Evidence for Design?

[buffalo]

This is hilarious:

*In recent decades, some educators, public policy advocates – and, most importantly, some scientists – through adopting methodological naturalism, have thought and taught that science can only work properly if it is understood as a search for “natural causes.” *

In recent decades, “some scientists”? Haha, science has always followed methodological naturalism, introduced by the scientists of the scientific revolution who were all believers in God.

Be fair now, Al - here is the rest:

That is, they hold that origins science theories “must” fit in with the view that undirected blindly mechanical forces of nature and chance circumstances acting on matter and energy in one form or another, triggered purposeless changes and developments across time: *(you know what) *, from hydrogen to humans.

In any case this thread is about evidence for design which this link is very solid.

 

[reggieM]

We can see characteristics of design in something that has order, symmetry, regularity, complex function, stability and which “directs actions to a purpose”.

We might see these features in something that we know could not have been designed by human beings.
And we could see the features in something that we know could not have been designed by natural processes.

One example, would be the natural laws themselves.

They could not have been designed by humans. And they could not have been designed by natural processes – since they govern all natural processes.

They exhibit features of design – order (throughout the universe), regularity, mathematical symmetry, highly complex functions (on earth and through the universe), stability and the power to direct many actions to ends.

We have to eliminate human and natural origins for the design evident in natural laws.

There is the option that they were “not designed” – but is that the most reasonable conclusion?

The only way they could be not designed is if they were the product of chance. Actions which are produced by chance, however, rely on the natural laws which they would have to create. Chance first must work on something, and without the natural laws, there would be nothing for chance to work on. Additionally, chance is a function of probability – which is part of what chance would be claimed to explain. That’s not possible either.

One might claim that some sort of unknown, magic process created the laws of nature – something from one of an infinite number of universes. But there is no evidence that any other universes exist at all.

So, by far – the most reasonable solution is that the laws of nature were designed by a non-natural, reasonable intelligence.

Through logic and revelation we have strong evidence that such an intelligence exists – and thus it’s very reasonable to conclude that that is the source of the design that we see in the laws of the universe.

 

[reggieM]

I believe intelligence has fundamental elements which are universal. How could the laws of reasoning differ from one rational being to another?

That’s a good question. I don’t really know. Let’s just say that there are axioms of reasoning that must be accepted, or else you can’t have intelligent reasoning.
For example, that the whole is greater than a part. Or being is different from non-being. Or that non-existence can create existence.
Those are the basics.

Now, if you had some sort of alien life which had some sort of mental power but it violated all of those concepts … we couldn’t consider it rational life. We couldn’t communicate with it.

Actually, reasoning and intelligence requires consciousness. And if an alien being had conscious reasoning, then it would have the universal quality of reasoning.
Because to be conscious and to reason means to be able to “take in” reality and analyze it.
But reality is understood with logic and truth versus falsehood – and that is reasoning.

So, that’s basically the only kind of design that SETI could actually find anyway.

 

[reggieM]

1. If an object serves no useful purpose it is unlikely to have been designed.

That’s right. We might still say that “God designed everything” but the design argument is talking about things that, to us, have the appearance of design. That’s the common usage of the term design. Otherwise, the word would have no meaning.

When something is unlikely to have been designed, it is the product of randomness and accident. Since we know the difference between randomness and purposeful design, we can say that we see things that appear to be one or the other.

1. Even if an object serves no useful purpose it may be necessary for the existence of another object which does serve a useful purpose, e.g. the elements necessary for life.

The fact that these objects have a **relationship **with one another is evidence of the presence of reason.

1. The greater the number of factors required for serving a useful purpose the greater the probability of design.

Because the greater the number of factors, the more evidence there is of a reasoning power to coordinate those factors towards a purpose.

1. The greater the stability of factors required for serving a useful purpose the greater the probability of design.

Because stability requires a plan – like a maintenance plan. Without a plan, there would be no stability (because of entropy and the disorder of randomness).

1. The greater the efficiency of factors required for serving a useful purpose the greater the probability of design.

Because random and accidental (undesigned) things or collections of things are wasteful, redundant and inefficient. When something functions with sophistication and efficiency, it is the opposite of randomness and lack of design.

