Evidence for Design?

[tonyrey]

I agree that the idea of biological Intelligent Design does not work.

What causes biological processes to work?

 

[Al_Moritz]

Then science lacks a **rational **foundation!

That is quite obviously not what I meant. Think again.

 

[Candide_West]

1. Design explains all the most important aspects of existence: truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty, love, the order of the universe, the origin of life, the progressive development and existence of rational, autonomous, moral beings who have the capacity for unselfish love and the right to life, freedom and self-determination.

This is in it’s way true. Design can of course explain anything. I can explain my being late to work this morning via an unknown agent who using unknown means for an unknown purpose set up events such that I stayed up later than usual last night hence overslept this morning. This is of course not evidence that such an agent exists.*

The same thing applies with God. He can be used to explain absolutely everything and anything and “the lord moves in mysterious ways” is perfectly adequate when things that happen seem to make no sense.*Of course any number of supernatural constructs can provide the same function.

*Scientific evidence for design consists of:

1. The laws of nature which are necessary for life and a rational existence.
2. The directiveness of living organisms.
3. The progressive nature of development.
4. The information system contained in the DNA code.
5. The survival of life despite overwhelming odds.
6. The development of the most complex phenomenon in the universe: the human brain.
7. The existence of rational, autonomous, moral and responsible beings with a capacity for unselfish love.

What are your views?

I see no evidence of design here. Some of the items you have listed are things for which purely naturalistic explanations already exist and are well established. ie 3, which is well explained by evolution.*

And some are things which we don’t know yet. ie 1, we don’t really know why the laws of the universe are the laws of the universe, for that matter we aren’t even entirely sure they’re really laws. This is essentially a “God of the gaps” argument.

One of the key problems with trying to claim evidence of design is that if you posit an omnipotent, omniscient God who designed the entire universe then there is nothing you can point to which is not “designed”. So it is impossible to test any “design detection system” (whether that system is a thought experiment, axiomatic system, technological device or anything else). This is because we cannotdetect anything to which we can ascribe the term “non-designed” to test any “design detection system” against.

 

[tonyrey]

*Then science lacks a **rational ***

My point is that scientific evidence of any description amounts to metascientific evidence because science presupposes metascientific principles!

 

[tonyrey]

1. Design explains all the most important aspects of existence: truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty, love, the order of the universe, the origin of life, the progressive development and existence of rational, autonomous, moral beings who have the capacity for unselfish love and the right to life, freedom and self-determination.

Design is not a substitute for explanations. It is an explanation of explanations!

The same thing applies with God. He can be used to explain absolutely everything and anything and “the lord moves in mysterious ways” is perfectly adequate when things that happen seem to make no sense. Of course any number of supernatural constructs can provide the same function.

God cannot be used to explain fortuitous events or human decisions.

Scientific evidence for design consists of:

1. The laws of nature which are necessary for life and a rational existence.
2. The directiveness of living organisms.
3. The progressive nature of development.
4. The information system contained in the DNA code.
5. The survival of life despite overwhelming odds.
6. The development of the most complex phenomenon in the universe: the human brain.
7. The existence of rational, autonomous, moral and responsible beings with a capacity for unselfish love.

I see no evidence of design here. Some of the items you have listed are things for which purely naturalistic explanations already exist and are well established. ie 3…

No one has ever explained the increase in complexity.

And some are things which we don’t know yet. ie 1, we don’t really know why the laws of the universe are the laws of the universe, for that matter we aren’t even entirely sure they’re really laws. This is essentially a “God of the gaps” argument.

On the contrary. All the laws of the universe require a rational explanation.
If they’re not laws how do explain the success of science?

One of the key problems with trying to claim evidence of design is that if you posit an omnipotent, omniscient God who designed the entire universe then there is nothing you can point to which is not “designed”.

I’m not** positing any being. I am inferring **that rational, purposeful activity has a rational, purposeful cause.

So it is impossible to test any “design detection system” (whether that system is a thought experiment, axiomatic system, technological device or anything else). This is because we cannot*detect anything to which we can ascribe the term “non-designed” to test any “design detection system” against.

Why do you think SETI is doing?

