Define "Intelligent Design"

[LatinCat]

steveandersen:

How so?

Natural systems, even deterministic ones, usually have a variance associated with them that designed things rarely show. In fact variance in designed things is a determent.
(I’m a designer. If there is too much variance in what I do, I get sued)

no reason to be condescending

Natural things will show evidence of what came before
While designed things can have pieces and functions swapped in an out willy-nilly.

While it may make a pretty analogy, the universe is not a machine

Not being condescending, I truely believe that a person must abandon reality in order to reject the inherant design in the universe.
And just because peices can be swapped out in machines, does not mean, superintelleigent designer could not produce a machine is which the system does not need parts switched out.
But this argument is becoming silly. It is clear that anti-theists cannnot see the forests for the trees. And I am not trying to say that science proves the existence of God, since scientific epistemology is incapable of proving anything. I am just saying that science gives evidence of a designer. Very simple.

 

[LatinCat]

Ortho:

Did you mean “apprentice?”

Towards what purpose does the universe act? All the machines we know of have a purpose. What is the purpose of the universe? Must a machine have a purpose? What purpose has science demonstrated?

Well, I was reading an article about a scientist a few years ago, who argued in favor of the “anthropic principle”. According to the anthropic principle, the universe is perfectly ordered towards the development of rational beings, i.e. human beings or any other rational beings that might exist in the universe. Such would be the purpose of this machine.

 

[steveandersen]

LatinCat:

Not being condescending, I truely believe that a person must abandon reality in order to reject the inherant design in the universe.

Are there crystals and incense involved with this?

LatinCat:

And just because peices can be swapped out in machines, does not mean, superintelleigent designer could not produce a machine is which the system does not need parts switched out.

If a designed system looked exactly like a natural one then how would you know the difference?

LatinCat:

But this argument is becoming silly.

Abandoning reality perhaps?

LatinCat:

It is clear that anti-theists cannnot see the forests for the trees. And I am not trying to say that science proves the existence of God, since scientific epistemology is incapable of proving anything. I am just saying that science gives evidence of a designer. Very simple.

Well, and I’m not trying to be obtuse but, if it is that simple then please provide the evidence.

 

[LatinCat]

steveandersen:

Are there crystals and incense involved with this?

If a designed system looked exactly like a natural one then how would you know the difference?

Abandoning reality perhaps?

Well, and I’m not trying to be obtuse but, if it is that simple then please provide the evidence.

Walk out the front door. Look outside. If you can’t see it, then you are deluding yourself. Observe your ability to reason and the funcitons of your mind. If you can’t see it you are blinding yourself. Look at the organization and structure of a mamalian body. If you cannot see it, then perhaps you need to evaluate your level of sturbbornness.

 

[mosher]

Let me give us an example. On the micro level we find such things as human DNA and a radical system that is in place to reproduce exactly this strand of components. We find that in a single mitocondria there is a greater more efficient system then anything we have been able to design ourselves. The structure of he cell and the cell wall all hold a purpose to maintain the integrity of the the cell which in turn groups to form organs. Each organ has a purpose and each organ system is ordered to a greater purpose. Combine all the organ systems and we find that a person is … “healthy, wealthy and wise.”

In effect there are causal relations to all things in the universe. Each protein has a single role to play. The process of the human body demonstrate a great order of purpose that cannot be abandoned if observed.

This can be extended to the natural world on our level. Remember the normal force and gravity. These things follow rules. It is basic causality. If one plants an acorn it will always grow an oak tree it will never grow a birthday cake. This is what is understood as order in the universe. 2 + 2 will always equal 4. These are not things that are extrinsic to the natural state of the universe but are built into the system and it is through this order in the system that one can attain to the idea that it must have been ordered by something because of the basic principle that “order implies intelligence.”

 

[LatinCat]

mosher:

Let me give us an example. On the micro level we find such things as human DNA and a radical system that is in place to reproduce exactly this strand of components. We find that in a single mitocondria there is a greater more efficient system then anything we have been able to design ourselves. The structure of he cell and the cell wall all hold a purpose to maintain the integrity of the the cell which in turn groups to form organs. Each organ has a purpose and each organ system is ordered to a greater purpose. Combine all the organ systems and we find that a person is … “healthy, wealthy and wise.”

In effect there are causal relations to all things in the universe. Each protein has a single role to play. The process of the human body demonstrate a great order of purpose that cannot be abandoned if observed.