1. Omnipotence is irrelevant because the issue is** not **the nature of the designer but evidence of design.

Exactly. If we see things that meet the several criteria of design that you just posted, then it is highly likely that those things are designed. This has nothing to do with omnipotence.

Additionally, one does not need investigate all of reality in order to prove the design argument.

For example, a person could propose that “this hill contains valuable jems”.
All that is required to prove that is to find some jems in the rocks – not to find every one, or to find all the non-jems.
In fact, the person may only know what diamonds and rubys are. In the search, he could completely miss the fact that there are emeralds in the hill also.
That would be irrelevant to the search because he only needs to find some rubies to confirm the proposal.
The jem detector just needs the definition and characteristics of the stones and then to measure the stones found against those.

It’s the same with SETI – it is not required to check every spot in the universe. If designed signals are detected anywhere, then that is a success and their mission has been validated.

 

[Whadyamean]

False! A deformity is the result of a coincidence that is foreseen and permitted but** not intended **because it is an inevitable, **dysteleological **consequence of the interplay of laws of nature.

Well, no, actually, as all the elements that result in the deformity are perfectly orchestrated to acheive the inevitable result given the pertinent factors. It is designed to work that way. there is no “deus ex machina” that precipitates such things as we might label misfortunes or tragedies. God did it all, no? Whether you include culpability as a fantasy factor or not, it still works according to the rules. If it is allegedly because of the misunderstood significance of what is mistakenly called the Fall, then God yet designed the methods of the consequences of the “original sin” you claim as part of your paradigm.

 

[reggieM]

The result of any mathematical formula which contains a random variable is something that has not been designed – since it is the product of randomness.

Where the formula contains a value that has been chosen by a mathematician – then that result has been designed for a purpose.

2 + x = y

If x is a random variable, then the result is necessarily not-designed. X has not been designed with a purpose but is left to chance – so the formula will not indicate design.

If, however, I select x is equal to 2. Then that is the product of a reasoned choice – and thus the result has been designed.

 

[Whadyamean]

The result of any mathematical formula which contains a random variable is something that has not been designed – since it is the product of randomness.

Where the formula contains a value that has been chosen by a mathematician – then that result has been designed for a purpose.

2 + x = y

If x is a random variable, then the result is necessarily not-designed. X has not been designed with a purpose but is left to chance – so the formula will not indicate design.

If, however, I select x is equal to 2. Then that is the product of a reasoned choice – and thus the result has been designed.

Actually the result is “designed” “into” the formula. whether x is random or chosen. Y is always dependent on x. That is the relationship that is primary, not the value of x.

 

[rossum]

1. If an object serves no useful purpose it is unlikely to have been designed.

Have you tested this? Have you taken some objects known to be designed, together with some objects known not to be designed and taken statistics? How did you know in advance that the non-designed objects were not designed? You are asserting a criterion here. In order to establish your proposed criterion as correct, you need to test it on an assortment of test objects of known provenance. How are you going to do that?

My question is not about devising tests for the presence of design. My question is about how we can assure ourselves, practically, that any proposed test actually work as advertised. It you can’t test your proposal, then it is just your opinion. How do you test a general design detector without at least one object which could not have been designed?

Think of a phony design detector, where the green light is wired up to the switch and battery, but the red light is disconnected. How can we test a new design detector to ensure that it is not a phony detector, with just the green light connected? We must have something undesigned that will trigger the red light in the good detector and show up the phony detector as faulty.

1. Even if an object serves no useful purpose it may be necessary for the existence of another object which does serve a useful purpose, e.g. the elements necessary for life.

1. The greater the number of factors required for serving a useful purpose the greater the probability of design.

1. The greater the co-ordination of factors required for serving a useful purpose the greater the probability of design.

1. The greater the stability of factors required for serving a useful purpose the greater the probability of design.

1. The greater the efficiency of factors required for serving a useful purpose the greater the probability of design.

All these proposals are fine, but untested. How are you going to test them?

1. Omnipotence is irrelevant because the issue is** not **the nature of the designer but evidence of design.

One of the criteria actually used in the real world to detect design is the known capabilities of the proposed designer. A forensic scientist knows that a possible murder victim was not killed by a death ray fired by a man in an invisibility suit. Humans have neither death rays nor invisibility suits. A designer with unlimited capabilities can design anything, and hence it is very difficult to test a detector for such design.

