Elves, buttercups, etc - How is an intelligent designer like a cheater?

How is an intelligent designer like a cheater?

Comments

How is an intelligent designer like a cheater?

Comments

Profile

Latest Month

Links

Tags

Page Summary

Tags:

Advertisement

Jul. 8th, 2009 at 3:00 PM

The mistakes in our genome make a stronger case for evolution than the bits that are right. In essence, a common designer may have designed different creatures with the same "right bits", but why would an intelligent designer have put the same mistakes in two independently designed creatures?

I like the analogy with cheating. If two papers have the same mistakes (misspellings, odd grammatical errors, etc.), it is a pretty safe bet that one was copied from the other or they were both originated from a shared source.

( 11 comments — Leave a comment )

includedmiddle wrote:

Jul. 9th, 2009 12:02 am (UTC)

Actually, in many ways that strikes me as a pretty bad metaphor for arguing against intelligent design since the term "mistake" suggests some kind intended outcome. How can a mutation be a "mistake" unless there was some other way it ought to have turned out?

This perhaps argues against an intelligent designer, but it actually seems to assume a designer of some sort.

It's like using dog breeds to illustrate "natural" selection.

Link | Reply | Thread

kitty_tape wrote:

Jul. 9th, 2009 12:31 am (UTC)

In this case, "mistake" is just shorthand for "useless chunk of genetic code". Yes, it's imprecise, but language is.

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

starsong28 wrote:

Jul. 9th, 2009 12:39 am (UTC)

First: "mistakes" could be defined as any mutation that is harmful to the creature or which makes a previously working process cease to function. As such there is automatically a way that it "ought" to have turned out - not harmfully.

Second: the whole purpose of terming these harmful mutations as "mistakes" rather than "problems" is to point out the error in beleving that an intelegent being did the designing. After all, it demonstrates quite vividly that if there was an intended outcome, it has failed. So any being doing designing must be too stupid to learn from its mistakes. Since most intelligent designers also believe that the designer is God, this makes Intelligent Design unpalatible for them.

Third: It appears that the word "mistakes" is primarily being used in connection with an intelligent designer, and is not being associated with the concept of random mutations and evolution. For example, the paper specifically referrs to "errors in the gene code."

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

kotukawi wrote:

Jul. 9th, 2009 01:27 am (UTC)

While it is a "useful enough" chunk of genetic code to perhaps consider it a "mistake," is it so horrible a mistake so as to so be a detriment to our species that we cease to be genetic survivors? The answer to that, of course, is not at all. As far as "mistakes" go, it really isn't one that makes or breaks the bank, so... from another perspective, it could be said it's much ado about nothing.

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

includedmiddle wrote:

Jul. 9th, 2009 05:49 am (UTC)

It is not harmful mutations which are being discussed, it is benign ones. The harmful ones are precisely those which do not appear again and again in different organisms.

In order to say that an intended goal has not been met, it is necessary to know what that intent actually is. For someone arguing against intelligent design to define this intent would necessarily be to make a straw-man argument. It is up to the ID proponents to state what this supposed intent is. If they cannot do so, that is their problem, and a big one at that.

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

krizoitz wrote:

Jul. 9th, 2009 07:47 am (UTC)

The intent can be whatever they want it to be, or more likely the answer is "we can't say what God's intent really is". ID is an interesting concept, not a scientific theory. It shouldn't be taught in schools other than in a philosophy or religion class maybe.

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

kitty_tape wrote:

Jul. 9th, 2009 03:50 pm (UTC)

Actually, ID is not an interesting concept. "intelligent design" is, but "Intelligent Design", with capitals, as espoused by the Discovery Institute makes very specific claims that, in my opinion are neither religiously or scientifically sound.

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

supersat wrote:

Jul. 9th, 2009 08:17 am (UTC)

As much as I'd like it to be, it's not solid evidence of an inteliigent designer not existing. If anything, it says that if an intelligent designer exists, said intelligent designer either codes like a lot of programmers today (i.e. copy and pasting, writing crap until it sorta works, etc.), or designed evolution.

Link | Reply | Thread

kitty_tape wrote:

Jul. 9th, 2009 03:53 pm (UTC)

I agree with your general point, but want to note that "intelligent design" is not the same as "Intelligent Design". Intelligent Design, as espoused by the Discovery Institute makes very specific claims about how a designer works.

Those claims are not inconsistent with the examples in this article. Really, this article is more against Creationism than Intelligent design, but it's hard not to lump them together sometimes.

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

theslate wrote:

Jul. 9th, 2009 04:17 pm (UTC)

Jesus resolved this bug as by design.

Link | Reply | Thread

December 2009