When God parted the Red Sea there was physical evidence: physical water moved from one place to another. If a designer is playing with molecules then molecules will physically move from one place to another. That would constitute physical evidence. So far I have seen no evidence of anything that could not be done by chemistry alone.This is only so in cases which involve physical evidence. As the designer of the theistic hypothesis is not a physical being, it is not so.
I am glad you got the joke. Not everybody noticed when I first posted it. I did consider calling it, “A Modest Proposal for …” but decided not to.It makes a good gag,
No, I am using Dr Dembski’s definition of CSI and his Explanatory Filter, as referenced.but your definition of CSI is woefully inaccurate.
Otherwise known as “God”.You assume the existence of an atemporal omniscient creator
Correct. Given God, is there anything in the universe that is not designed? Hence any proposed universal design detector is untestable. Darwin clearly described things which could not have evolved. ID has so far been unable to describe things which could not have been designed. This is a fault in any scientific hypothesis.And hence, anything containing three or more atoms is a product of design.
So, design is occurring now. Do I take it that the designer is shuffling DNA molecules around? How does he/she/it/they do that? Are there lab experiments showing the molecules moving under the influence of the designer? What physical forces does the designer use: gravity, electromagnetic, weak, strong? If there a fifth force, currently unknown to physics, that the designer uses to move molecules? It there is, then there’s a Nobel Prize for someone.It is occurring all the time in the physical and spiritual development in which you believe.
If the designer has purposeful existence, then you have not explained the origin of purposeful existence until you have explained the origin of the designer. If the designer does not have purposeful existence, then purposeful existence can arise from non-purposeful existence and there is no problem to be solved since we already have a non-purposeful universe/multiverse to explain the origin of things.This issue has nothing to do with Christianity but with the lack of an explanation for the origin of purposeful existence - which is to be found in Design.
Unless you know what is looks like then you cannot show that it is there either.isn’t it the point that you cannot deny design unless you can see what design looks like in reality.
design may be standing on your face but if you don’t know what design looks like then you cannot deny it is there.
Yes. Given a God-like designer is there anything in the universe that is not designed? My piece was a tongue-in-cheek criticism of Dr Dembki’s explanatory filter, intended to show its inutility. My detector was essentially a set of scales. Dembski’s ideas are a lot less important then he like to think they are: design = mass. Mass is a well understood concept, and does not carry the weight that “cdesign proponentsists” llike to attach to design.(i don’t pretend to understand your design detector, if i weigh 5 atoms - then it proves design?)
well thats fine. as long as you are not trying to argue that there is no design then everything is ok.Unless you know what is looks like then you cannot show that it is there either.
Yes. Given a God-like designer is there anything in the universe that is not designed? My piece was a tongue-in-cheek criticism of Dr Dembki’s explanatory filter, intended to show its inutility. My detector was essentially a set of scales. Dembski’s ideas are a lot less important then he like to think they are: design = mass. Mass is a well understood concept, and does not carry the weight that “cdesign proponentsists” llike to attach to design.
rossum
what did darwin describe which could not have evolved?… Darwin clearly described things which could not have evolved. ID has so far been unable to describe things which could not have been designed. This is a fault in any scientific hypothesis.
rossum
Two examples, both from “On the Origin of Species”, Chapter Six:what did darwin describe which could not have evolved?
darwin would have to explain exclusive good. i think i know what you will say, but what would darwin say?Two examples, both from “On the Origin of Species”, Chapter Six:
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.
and
If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.
Professor Behe tried to use the first of these when devising his concept of Irreducible Complexity. It was a failure, but an interesting and useful failure in that it produced some good work and helped advance the theory of evolution.
rossum
What do you mean by “exclusive good”? Why would you think that it is something that Darwin would have to explain?darwin would have to explain exclusive good. i think i know what you will say, but what would darwin say?
thats what i am asking. what did darwin mean, in his own words, as opposed to our own words. science marches forward but darwin must have had some idea in mind.What do you mean by “exclusive good”? Why would you think that it is something that Darwin would have to explain?
That would be pretty well any plant or animal associated with man: corn, wheat, most fruits. dogs, cats, cattle, horses etc - so psychology definitely plays a role in what genetic material survives.If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species . . .
Most domesticated plants or animals associated with man would not be able to survive in the wild. In other words, natural selection through random processes would result in extinction if man was not purposely propagating and breeding these life forms. Many cannot survive without humans. Economics is responsible, not psychology.That would be pretty well any plant or animal associated with man: corn, wheat, most fruits. dogs, cats, cattle, horses etc - so psychology definitely plays a role in what genetic material survives.
So too with animals: notice the paucity of visually ugly species that live in the sunlight - beauty clearly is a factor involved in the process of reproduction. And Who places that which is in our hearts?
Don’t know why I’m bothering to post. We already have our formed opinions on this.
Darwin used the word “exclusive”. Wheat benefits because it has a large population of primates who spend time and effort spreading wheat seeds into suitable well-tilled ground to grow more wheat. The relationship is more symbiotic than exclusively to the benefit of one species. Consider how many domesticated wheat plants there are compared with the original einkorn or emmer.That would be pretty well any plant or animal associated with man: corn, wheat, most fruits. dogs, cats, cattle, horses etc - so psychology definitely plays a role in what genetic material survives.
humans do things for the exclusive good, not only of other humans, but also for animals. i could make a bird box for some bird, put it in the forest, and leave, never to return. i am free to do this thing for the exclusive good of another species if i wish to.
no doubt darwin would say that this ‘annihilatemy [his] theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.’
my brain is a physical structure, and according to you, my brain evolved its structure. part of the structure of my brain might enjoy building bird houses for nesting birds. my altruism towards other species must be rooted in a physical structure otherwise how would it exist?Read the Darwin quote again:
If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection. (emphasis added)
Darwin was talking about physical structures, since they are what is determined by genes. The structure involved in your example is your brain, and that is not there exclusively for the benefit of nesting birds.
rossum
Is your brain for the exclusive benefit of birds? Does it not have some benefit for yourself, like keeping your heart beating of keeping you breathing?my brain is a physical structure, and according to you, my brain evolved its structure. part of the structure of my brain might enjoy building bird houses for nesting birds. my altruism towards other species must be rooted in a physical structure otherwise how would it exist?
the structure of neurons which concern themselves with altruism towards other species may be exclusively for that purpose or they may double up for other purposes too, i really couldn’t say…Is your brain for the exclusive benefit of birds? Does it not have some benefit for yourself, like keeping your heart beating of keeping you breathing?
rossum
So, by exclusively setting about to do the will of the Father, the brain of Christ (as a human structure) was formed exclusively for the good of another species (God) and therefore annihilates Darwin’s theory.Read the Darwin quote again:
If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection. (emphasis added)
Darwin was talking about physical structures, since they are what is determined by genes. The structure involved in your example is your brain, and that is not there exclusively for the benefit of nesting birds.
rossum
Ah, I misunderstood. I had missed that you were quoting Darwin. Not sure how I missed that, but I did.thats what i am asking. what did darwin mean, in his own words, as opposed to our own words. science marches forward but darwin must have had some idea in mind.