SETI functions on the valid principle that design by any intelligent being can be detected.

No. SETI functions on the principle that certain narrowband signals have no known natural cause, yet do have known designed causes. There was almost a similar example of such design detection when pulsars were first discovered. There was then, no known natural source of regular pulses, so one of the options considered was the LGM (Little Green Men) hypothesis. As it turned out that hypothesis was wrong in that case.

rossum

 

[rossum]

The point was that he referred to “things that are designed for a purpose”.

Dawkins referred to things that look as if they were deigned for a purpose. Their appearance is deceptive.

Designoid objects look designed, so much so that some people – probably, alas, most people – think they are designed. Those people are wrong.

Dawkins, Climbing Mount Improbable, p4.

True, but it is unreasonable to necessarily infer the identity of the designer from the existence of a designed object. I go to the jewelry store and see many designed items – but none of them indicate the identity of their designers. I know they’re designed though.

They show that the designer is skilled at designing jewellery. They show that certain skills and capabilities are present. We cannot infer everything about the designer (or designers) but we can infer a certain minimum.

We see things that are designed for a purpose. We see things that are not designed for a purpose.

But what if the designer deliberately designed something without a purpose. Or perhaps it does have a purpose that you are not aware of. Purpose is a very subjective criterion, relying on the knowledge of the person making the determination.

The word design means with purpose or goal – both of which require reason. Unintelligent forces cannot be the ultimate cause of the purpose of things – but they can secondarily create design. They do not possess reason but in order to produce design secondarily then they must have been created by reason themselves.

Then neither intelligence nor reason can originate by design. If intelligence and reason are required for design then they must exist prior to the first design. Since all intelligence and reason is associated with life, you have just shown that life cannot have been designed. Life is required for both intelligence and reason. Intelligence and reason are required for design. Hence life must have occurred before the first design. Life cannot have been designed.

But generally we assume that what we see reflects reality. We see something that looks very much like it was designed. We see that human beings could not have produced it and natural processes could not have produced it.
Therefore, the most reasonable inference is that it was designed but by another intelligence.

Or that we are mistaken. If I see a face in the clouds, am I right to think that the face I see was designed?

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

1. If an object serves no useful purpose it is unlikely to have been designed.

Have you tested this?Everyone has tested it by their daily experiences. The inability to distinguish between a purposeful and a purposeless event reveals a lack of intelligence…

How do you test whether your life is useful or useless, purposeful or purposeless?

Have you taken some objects known to be designed, together with some objects known not to be designed and taken statistics? How did you know in advance that the non-designed objects were not designed? You are asserting a criterion here. In order to establish your proposed criterion as correct, you need to test it on an assortment of test objects of known provenance. How are you going to do that?

The main issue is not whether inanimate objects are designed but whether rational beings have a rational origin.

My question is not about devising tests for the presence of design. My question is about how we can assure ourselves, practically, that any proposed test actually work as advertised. It you can’t test your proposal, then it is just your opinion. How do you test a general design detector without at least one object which could not have been designed?

How do you test whether a being is rational? And has not been designed?

Think of a phony design detector, where the green light is wired up to the switch and battery, but the red light is disconnected. How can we test a new design detector to ensure that it is not a phony detector, with just the green light connected? We must have something undesigned that will trigger the red light in the good detector and show up the phony detector as faulty.

Your restricted view of purpose to** inanimate objects** invalidates your conclusion.

1. Even if an object serves no useful purpose it may be necessary for the existence of another object which does serve a useful purpose, e.g. the elements necessary for life.

1. The greater the number of factors required for serving a useful purpose the greater the probability of design.

1. The greater the co-ordination of factors required for serving a useful purpose the greater the probability of design.

1. The greater the stability of factors required for serving a useful purpose the greater the probability of design.

1. The greater the efficiency of factors required for serving a useful purpose the greater the probability of design.

All these proposals are fine, but untested. How are you going to test them?

How are you going to test the fact that you and other persons exist and behave purposefully?

