Design

  • Thread starter Thread starter tonyrey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Charlemagne_III said:
How does the scientist prove there is no Designer since the scientific method is not even designed to figure that out?
Click to expand...
You are incorrect here. Archaeologists can differentiate between a designed stone tool and a random pebble or rock. Forensic Scientists can differentiate between an accidental death (undesigned) and a murder (designed).

Scientists are perfectly capable of detecting design where there is evidence to support it.

rossum
 
rossum said:
You are incorrect here. Archaeologists can differentiate between a designed stone tool and a random pebble or rock. Forensic Scientists can differentiate between an accidental death (undesigned) and a murder (designed).
Click to expand...
You are incorrect. 😉

How do you know that a pebble or a rock is not designed to be a pebble or a rock from which to design a stone tool?

How do you know an accidental death defies the principle of order when the person who dies in an accident might be said to be a person who is victim of a poor design?

Etc.Etc.
 
rossum said:
You are incorrect here. Archaeologists can differentiate between a designed stone tool and a random pebble or rock. Forensic Scientists can differentiate between an accidental death (undesigned) and a murder (designed).

Scientists are perfectly capable of detecting design where there is evidence to support it.

rossum
Click to expand...
What formula do they use?
 
Charlemagne_III said:
You are incorrect. 😉

How do you know that a pebble or a rock is not designed to be a pebble or a rock from which to design a stone tool?

How do you know an accidental death defies the principle of order when the person who dies in an accident might be said to be a person who is victim of a poor design?

Etc.Etc.
Click to expand...
Occam’s Razor. There is also the point that if the entire universe is designed then it is impossible to have a reliable design detector. How would you test that the detector can differentiate between designed and non-designed if there are no non-designed things to test it with?

I can make a fake design detector that is a battery connected to a green LCD and a disconnected red LCD. How could you tell the difference between my fake detector and a real design detector?

I have even designed a real design detector that operates in the kind of universe you describe: Proposal for a Theistic Design Detector

rossum
 
buffalo said:
What formula do they use?
Click to expand...
They do not use “a” formula. Murder by poison requires a different analysis than accidental death by falling. Multiple methods and formulae are used in both sciences. Are those marks on the mammoth bone due to post-death erosion or are they due to hunters’ spears?

rossum
 
rossum said:
They do not use “a” formula. Murder by poison requires a different analysis than accidental death by falling. Multiple methods and formulae are used in both sciences. Are those marks on the mammoth bone due to post-death erosion or are they due to hunters’ spears?

rossum
Click to expand...
So you are now admitting Intelligent Design is science and it can be detected various ways?
 
rossum said:
They do not use “a” formula. Murder by poison requires a different analysis than accidental death by falling.
rossum
Click to expand...
Murder by poison requires design

Accidental death by falling is not caused pure luck. It might be caused by poor design, such as someone designing a banana peel thrown in your path, or by you poorly designing an ice patch to step on, etc.

You got to come up with better examples. Even winning the lottery is not an accident. The lottery is designed to be won, and you design to win it by purchasing a chance. 🤷
 
rossum said:
Occam’s Razor. There is also the point that if the entire universe is designed then it is impossible to have a reliable design detector. How would you test that the detector can differentiate between designed and non-designed if there are no non-designed things to test it with?

rossum
Click to expand...
Many astronomers, such as Fred Hoyle, detect the pattern of initial elements in the universe (such as the carbon atom) which, if they were present in greater or lesser degree, the universe as we know it (able to produce life) would be impossible.

Almost like this: I have a bunch of chemicals in my garage, but no combination of them would ever produce the paints I need to design a picture. This means someone had to design the garage to be capable of storing all the chemicals that are needed for paint.
 
“This now tells how precise the Creator’s aim must have been, namely to an accuracy of one part in 10 to the 10123rd power. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full in the ordinary denary notation: it would be 1 followed by 10123 successive 0’s.” Even if we were to write a 0 on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe- and we could throw in all the other particles for good measure- we would fall far short of writing down the figure needed.1

Roger Penrose - English mathematical physicist, mathematician and philosopher of science
1 (References: Roger Penrose, The Emperor’s New Mind, 1989; Michael Denton, Nature’s Destiny, The New York: The Free Press, 1998, p. 9)
 
rossum said:
You are incorrect here. Archaeologists can differentiate between a designed stone tool and a random pebble or rock. Forensic Scientists can differentiate between an accidental death (undesigned) and a murder (designed).