This can be extended to the natural world on our level. Remember the normal force and gravity. These things follow rules. It is basic causality. If one plants an acorn it will always grow an oak tree it will never grow a birthday cake. This is what is understood as order in the universe. 2 + 2 will always equal 4. These are not things that are extrinsic to the natural state of the universe but are built into the system and it is through this order in the system that one can attain to the idea that it must have been ordered by something because of the basic principle that “order implies intelligence.”

AMEN!

 

[steveandersen]

LatinCat:

Walk out the front door. Look outside. If you can’t see it, then you are deluding yourself. Observe your ability to reason and the funcitons of your mind. If you can’t see it you are blinding yourself. Look at the organization and structure of a mamalian body. If you cannot see it, then perhaps you need to evaluate your level of sturbbornness.

Stubbornness? I’m reminded of the pot and the kettle at this point

I do walk out the door very often. And while I appreciate what you are trying to say about the wonder of it all, there are natural mechanistic explanations for all the things I see.

Back to the OP for ID to be science you would need an objective test to distinguish between a designed and a natural thing. If your solution is to walk outside or abandon reality then that’s not going to cut it in a science class no matter how good the poetry, philosophy, or theology is.

 

[LatinCat]

steveandersen:

Stubbornness? I’m reminded of the pot and the kettle at this point

I do walk out the door very often. And while I appreciate what you are trying to say about the wonder of it all, there are natural mechanistic explanations for all the things I see.

Back to the OP for ID to be science you would need an objective test to distinguish between a designed and a natural thing. If your solution is to walk outside or abandon reality then that’s not going to cut it in a science class no matter how good the poetry, philosophy, or theology is.

And if you cannot accept the emperical data that illustrates the design displayed by the universe, then I can only hope you never go near a science classroom because you do not understand science at all. Part of the problem with your reasoning is your understanding of the word natural. What do you mean by natural? I think you mean stuff that is not man made. But that does not exclude if from being designed. That just means it is not designed by human beings.
I can only hope that you will never be able to force your views into the heads of others because when it comes down to it your view is a denial of the simple truth of the way the universe is. Your view is an abandoning of reality, no matter how dull you make your words sound.
As for stubborness, I think that holding to a falicous view is sturbborn (i.e. what you do). Holding to a vaid view point arrived at through evidence and proper reasoning is called sanity, (i.e. me).

 

[Ortho]

LatinCat:

Well, I was reading an article about a scientist a few years ago, who argued in favor of the “anthropic principle”. According to the anthropic principle, the universe is perfectly ordered towards the development of rational beings, i.e. human beings or any other rational beings that might exist in the universe. Such would be the purpose of this machine.

Interesting speculation. It apparently is also ordered towards the production of comets.

 

[Ortho]

mosher:

Let me give us an example. On the micro level we find such things as human DNA and a radical system that is in place to reproduce exactly this strand of components. We find that in a single mitocondria there is a greater more efficient system then anything we have been able to design ourselves. The structure of he cell and the cell wall all hold a purpose to maintain the integrity of the the cell which in turn groups to form organs. Each organ has a purpose and each organ system is ordered to a greater purpose. Combine all the organ systems and we find that a person is … “healthy, wealthy and wise.”

In effect there are causal relations to all things in the universe. Each protein has a single role to play. The process of the human body demonstrate a great order of purpose that cannot be abandoned if observed.

This can be extended to the natural world on our level. Remember the normal force and gravity. These things follow rules. It is basic causality. If one plants an acorn it will always grow an oak tree it will never grow a birthday cake. This is what is understood as order in the universe. 2 + 2 will always equal 4. These are not things that are extrinsic to the natural state of the universe but are built into the system and it is through this order in the system that one can attain to the idea that it must have been ordered by something because of the basic principle that “order implies intelligence.”

What is order?

Why does order imply intelligence?

 

[steveandersen]

Sigh,
I’m not going to respect myself for this but…

LatinCat:

And if you cannot accept the emperical data that illustrates the design displayed by the universe,

Please provide this data
You tell me to look out the door. That’s not data.
Science theories are supported by the preponderance of the data. They wouldn’t get to be theories otherwise.

…then I can only hope you never go near a science classroom because you do not understand science at all.

Then please educate me rather than trying to insult me. What do you think science is?

LatinCat:

Part of the problem with your reasoning is your understanding of the word natural. What do you mean by natural?

I mean present in or produced by nature or not produced or changed artificially.
What do you mean by natural?

LatinCat:

I think you mean stuff that is not man made. But that does not exclude if from being designed. That just means it is not designed by human beings.

