Quotes and commants;
1. Richard Dawkins likes to respond to creationist claims of design by saying they are merely the appearance of design. (We'll leave aside for the moment how it is an entity can see the appearance of design if all is matter in motion.) We remind him that the appearance of design can in fact be the reality of design. e.g. For over a millenia people were sure that heiroglyphics had the appearance of code, but were unable to understand it. Then finally in the 1800s the Rosetta stone was decoded and it became a reality that this was not merely the appearance of design but in fact was truly design.
2. Appearance
a. apparent likeness; external show; how something appears to others.
- seen from a great distance two boats may appear to be of the same
type; on closer inspection one might be a fishing boat and one might be a
yacht; or both may be fishing boats. ie. to say some x appears to be a y
might be correct or incorrect.
- Dawkins of course claims that this appearance of design is
mistaken... and I of course claim it is he who is mistaken. Our ability
to detect design (ID) is still primitive; but I believe progress is
being made in this area, as various tools are being developed. (e.g. W.
Gitt's rules for Universal Information) [1.]
3. Why is it people see evidence for Design in living organisms (etc.)
if we humans are but accidental congregates of matter in motion? e.g. a
rock can't see design; chemicals can't detect design... I see no way
mere matter could see beyond the material (or even mistakenly do so).
Seeing design is evidence for the argument human beings transcend the
merely material. If matter were all there was there would be nothing to
see beyond matter. (This wouldn't even make sense would it?) Materialism
gives us the odd (if not comical) picture of matter claiming to see
something that transcends matter.
- Dawkins has studied rhetoric quite extensively and is a master of the
logical fallacy. His book the 'God Delusion' might have (more
accurately) been titled the 'Fallacy Delusion'
He shows us what can be done by deceiving people with fallacies of one sort or another.
or; A critical examination of his work might well be called 'The fallacy delusion.'
- His use of the 'appearance' claim isn't actually an example of a
fallacy but an example of rhetoric. In this stratagem (used by Darwin to
great effect) you appear to make a concession to your opponent (thus
showing yourself to be a reasonable fellow, amenable to argument) but
then you pull the rug out from under him by taking it back. e.g. "Yes, I
admit that we see design in nature, but... (wait for it) .... it's
merely the appearance of design."
Notes;
1. Without Excuse - Werner Gitt