How are you going to test your implication that purposeful activity has a purpose**less **origin?

1. Omnipotence is irrelevant because the issue is not the nature of the designer but evidence of design.

One of the criteria actually used in the real world to detect design is the known capabilities of the proposed designer. A forensic scientist knows that a possible murder victim was not killed by a death ray fired by a man in an invisibility suit. Humans have neither death rays nor invisibility suits. A designer with unlimited capabilities can design anything, and hence it is very difficult to test a detector for such design.
Do you believe particles could have designed a person? The only necessary criterion for evidence of design is that the designer is **more **intelligent than a human being. Do you think that is an impossibility? If so why?

SETI functions on the valid principle that design by any intelligent being can be detected.

No. SETI functions on the principle that certain narrowband signals have no known natural cause, yet do have known designed causes. There was almost a similar example of such design detection when pulsars were first discovered. There was then, no known natural source of regular pulses, so one of the options considered was the LGM (Little Green Men) hypothesis. As it turned out that hypothesis was wrong in that case.
SETI functions on the principle that regular pulses will lead to the interpretation of intelligent messages. It does not terminate with regular pulses.

NB 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.

 

[tonyrey]

"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.

If there is **nothing **that supports the idea of a designer of any description there is **no reason **to believe there is a reason for anything.

As Lear said, “Nothing shall come of nothing”… 0 > 0

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.

You have not answered the question:

Would you stake your life on a legal decision?

 

[inocente]

1. If an object serves no useful purpose it is unlikely to have been designed.
2. Even if an object serves no useful purpose it may be necessary for the existence of another object which does serve a useful purpose, e.g. the elements necessary for life.

I agree somewhat, but think you’re on a road to nowhere.

An obvious test of the logic is what’s the useful purpose of the other 170 billion or so galaxies in the known universe, each of which contains hundreds of billions of stars, and most of which are so dim from Earth they don’t even “serve as signs to mark sacred times” (Gen 1:14)?

If you say they have no purpose, then since they outnumber us 170 billion to one the chances are we serve no purpose either.

If you say they are only there so we can exist then you’re talking of the most dreadfully incompetent design imaginable.

Or if you think up a higher purpose for them all, is it likely to be correct when we can only see things from our provincial perspective on our tiny planet?

So while I agree on a potential connection between purpose and design, I think the whole business of us trying to assign purposes and reasons in nature in order to demonstrate design is highly suspect, and ultimately not fruitful.

 

[rossum]

Everyone has tested it by their daily experiences. The inability to distinguish between a purposeful and a purposeless event reveals a lack of intelligence…

They have not actually tested it. They have assumed an answer, but have not checked that their assumed answer is correct. It is a commonplace of theological argumentation that humans cannot know all of God’s purposes, hence, in theological terms, we are unreliable detectors of design.

How do you test whether your life is useful or useless, purposeful or purposeless?

I am not the one associating design with purpose. You are the one making that association, so the question is one for you to answer. I am merely asking how any proposed design detector can be tested to ensure that it is accurate.

The main issue is not whether inanimate objects are designed but whether rational beings have a rational origin.

I have never limited the range of testable objects to inanimate objects. A general design detector should be capable of detecting design in rational, animate and inanimate objects.

Do you believe particles could have designed a person? The only necessary criterion for evidence of design is that the designer is **more **intelligent than a human being. Do you think that is an impossibility? If so why?

That assumes that “the designer” exists. Until you have an accurate method of detecting design then such an assumption remains unproven.

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.

I reject all reification, and the bulk of what you are talking about here is reification. Beauty is an adjective, not a noun. It has no meaning without an object to which it is attached.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

Here:

iii → Perhaps surprisingly, we can model complex three-dimensional objects like the Old Man of the Mountain and the Mt Rushmore statues (or “exploded”- view diagrams of machines, etc.) as networks of connected points, sometimes called wire-frame models. Surface facets or skins and textures can be digitally draped over these “wire- frames.” The realism and specificity to a recognisable individual depend on how tightly spaced the network of fixed points is:

4.bp.blogspot.com/-UQf8Z8au-28/TCI-mr9k2qI/AAAAAAAAABA/mSTx3eLpAJs/s200/dolphmsh.gif