Ah, so your assumption is that if a thing is not designed by human beings that it still has to have been designed? Basically substituting “produced by nature” with “produced by God” or “produced by X”? Is that what you’re saying?
So ID isn’t deduced; it is assumed from the start?.
Which seems to once again indicate that it is not science.
How would you falsify such an assumption? How would you test it? Or would you just not bother because it is obvious to you?

LatinCat:

I can only hope that you will never be able to force your views into the heads of others because when it comes down to it your view is a denial of the simple truth of the way the universe is.

Gee, in the other thread you took exception to my use of the word simple.

LatinCat:

Your view is an abandoning of reality, no matter how dull you make your words sound.

Please provide examples of where I abandoned reality.
(I read post #41 too quickly and it looked like you were suggesting abandoning reality. I thought you had some new age thing going on in your head, sorry.)

LatinCat:

As for stubborness, I think that holding to a falicous view is sturbborn (i.e. what you do).

Other than your say so, I don’t think that you have demonstrated that my views are fallacious.

LatinCat:

Holding to a vaid view point arrived at through evidence and proper reasoning is called sanity, (i.e. me).

In all charity LatinCat I really don’t know what you are on about. Call me obtuse (You’re obtuse! Thank you.) but you keep saying that the evidence is so clear and the reasoning so obvious but other than snide comments I don’t understand what you are saying.

 

[LatinCat]

steveandersen:

Sigh,
I’m not going to respect myself for this but…

Please provide this data
You tell me to look out the door. That’s not data.
Science theories are supported by the preponderance of the data. They wouldn’t get to be theories otherwise.

Then please educate me rather than trying to insult me. What do you think science is?

I mean present in or produced by nature or not produced or changed artificially.
What do you mean by natural?

Ah, so your assumption is that if a thing is not designed by human beings that it still has to have been designed? Basically substituting “produced by nature” with “produced by God” or “produced by X”? Is that what you’re saying?
So ID isn’t deduced; it is assumed from the start?.
Which seems to once again indicate that it is not science.
How would you falsify such an assumption? How would you test it? Or would you just not bother because it is obvious to you?

Gee, in the other thread you took exception to my use of the word simple.

Please provide examples of where I abandoned reality.
(I read post #41 too quickly and it looked like you were suggesting abandoning reality. I thought you had some new age thing going on in your head, sorry.)

Other than your say so, I don’t think that you have demonstrated that my views are fallacious.

In all charity LatinCat I really don’t know what you are on about. Call me obtuse (You’re obtuse! Thank you.) but you keep saying that the evidence is so clear and the reasoning so obvious but other than snide comments I don’t understand what you are saying.

The laws of physics and chemistry are emperical data that suggest a designer. Such laws or guidelines display order. Order implies intelligence. etc.
I am not saying that if something is not designed by man that automatically equals design. If the universe were random and chaotic, I would say there is no design in the universe. But the universe is ordered and intelligeble. Intelligibility comes from and intlligent source. Not from chaos. If the laws of physics disappeared, and suddenly flying pig would pop into existence from nothing, then the universe would be disorded. But it is not. Sorry. As much as you would like to deny this reality, you cannot.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Chesterton states that all scientists can do is to observe repetition and call that a law. They can tell you what will happen on the basis of past observations. They cannot tell you why it will happen except to state that that is how nature works.

 

[steveandersen]

LatinCat:

The laws of physics and chemistry are emperical data that suggest a designer. Such laws or guidelines display order. Order implies intelligence. etc.

You keep saying this but you haven’t provided evidence or a mechanism that demonstrates that order implies intelligence.

And if it only implies intelligence then are you suggesting that the possibility of no intelligence is still there?
Once again I ask how would you distinguish between the two?

LatinCat:

I am not saying that if something is not designed by man that automatically equals design. If the universe were random and chaotic, I would say there is no design in the universe. But the universe is ordered and intelligeble. Intelligibility comes from and intlligent source. Not from chaos. If the laws of physics disappeared, and suddenly flying pig would pop into existence from nothing, then the universe would be disorded. But it is not. Sorry. As much as you would like to deny this reality, you cannot.

Not to rock your boat but, while there is local complexity, the universe gets more chaotic and less ordered every day (darn that entropy!)
Would you say that the universe is becoming less intelligent/intelligible then?

What you describe as “order” is often merely things tending to a lower energy state.