Scientists are perfectly capable of detecting design where there is evidence to support it.

rossum
Click to expand...
The death analogy needs tweaking.
The fact is that there is no absence of clues; they are everywhere as numerous posters have observed.
What is not apparent to all is their significance, what the clues mean.
The science that the proponents of design appeal to is pretty much the same as that of neoDarwinists.
For example, ATPase is a chemical reality that leads one to marvel at the work of God, and another to be not so impressed.
The clues that we have in nature are analogous to a gun, a footprint in the mud, some fingerprints and strands of hair.
Finding the body, makes sense of the clues - we know a murder has been committed.
If one doesn’t know God (or that there is a body), one would not understand the significance of the clues.
They are otherwise understood to be mere chance occurrences rather than as revealing the presence of a Designer (or murderer in the case of the analogy).
 
buffalo said:
"This now tells how precise the Creator’s aim must have been, namely to an accuracy of one part in 10 to the 10123rd power.

Do you know the odds of you existing and sitting there reading this? The universe would need to have come into existence (use Penrose’s figure for that), then you would have to come into existence (and there is an infinite number of ways that you wouldn’t be here as opposed to being here, but let’s drop the odds an infinite amount and use Penrose’s figure again).

Let’s call the Penrose number P. That means for you to be reading this requires the odds of a minimum of P x P.

So either:

You are reading this and the figure is meaningless or…

The chances of the universe existing is less than the chance of you reading this (by a factor of P) and as you are reading this the universe must have come to exist or…

You are not actually there, in which case I’m wasting my time writing this (which I actually think I am even if you are).

You do not seem to understand odds. If something has already happened, then the odds of it having happened are exactly 1.
Click to expand...
 
Charlemagne_III said:
How do you know that a pebble or a rock is not designed to be a pebble or a rock from which to design a stone tool?
Click to expand...
By observing and asking more questions.

How are pebbles made? Darwin gives a good account in his journal. He saw pebbles at the mouth of a river and noticed that they grew larger and less smooth as the Beagle crew rowed upstream, until at the headwaters he saw freshly cracked rocks.

He theorizes that water from the mountains freezes in cracks producing rocks which tumble down river getting smoother along the way. Then realizes that the flowing water is so weak a force that it must take millions of years. And so realizes his colleagues must be right and the world is much older than what they were told at school.

How does a man choose a pebble to make a tool? Out of all the shapes and sizes he sees, he chooses one closest in shape and size to what he needs to make the tool.

How do you know that X isn’t designed? By observing and asking more questions.
 
buffalo said:
So you are now admitting Intelligent Design is science and it can be detected various ways?
Click to expand...
In general, science can detect many forms of intelligent design.

The capitalised Intelligent Design, as proposed by the Discovery Institute is currently not among the forms of design that science can detect. The DI has proposed some methods, such as Behe’s Irreducible Complexity and Dembski’s Complex Specified Information, however both of those have failed. IC can be produced by natural processes and CSI has problems with objectively defining the concept of a specification.

So far there has not been any scientifically reliable design detection method from the DI.

rossum
 
Bradski said:
Do you know the odds of you existing and sitting there reading this? The universe would need to have come into existence (use Penrose’s figure for that), then you would have to come into existence (and there is an infinite number of ways that you wouldn’t be here as opposed to being here, but let’s drop the odds an infinite amount and use Penrose’s figure again).

Let’s call the Penrose number P. That means for you to be reading this requires the odds of a minimum of P x P.

So either:

You are reading this and the figure is meaningless or…

The chances of the universe existing is less than the chance of you reading this (by a factor of P) and as you are reading this the universe must have come to exist or…

You are not actually there, in which case I’m wasting my time writing this (which I actually think I am even if you are).

You do not seem to understand odds. If something has already happened, then the odds of it having happened are exactly 1.
Click to expand...
Yep, I heard that argument many times before. It doesn’t work. When calculating the odds of something happening all the possibilities are taken into account. The Creator hit the bullseye despite the vast amount of search space. That is astounding. Yes, even incredulous! 🙂

What are the odds of going into the desert and on the very first try pick up the only red marked grain of sand while being blindfolded?
 
rossum said:
In general, science can detect many forms of intelligent design.

The capitalised Intelligent Design, as proposed by the Discovery Institute is currently not among the forms of design that science can detect. The DI has proposed some methods, such as Behe’s Irreducible Complexity and Dembski’s Complex Specified Information, however both of those have failed. IC can be produced by natural processes and CSI has problems with objectively defining the concept of a specification.

So far there has not been any scientifically reliable design detection method from the DI.

rossum
Click to expand...
When your brain processes the arrowhead and knows it to be designed how does it know?
 
rossum said:
The DI has proposed some methods, such as Behe’s Irreducible Complexity and Dembski’s Complex Specified Information, however both of those have failed. IC can be produced by natural processes and CSI has problems with objectively defining the concept of a specification.

So far there has not been any scientifically reliable design detection method from the DI.

rossum
Click to expand...
Because you say this does not make it all true. 😦
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top