The Watchmaker Argument

This is a clip from episode 500 of “The Atheist Experience” TV show Watch the TV show at www.atheist-experience.com

Atheists: What is your favorite stupid “intelligent design” argument?

Question by Blasphemy is fun!: Atheists: What is your favorite stupid “intelligent design” argument?

I personally like “Irreducible Complexity” because it is just so easy to mathematically disprove.

A
(A&&B)
(A||B)<Best answer:

Answer by Ark
Age of the Earth

What do you think? Answer below!

Explain this argument against design?

Question by weezijian: Explain this argument against design?

George H. Smith, in his book Atheism: The Case Against God, points out what he considers to be a fatal flaw in the argument from design

Consider the idea that nature itself is the product of design. How could this be demonstrated? Nature, as we have seen, provides the basis of comparison by which we distinguish between designed objects and natural objects. We are able to infer the presence of design only to the extent that the characteristics of an object differ from natural characteristics. Therefore, to claim that nature as a whole was designed is to destroy the basis by which we differentiate between artifacts and natural objects. Evidences of design are those characteristics not found in nature, so it is impossible to produce evidence of design within the context of nature itself. Only if we first step beyond nature, and establish the existence of a supernatural designer, can we conclude that nature is the result of conscious planning. (p. 268)
Eh… I’m not in a philo class or anything… So this isn’t my homework.. I stumbled upon it on wikipedia and need help understanding it…
Thanks guys

Best answer:

Answer by jammin7000
Therefore George H. Smith argues on behalf of the trees, but has no use for the forest? Btw, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts…(forest is greater than the sum of the trees: God is greater than the sum of his creation)

For every effect, there is a cause- fundamental science axiom. Nature is the effect, what is the cause? xyz? xyz = God?

Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!

Q&A: How far does the design argument remain a continuing proof despite its weaknesses?

Question by Lucy B: How far does the design argument remain a continuing proof despite its weaknesses?

This is a 9 mark question- I’m a little stuck with this. Any help appreciated (no stupid answers though! =P)

Best answer:

Answer by Scott
The first analogy to describe this argument (the design argument, also known as the telelogical argument) for the existence of God goes like this…

Imagine you are walking alone through the desert and found an analog watch. You pick it up and examine all of its fantastic, little working and moving parts. To your amazement the watch works. It has stunning levels and complexity. You conjecture to yourself that there is no way the sand just swirled together coincidentally one morning to create all this working parts. Not only because each one is so complex but more importantly because of the improbability of all of them working in unison together (being interdependent on the design functionality of every other part) by chance. You therefore (correctly in this case) infer that there must be a design to this watch and therefore also a designer.

In this analogy, the design of the watch infers the existence of a watch-maker. This logic is sound. At least, insofar as it applies to level of the watch, the logic is sound. But does this logic also apply upwards to level of God and His universe? Furthermore, why is the logic sound even at the level of the watch analogy?

Dealing with this second question first (why the logic holds) I would like to refer to the debate about whether an infinite amount of monkeys at an infinite amount of typewriters, smashing their monkey fists into the keys would ever produce a Shakespearean sonnet. The old answer to the question was that, given a sufficiently long enough period of time, they would produce a Shakespearean eventually. The logic is that:

Infinite period of time = infinite chance to produce every possible permutation.
_______________________________________________________________
Therefore, it is possible a Shakespearean sonnet could be re-produced by a monkey
+
Therefore, it is possible a watch could be re-produced by an accidental swirling of sand particles

The scientific non-feasibility of this prospect is not relevant. No one who advocates for this position actually believes that science would predict such an event. Indeed, such an event it quintessentially unscientific. The point, however, is that it is possible.

Thus, even if we allow for infinite permutation from infinite time at this theoretical level we must remind ourselves that (in our world, at least as far as we know) time is not infinite. Therefore, these hypotethical monkey/watch metaphors do not explain the incredible complexity and design of the watch.

That is to say, our hypothetical monkey authors do not explain God out of the picture. Because time is finite, it seems more probable that a designer was involved in the process of creating that watch/world/universe.

The question now is how to define that designer. Is it a religious entity? A natural process? An infinity we can barely grasp or understand?

Whether you are religious or atheistic/agnostic I believe humility is wisest intellectual course of action on this topic?

I would much rather discuss these issues with somone who claims that they are:
(1) not convince either way, but…
(2) extremely curious and passionate about the question,
than someone who is entirely convinced of their answer and so sure of themselves that the door to further knowledge is closed shut forever.

That is to say, I am humble enough to admit that I do not have all the answers with certainty. And because I believe that there are many people like me alive today (and will continue to be for years to come) I therefore believe that the telelogical proof for the existence of God will continue to illicit insightful debate no matter how many scientific papers are published on the subject of evolution and no matter how many author claim they have disproved the design argument for once and for all.

Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!

How would I counter an argument about the failures of genetic engineering in humans?

Question by Somebody: How would I counter an argument about the failures of genetic engineering in humans?

I am doing a health debate for my health class, and I was assigned Pro genetic engineering in humans. I have all my information and refutes down, but I still do not know how I am going to counter when the other team brings up the failures of genetic engineering.
For example:
Other Team: You say that with genetic enginering, the whole world could be cured of disease. Considering that out of 238 human subjects, 34 had serious side effects afterwards, and only 4 subjects were deemed successful. If we were to branch off and focus more on genetic engineering, our population would significantly decrease with unsucessful tests like these.

What would I say to counter that?

Best answer:

Answer by Eric
Genetic engineering is still in early stages of study.
We are not even close to finished with research in this field, and given some time, we will have improved these tests.
We normally only run these tests on terminally ill patients, and these kinds of tests give subjects a chance at a better life, even if there is a chance of adverse side effects.

What do you think? Answer below!

The argument for Irrelevant Design

Hurry up and repent!!! For Christmas is just around the corner! The merry times are upon us!!! An overactive imagination is no sufficient substitute for actual evidence. Oh, and remember, God’s like a fart. Just because you can’t see him doesn’t mean he’s not there, and God ALSO results in devastation wherever he goes as well.

Video Rating: 4 / 5

Atheists: What is your favorite stupid “intelligent design” argument?

Question by Blasphemy is fun!: Atheists: What is your favorite stupid “intelligent design” argument?

I personally like “Irreducible Complexity” because it is just so easy to mathematically disprove.

A
(A&&B)
(A||B)<Best answer:

Answer by lainiebsky
I like the one that says that the amazing similarities in DNA prove that one single deity made everything.

Give your answer to this question below!