 

[buffalo]

I don’t think there is any evidence of a designer, and I can think of tons of examples that patently contradict the idea of a designer of any description. Of course, the answer will always be, well, youre not God so you dont know WHY He did it like that, but there must be a reason, as God did it

So, my views? … no, I see no evidence for a designer

This will be my full and total contribution to this thread - these threads tend to degenerate quite quickly. So, thanks for the short question, and not asking for the views to be justified

Interesting the courts decided Intelligent design was just Creationism by another name though.

Sarah x

The DNA language is a good example of design.

 

[Whadyamean]

“I can think of nothing that supports the idea of a designer of any description. Therefore there is **no **reason why anything exists…”

Sounds like this is a non-sequitur to me.

The courts are fallible and have sentenced innocent persons to death… Would you stake your life on a legal decision?

This is a conflation. Soul is an epistemological consideration, to some a cosmological one. “Life” is, regardless of “arrival” at some state. The court decision re “design” is simply a recognition of equivalency.

 

[reggieM]

1. Design explains all the most important aspects of existence: truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty, love, the order of the universe, the origin of life, the progressive development and existence of rational, autonomous, moral beings who have the capacity for unselfish love and the right to life, freedom and self-determination.

Scientific evidence for design consists of:

1. The laws of nature which are necessary for life and a rational existence.
2. The directiveness of living organisms.
3. The progressive nature of development.
4. The information system contained in the DNA code.
5. The survival of life despite overwhelming odds.
6. The development of the most complex phenomenon in the universe: the human brain.
7. The existence of rational, autonomous, moral and responsible beings with a capacity for unselfish love.

What are your views?

I agree with all of the above – and it’s a very good explanation of the topic.

Beauty: Harmony, proportion, integrity (perfection) and clarity, found in the universe, life, thought.

The directiveness of things is the fulfilling purpose. The existence and meaning of purpose anywhere requires design (planning/goals) which is a function of reason.

The desire for life and survival is evidence of design.

 

[reggieM]

‘Metascience’ has just as little to do with science as metaphysics has to do with physics!

Metaphysics established the principles (and judges the principles) by which physics exists.

 

[reggieM]

Design can of course explain anything.

I think you have to start by accepting that design exists. That’s an axiom or starting point.

If you say “there is no such thing as design”, then it’s true that the word “design” can explain anything, since it will have no meaning.

But ordinary life shows that intelligent, planned, intent – towards goals – does exist.

If it didn’t, we couldn’t have a criminal justice system, for example. Or even any educational system. There could be no designed plan to teach students. Randomly doing whatever would be the same as learning from a designed program.

So to discuss the topic, you have to start with an agreement on that first point.

Design exists. We see it as a product of intelligence. Designed things have certain characteristics that we can observe.

 

[tonyrey]

1. Design explains all the most important aspects of existence: truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty, love, the order of the universe, the origin of life, the progressive development and existence of rational, autonomous, moral beings who have the capacity for unselfish love and the right to life, freedom and self-determination.

Thank you, Reggie, for your kind words. :tiphat:

 

[tonyrey]

            *"I can think of **nothing***

Unsubstantiated assertion!

The courts are fallible and have sentenced innocent persons to death… Would you stake your life on a legal decision?

This is a conflation. Soul is an epistemological consideration, to some a cosmological one. “Life” is, regardless of “arrival” at some state. The court decision re “design” is simply a recognition of equivalency.

No court decisions are infallible if they refer to matters of fact rather than logical consistency with established laws.

 

[reggieM]

Thank you, Reggie, for your kind words. :tiphat:

Tony - if you can somehow prevent this thread from being shut down, then you’ll deserve much more than a tip of the hat.

… your OP is one of the best explanations I’ve seen on design – I’m going to save it as a resource.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Metaphysics established the principles (and judges the principles) by which physics exists.

Certainly, but my problem is the confusion of terms. In my first post on the thread, I objected to the confusion around the term ‘scientific’ with detailed analytical objections.

Sloppy terminology begets sloppy analytical thinking, and vice versa.

 

[reggieM]

Certainly, but my problem is the confusion of terms. In my first post on the thread, I objected to the confusion around the term ‘scientific’ with detailed analytical objections.

