Wibble: Of course I'm aware of the creationist argument of the bombardier beetle.
Are you referring to this little article based on an argument from personal incredulity ? That hardly constitutes "proof"
No it's not based on incredulity, it's based on the inductive argument that 100% of all things we find with such hyper-specific placement of particular parts, correct parts, are 100% of the time placed there on purpose. Think of it this way, if I had to prove to you I designed something but could only show you the object, are you saying that if all of the parts were created so as to create something, say a walking toy, which walked viably, you are saying as evidence this isn't close to proof of design? You are saying that if a specific type of chemistry is needed to get a particularly required effect that provides something useful, that it isn't the strongest possible evidence of design?
If something is designed we can show it by the fact everything is done on purpose, which means if you come across a sign saying, "Wibble is an evo", you wouldn't believe it wasn't done on purpose but such a sign is simplistic compared to the probability of design in things much more sophisticated. This you haven't studied. For example you don't know that such a sign wouldn't have contingency planning if it was just markings on sand. It wouldn't have the correct materials, as no material would be there. It wouldn't contain a level of specified complexity that is that high, because of only a few symbols, and there are no parts required, for specific functions. So then if even such a simple sign can only be designed, how much more probable is something with all of the features of sophisticated design? basically from the point of view of deductive logic, the study of the Bombardier beetle presents TOTAL evidence of design. I define total evidence, as the highest possible evidence of P. Which means rationally, you can't ask for more evidence or it would be fallacious.
Example; show me more evidence you are human.
Answer; Fallacious, the evidence is total, in that logically a person can only provide evidence he is human up to a point, if you then ask for more evidence beyond it, you are going beyond 100%, it is like saying this; "show me more evidence a plane can fly."
There is actually no difference logically, between finding the correct parts to do a particular job such as particular chemicals, finding them in such a beetle, and finding the correct materials in a vehicle or other artificially designed thing.
So then from a logical point of view, it becomes ABSURD to argue otherwise, to the point where we can use reductio ad absurdum to flush out the special pleading evolutionists plead, by offering a conjectural scenario using imagination, for how it could have evolved, which is 100% psychology as far as I can see.
So then, if you found a watch or a car in a field in a post-apocalyptic world, would you infer that such overt, precise design was created by process? No, that is ABSURD, for even if you could conjecture as to a way as to how metal could have came from the ground and somehow arranged itself, you would never do it.
So then since the design in life, by standard, is much higher, meaning the cleverness of the designs is even greater, to argue there is no such cleverness in those designs even when we observe the cleverness, is even greater folly.
But yes, the Bombardier beetle should for any rationalist, having read such an article immediately create in them a correct incredulity which isn't the same as an argument from incredulity fallacy.
That fallacy is committed when you argue, "I don't believe it therefore it is false", but in this case, we are not arguing evolution, we are observing the facts of design in a beetle and correctly inferring the only realistic option which is that it is designed overwhelmingly.
But if it was solely a matter of not believing evolution and dismissing it, this would be a rational incredulity. Rational incredulity is something non-fallacious, it occurs when someone states X is true despite all of the facts of the real world showing it can't be possible. To ask me to believe all of the parts in an eyeball were not constructed on purpose when the very set up and problem-solvers and software and systems are all congruent, and SCREAM design to a level which bursts the ear drums, is akin to requesting that despite all of the evidence there is to support that a man reached the top of a building by the stairwell, that instead I should believe he flown to the top like superman.
That is rational incredulity. The rational dismissal of that which is obviously false and silly, (a man flying). In the same way it is false and silly to believe DNA and protein, the protein which requires the dna and the dna which requires the protein, are better explained by coming about randomly, when all of the parts are purposefully made and have goals we observe them carry out. That is not evidence of evolution, it is evidence of design-on-purpose and you can't reduce such chicken-and-egg scenarios, you can't decrease them any further, so it is like a cherry on the cake of design. To believe all life created itself is absurd, rationally, there is no ordinary reason to accept this.
Deductive reason is on my side, as well as induction. Every example in our world of things with such specified complexity, correct materials and contingency planning, all have designers. To say without any direct experimental proof, that instead of it being design in life it is evolution by which you offer a conjecture for how it occurred, is basically ridiculous. Also, I can show on a scale how absurd this is against deductive reason by showing that the more simple a design is the less intelligence is needed and the greater the design the greater the intelligence.
For example, the simplest level of design, because it depends on so little intelligence, can be hard to differentiate from natural process. If I take a tree which has been blown over, and me and my friends hurl it over a stream to get across, arguably as a bridge, it is conceivable to argue that it happened naturally. Why? Because a more sophisticated design contains all of the features of design which this simple example doesn't BECAUSE no intelligence is put into it. Proving, (yes I said proving, because deduction deals in proof even if science doesn't) then the way to improve the bridge by making it last long, so you can't fall off, provide a smooth flat surface, etc...is to use intelligence, because all superior bridges you find, aren't created by natural process, and cannot be argued to be.
I wrote more about it in message one here, it takes a lot of explaining and a high understanding of logic as I mentioned;
(note CMI were not involved, all of my arguments I formulated myself, according to the strict rules of formal validity)
You may say, "who says you know when something is formally valid? Here is my evidence I do;
I also have the highest score on this logic game which has been played 30 thousand times. I can likely be beaten but the point is I don't think you can argue that my arguments aren't going to be logical;
My final comment is that you are opening a can of worms in this thread, and trying to use it as a launchpad for all of your arguments for evolution. If I am to nominate an example of a CMI article I think is an example of a good article it would be this one for example;
or this one;
but this one is better;
Then there are all of the journal of creation Thursday articles which you wouldn't likely understand, nor I, therefore how can you judge?