There are books and books on evolution. I’d suggest Dawkins’ recent The Greatest Show on Earth as a starting point.
There are some things that occur naturally (like trees, rocks, and creatures), and there are other things created by human beings. We call the things created by human beings “designed” to distinguish them from things that occur naturally.
Good - so it is agreed design exists. It is also agreed we can detect it.
That a person created it.
What are some other attributes of design?
The only attribute of design is the fact that it’s manufactured by a human being. [And, of course, that it does not occur in nature]
That is it?
No, I’m using “nature” here as a contrast to “human.” I recognize that humans are a part of nature, but in terms of “design” what we’re distinguishing is something made by a human versus something that occurs in nature, without human agency, like a tree.
Not an atribute of design. Communication occurs in nature all the time. It’s completely natural (ants communicating by means of scent, bees communicating in a variety of ways, all without any kind of “intelligence” we mean in the sense of human intelligence)
Not an attribute of design. “Patterns” occur naturally – like the snowflake pattern that is created by blind, unintelligent forces, or the motion of the planets, created by blind, unintelligent gravity.
Not an attribute of design. Naturally-occuring things can be put to uses as well.
This is the only attribute that we might say can apply to things that are designed – that is, the human being doing the designing has a plan. The way that we know there is a plan is that we have examples of the plan, in addition to examples of people making the thing.
Not an attribute of design. Everything that exists can be said to be unique.
I thought so! Just wanted to be sure.
You are assuming that “nature” and “human nature” comprise the whole of reality. By “nature” I presume you mean “physical processes”. How do you explain the fact that living organisms are purposeful whereas inanimate structures are purposeless?
How did the ability to communicate originate? The fact that it occurs without intelligence makes it even more difficult, if not impossible, to explain as the result of blind activity.
There is a vast difference between the purposeful patterns of DNA and the purposeless patterns formed by snowflakes and planetary motion.
They can be and are because being put to use implies purposeful activity.
You need to explain how human beings have acquired the power to design and conceive of plans. It doesn’t grow on trees or even in an amoeba…
Indeed but not everything has unique specifications for attaining a definite goal.
The principal characteristic of design is that it is a product of rational activity which is intangible and unobservable…
The issue is whether the entire system of nature is the product of irrational forces or a rational Mind… We know from our own experience which is more powerful and which we rely upon in daily life…
You are still faced with the problem of how persons have developed the power to reason and design such objects. To suggest “That is** absolutely the only way** I could ever know” is to presuppose that you cannot distinguish between man-made objects and
But assuming evolution did occur: It all started somewhere. The first life forms did not perfectly fit the environment. The environment fit them. And with your idea of perfect fit, you’d also have to explain why life exists on Earth and not on other planets. You also have to explain why life doesn’t exist on the Sun. According to your reasoning, life should have adapted to the environment on the Sun and on the other planets.
That something is made through unintelligent means, does not prove or mean that something is made completely without intention or intelligence. People use tools to make items that go to antique shops. Nonetheless, an intelligent mind is behind their existence.
Order may not *prove *intelligence, but it certainly does hint at it.
Not necessarily. You walk along a beach, and see three twigs in a nice, triangular shape. Both ends of each twig “just happens” to touch the ends of the other two twigs - thus forming a triangle. There is **order **you see there - undoubtedly. Does is imply a design? It does not. It may be the case that someone arranged them, or it may be that the blind forces of the sea and wind just happened to put them there. You may observe that 6 carbon atoms form a perfect octahedron. Does that imply a “designer”? No, the chemical bonds of carbon explain it without assuming a nebulous “designer”.
It is significant that the two examples of order you have given are of inanimate objects and not of living organisms. You are also presupposing that there is no reason why a perfect octahedron occurs. There is a vast difference between accidental formations of order and order which reveals purposeful organization - such as the fine tuning of physical constants in the universe which is essential for the occurrence of life…
The assertion was that order implies design. This asserton is false - as shown by my examples.
About 99.9999…% of the universe is very “hostile” to our carbon-based existence. Furthermore, define the difference between “living” and “inanimate” objects. You also assume that a different set of physical constants would make “life” impossible. On what grounds do you think that?
\
Everyday we utilize this example.
No, they do not. Observe millions of snowflakes. All of them exhibit a beautiful hexagonal pattern, and there is absolutely no reason to posit a “snowflake-designer”. Observe the carbon atoms and see the octahedron pattern, repeating over and over again. There is no reason to posit a “designer”. Nature is full of patterns and order. There is not one which needs a designer. Only unnatural things point to a designer, natural things do not.
I agree with the snowflakes etc. showing patterns.
|When you see three twigs in a nice, triangular shape, it is most reasonable to assume that it was intentionally made. Intelligent beings do create more triangular shapes of twigs than can unintelligible forces. The probability is on the side of intelligent beings. Of course, this does not rule out the possibility that unintelligible forces made such a thing, but it does reduce the probability—greatly.
You seem to mistakenly think that we can determine the “probability” that something was designed. We can’t. Either we have examples of it being made by a person or we don’t.
No, I’m not. I’m not the one asserting that a disembodied intellience is behind the universe. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that the universe must have been the result of intelligence.
Ok, the leading hypothesis – hypothesis, it hasn’t yet been proven and become a theory (things that are proven through mountains of evidence, like evolution, are called theories) – is that the first self-replicating molecule arose from inorganic molecules. It began replicating, with each successive generation changing slightly. Those changes that didn’t work in the environment died off and didn’t pass on their particular changes…and on and on and on.
Well, putting aside for a moment the strong possibility that life does exist elsewhere in the universe – they think, for example, there may have been bacteria on Mars – there’s really no problem here. The process of life arising from inorganic molecules may not have happened on other planets. It might be a rare process.
Sure. And I’m not sitting here telling you “It’s absolutely impossible for there to be an intelligent force behind the universe!” I’m telling you that I don’t accept that claim because there’s no evidence for it and because it would violate all known existing evidence that complex things come from simple things.