Sloppy terminology begets sloppy analytical thinking, and vice versa.

Ok, sorry I didn’t see your initial post.

I think the concept of metascience is an attempt to expand the definition of science to include philosophical and other speculative data.

Actually, it’s a return to an older idea which considered philosophy, mathematics and even theology to be sciences.

 

[reggieM]

I agree with

1. The laws of nature which are necessary for life and a rational existence.

But this is not scientific evidence (science proper can say nothing about divine design), but evidence from science, philosophically interpreted.

Could we say that all evidence from science requires a philosophical interpretation? Without the interpretation, it’s just data without conclusions.

I also agree with
7. The existence of rational, autonomous, moral and responsible beings with a capacity for unselfish love.

But this is neither scientific evidence, nor evidence from science. It refers to an immaterial soul, which lies outside the scientific method that employs methodological (not metaphysical) naturalism, so science has nothing to say about that. It is purely philosophical evidence (and there is nothing wrong with that; science has no monopoly on rational knowledge).

Rationality, moral responsibility and altruism are observable phenomena.
Science today (the vast majority of it) already claims to be able to explain all of those things as natural processes.

Some scientists find those attempts to be unconvincing – and this is evidence of the non-material source of those observable things.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Could we say that all evidence from science requires a philosophical interpretation? Without the interpretation, it’s just data without conclusions.

No, scientific theories like the atomic theory or the Big Bang theory are conclusions from the data, but within the realm of science (the natural sciences), which is looking for natural causes to natural effects (methodological naturalism). Any philosophical interpretations beyond that are outside the realm of science.

Rationality, moral responsibility and altruism are observable phenomena.
Science today (the vast majority of it) already claims to be able to explain all of those things as natural processes.

Some scientists find those attempts to be unconvincing – and this is evidence of the non-material source of those observable things.

Again, science is bound by methodological naturalism. This is its method, otherwise it would not be science – by definition.

Some scientists find those attempts to be unconvincing

This is a different story. I am a scientist, and I also find, for example, a naturalistic explanation of rationality unconvincing. I believe rationality requires an immaterial component of the mind (a soul), in addition to the brain.

But this is a philosophical conclusion, outside the realm of science, which is – again – bound by methodological naturalism.

As a scientist who also values philosophy and proper analytical thinking I get really cranky if someone labels something ‘science’ that is not.

That disease of wanting to give anything the label ‘scientific’ just to make it ‘sound better’ appears to come from the culture of scientism, which is the idea that only scientific knowledge is rational and valid knowledge. Not just atheists, also Christians appear to be infected with this culture.

 

[reggieM]

No, scientific theories like the atomic theory or the Big Bang theory are conclusions from the data, but within the realm of science (the natural sciences), which is looking for natural causes to natural effects (methodological naturalism). Any philosophical interpretations beyond that are outside the realm of science.

Is science willing to state that there is something (anything) outside of the realm of science? Have you ever seen that in any scientific papers – namely, that there is something outside of science that exists?

This is a different story. I am a scientist, and I also find, for example, a naturalistic explanation of rationality unconvincing. I believe rationality requires an immaterial component of the mind (a soul), in addition to the brain.

Does the fact that you find the scientific evidence unconvincing contribute to your belief in the immaterial component of the mind?

 

[upbeatjonm]

DNA is mind-boggling in its complexity. Microsoft founder Bill Gates says that the software of DNA is “far far more complex than any software we have ever developed.”

Read Steven Meyer’s Signature in the Cell if you want to understand the reasons why DNA is virtual proof of design.

I also think Beauty, Consciousness of the mind, and Morality within us, while not scientifically testable, certainly give the sense of design and purpose.

 

[Whadyamean]

Unsubstantiated assertion!.

What? you can’t think of *any *other scenarios, right or wrong? You surprise me. No court decisions are infallible if they refer to matters of fact rather than logical consistency with established laws.Well, no in either case. But the design=creationism is a gimme, whatever specious sliced hair arguments attempt to distinguish it. But so many people were being SO silly that it actually came to a court case. Those amazing Americans!!!