wrestle with frequently. Too many people toss around terms like "natural" and "designed" without really being clear about what they mean. One of the reasons I find arguments for Intelligent Design so unpersuasive is that they inexorably would lead to categorizing a beaver dam, or worse, spider webs and beehives, with snowflakes as "undesigned" and not with Hondas, lawnmower engines and bacterial flagellum, which are supposedly "designed".<BR/><BR/>However, I've never seen an argument for design that applied to a flagellum that didn't apply to a spider web. One could certainly argue that a spider web or beaver dam isn't really "natural" as a flagellum or Honda isn't but that doesn't really help matters. In the end they either have to endow spiders with souls, or admit that order most certainly can arise from the disorder of a spider's brain.<BR/><BR/>So yeah, back to your original question, if "nature" is defined so broadly as to include us, then anything we created would be "natural" as well. There's merit to this position obviously, since we are biological beings. A lot of the rules that apply to the rest of them are going to apply to us too. We all bleed and get diseases, so a lot of what makes animals sick is going to be bad for us as well. However, we are also able to do some things, if not uniquely, certainly orders of magnitude greater than any other species can. Ergo it also makes sense that sometimes the rules would be different for us. The recognition of legal rights to please the rightwingers, and the concern over global warming for the lefties, are examples of this.<BR/><BR/>The arguments we should be having are over which situation deserves which treatment, because it isn't always clear. We don't need to spend nearly as much time as we do arguing about whether either situation can exist, as many seem determined to.ScienceAvengerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00855046387193200080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3498725671447004370.post-36979338108069219842009-04-02T19:14:00.000-05:002009-04-02T19:14:00.000-05:00I hope you'll find this comment of mine more thoug...I hope you'll find this comment of mine more thoughtful than my previous ones. There might not be a right or wrong answer:<BR/><BR/>If the dam of a beaver is part of nature, and we humans aren't outside of nature, then would that make a man-made dam also part of nature?alexnoreply@blogger.com