The Argument from Design part1
Mon, 01/21/2008 - 18:39 — admin
Therefore, it is obviously an inferior analogy in this case. Of course, (laughing) if I were arguing the existence of a designer behind the design within a cell or a living creature, I probably would use the analogy of some particular machine or computer-because I consider it to be a good analogy-and draw on Information Theory.
MICHAEL: Perhaps you can explain this theory to me. I'm unfamiliar with it.
TEACHER: Hume is implying that there is no designer behind a vegetative process or generation, but that they occur as a result of chance. Today, this viewpoint is commonly known as the Molecular Evolution Theory.3 The basic idea is that out of a disorganized array of chemicals, an orderly system gradually develops as the result of blind interaction of various molecules. This theory presupposes that there is no principle outside of the physical system itself (i.e., the mass of chemicals) which is responsible for their coming together, becoming alive, increasing in complexity, and then reproducing through generation or vegetation, but that the physical system itself has caused all this to take place.
If this were a demonstrable fact, then there would be some credence to Hume's analogy. But although there have been countless endeavors to prove this theory throughout the international scientific community, there has not been one instance of success: Theory remains merely a hypothesis.
You can eat so much food that your belly aches — yet you still want more! Even though your belly is filled to the point of physical pain, you, the self, are not full; you still desire to consume more. The fact that the body can be full or satisfied while you still feel empty is evidence that the body is not you.TEACHER: No. To the contrary, the onus is on Hume to prove that vegetables and animals are not products of design, since it is he who introduced the analogy in the first place. I can very easily offer proof that a machine is a product of design-as could Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus, William Paley, and others who have argued the existence of God on the basis of design-but neither Hume nor his supporters can prove that vegetables, or the vegetative or generative processes, are not products of design.
Science of Identity Foundation – Siddhaswarupananda
Therefore, it is obviously an inferior analogy in this case. Of course, (laughing) if I were arguing the existence of a designer behind the design within a cell or a living creature, I probably would use the analogy of some particular machine or computer-because I consider it to be a good analogy-and draw on Information Theory.
MICHAEL: Perhaps you can explain this theory to me. I'm unfamiliar with it.
TEACHER: Hume is implying that there is no designer behind a vegetative process or generation, but that they occur as a result of chance. Today, this viewpoint is commonly known as the Molecular Evolution Theory.3 The basic idea is that out of a disorganized array of chemicals, an orderly system gradually develops as the result of blind interaction of various molecules. This theory presupposes that there is no principle outside of the physical system itself (i.e., the mass of chemicals) which is responsible for their coming together, becoming alive, increasing in complexity, and then reproducing through generation or vegetation, but that the physical system itself has caused all this to take place.
If this were a demonstrable fact, then there would be some credence to Hume's analogy. But although there have been countless endeavors to prove this theory throughout the international scientific community, there has not been one instance of success: Theory remains merely a hypothesis.