Basically the argument is based on our universal experience accross our entire history re:the source of sophisticated engineering (for that matter even unsophisticated engineering).Its presupposition is simply that an item would require at least as much expertise to engineer as to reverse engineer,this conclusion is based on our observations ,without exception, accross our entire history. Now, engineering expertise is not something that grows on trees but is always the product of a mind of some kind,whether subhuman,human (superhuman?). Some though, are uncomfortable with the idea of the existence of superhuman intelligences (for them man must remain at the top of the food chain) and have arbitrarily ruled that science cannot be allowed enquire into the possible existence of such,thus they seek to find fault with the argument from analogy claiming e.g that living things and the ecosystems that support them are too dissimilar from any device or structure engineered by humans to be regarded as truly analogous. Of course items compared in analogies are almost never totally similar. They merely need to have in common that quality about which one is attempting to make ones point. And then not necessarily to a comparable degree,the point design advocates are seeking to highlight would be ease ,or lack thereof,of reverse engineering.
Manmade structures and devices are not so dissimilar from living things, that no comparison can be made re:ease of reverse engineering,indeed the very differences that opponents of the argument from analogy tend to highlight such as growth , reproduction,capacity for self repair etc.seem to be making design advocates' point. Imagine if you will, the kinds of accolades that would be heaped upon the technologist who invented a device that can even crudely mimic such qualities.
No comments:
Post a Comment