Flying pigs don’t pop out of nothingness but if they did how would that be different from the birds and pigs are born and grow each day? The energy for this local orderliness is supply by a corresponding decrease in order in the sun. Either way the universe becomes more disordered

This is the danger to faith that is caused by the attempt to apply naturalistic explanations to the supernatural. You wind up with a God of the Gaps dilemma.
God is not formula that can be tested or a proof to be demonstrated. If He could be proven based on empirical evidence alone as easily as you say then there wouldn’t be so many faiths.

 

[wildleafblower]

LatinCat:"Our universe composed of a complex design. If anyone cannot** see ** this they are either mentally challenged, blind, or stubborn. Design implies a rational designer. It is that simple. Anyone who cannot see this does not have eyes to see nor ears to hear. As a mathematician, I cannot deny the numerical percision of the universe.’

When was it you last **saw ** the rational designer? Was it God that you saw ?

 

[rossum]

Ortho:

Interesting speculation. It apparently is also ordered towards the production of comets.

and beetles, don’t forget beetles.

rossum

 

[Jason_Meyers]

mosher:

Each protein has a single role to play.

Not to be pedantic, but many proteins have many roles to play. Several at the heart of the pathway I study have been co-opted to have multiple functions in multiple different pathways. On the converse side, many proteins have largely overlaping functions, and have a genetic history showing duplication from an ancestor without the redundant function.

The process of the human body demonstrate a great order of purpose that cannot be abandoned if observed.

Actually, most processes of the human body are trivial adaptations of nearly identical processes found in all other mammals, which are themselves adaptations of similar processes in most other vertebrates, and which have correlates in invertebrates. From a physiological perspective, there isn’t much unique about humans, or anything special about us that requires divine intervention (excepting, of course, the soul, but that is outside the realm of biology). What is remarkable is that evolution provides a mechanism that can account for the gradual changes to match each animal’s physiology to the environment in which they live.
JRM

 

[mosher]

Jason Meyers:

Not to be pedantic, but many proteins have many roles to play. Several at the heart of the pathway I study have been co-opted to have multiple functions in multiple different pathways. On the converse side, many proteins have largely overlaping functions, and have a genetic history showing duplication from an ancestor without the redundant function.

Actually, most processes of the human body are trivial adaptations of nearly identical processes found in all other mammals, which are themselves adaptations of similar processes in most other vertebrates, and which have correlates in invertebrates. From a physiological perspective, there isn’t much unique about humans, or anything special about us that requires divine intervention (excepting, of course, the soul, but that is outside the realm of biology). What is remarkable is that evolution provides a mechanism that can account for the gradual changes to match each animal’s physiology to the environment in which they live.
JRM

I was not making an argument for the uniquity of the human body because that is not relavent to the topic. Rather, you further prove my point by showing the inter-relation between species which in turn demonstrates order.

ortho:

What is order?

Why does order imply intelligence?

Order can most easily be defined as causal chains. This is an observable fact that can’t be denied. If there were no order in the natural universe then we could not so things such as math or science in the first place.

Order implies intelligence because it is not contrary to reason to say so. An example would be this. You take a puzzle box and throw it in the air and all the pieces fall to the ground. There is no possible way that if you throw the pieces that they will fall into place to make the picture. However, a person can organize the pieces into the picture because he sees the pattern and puts it together (so to speak). This analogy has its faults but it demonstrates what we are speaking to at the moment.

steveandersen:

You keep saying this but you haven’t provided evidence or a mechanism that demonstrates that order implies intelligence.

And if it only implies intelligence then are you suggesting that the possibility of no intelligence is still there?
Once again I ask how would you distinguish between the two?

That is not the point. At the moment we are not trying to give proof. Rather the issue is that it is not contrary to reason. If it is not contrary to reason then it is a viable possibility and needs merit further investigation.

 

[Ianjo99]

This all doesn’t sound philosophical to everyone? Where exactly does this fall into the realm of science?

I don’t doubt that God designed the universe, but it seems like a weak argument to say “look, isn’t design obvious?”. That’s hardly a valid reason, I would think.

 

[steveandersen]

mosher:

…That is not the point. At the moment we are not trying to give proof. Rather the issue is that it is not contrary to reason. If it is not contrary to reason then it is a viable possibility and needs merit further investigation.

Ah now I understand

My problem with this is that, while it is perfectly acceptable in Logic to keep a position that is not contrary to reason or for which there is no evidence against, in science you can only hold a view which is supported by evidence regardless or how reasonable it may be…

Therefore the old chestnut that “Science Can’t disprove God” which is true
But science can’t prove God either and must therefore remain silent on the subject.