[1.bp.blogspot.com/-1H3rqFf1YJY/TCI_GQU5c3I/AAAAAAAAABI/g8UDx_Wy6uc/s200/nefertiti_with_mask.gif](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-1H3rqFf1YJY/TCI_GQU5c3I/AAAAAAAAABI/g8UDx_Wy6uc/s1600/nefertiti_with_mask.gif)




    (a)     A generic dolphin- like shape can be specified with relatively     few nodes and arcs. ([Source](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dolphin_triangle_mesh.png):     Wiki, GNU)      
(b)     [Marquadt](http://www.beautyanalysis.com/index2_mba.htm)     Golden Ratio- based beauty mask mesh superposed on [Queen     Nefertiti's](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nefertiti) face ([Source](http://www.beautyanalysis.com/images/nefertiti_with_mask.jpg):     MBA, fair use. [Cf. also [URL="http://www.intmath.com/Numbers/mathOfBeauty.php"]here,     [here](http://goldennumber.net/).])
**Fig. I.3:** Wireframe networks for images.

iv → In each case, we can identify a chain of basic yes/no decisions or selections that specify the nodes [which can be complex 3-D objects!], the connecting arcs and the ways the two interact. Then, we apply a rule of thumb: if the number of such basic yes/no decisions to build a sufficiently specific and functional network exceeds 500 - 1,000, we pass a reasonable threshold for “complexity.”

REASON: The number of possible configurations specified by 1,000 yes/no decisions, or 1,000 bits, is ~ 1.07 * 10^301; i.e. “roughly” 1 followed by 301 zeros. While, the ~ 10^80 atoms of the observed universe, changing state as fast as is reasonable the Planck time, i.e. every 5.39 *10^-44 s], for its estimated lifespan – about fifty million times as long as the 13.7 billion years that are said to have elapsed since the big bang – would only come up to about 10^150 states. *Since 10^301 is ten times the square of this number, if the whole universe were to be viewed as a search engine, working for its entire lifetime, it could not scan through as much as 1 in 10^150 of the possible configurations for just 1,000 bits. *That is, astonishingly, our “search” rounds down very nicely to zero: effectively no “search.” [NB: *1,000 bits is routinely exceeded by the functionally specific information in relevant objects or features, but even so low a threshold is beyond the credible random search capacity of our cosmos, if it is not intelligently directed or constrained. That is, the pivotal issue is not incremental hill-climbing to optimal performance by natural selection among competing populations with already functional body forms. Such already begs the question of the need to first get to the shorelines of an island of specific function in the midst of an astronomically large sea of non-functional configurations; on forces of random chance plus blind mechanical necessity only. Cf. Abel on the Universal Plausibility Bound, here.]

 

[tonyrey]

inocente:

If an object serves no useful purpose it is unlikely to have been designed.

1. Even if an object serves no useful purpose it may be necessary for the existence of another object which does serve a useful purpose, e.g. the elements necessary for life.

I agree somewhat, but think you’re on a road to nowhere…

An obvious test of the logic is what’s the useful purpose of the other 170 billion or so galaxies in the known universe, each of which contains hundreds of billions of stars, and most of which are so dim from Earth they don’t even “serve as signs to mark sacred times” (Gen 1:14)?

The obvious answer is that we don’t know what their purpose is but the sheer number of galaxies is irrelevant. You seem to be implying that the more there are the more likely they are to be purposeless - which is absurd.

If you say they have no purpose, then since they outnumber us 170 billion to one the chances are we serve no purpose either.

I say that many of them may well have a similar purpose to ours!

If you say they are only there so we can exist then you’re talking of the most dreadfully incompetent design imaginable.

I say nothing of the kind. Why on earth would I make the ludicrous assumption that the universe exists solely for our benefit?

Or if you think up a higher purpose for them all, is it likely to be correct when we can only see things from our provincial perspective on our tiny planet?

You are the one who who is speculating about their purpose!

So while I agree on a potential connection between purpose and design, I think the whole business of us trying to assign purposes and reasons in nature in order to demonstrate design is highly suspect, and ultimately not fruitful.

The connection between purpose and design is not potential but real - unless you believe one of them is an illusion. You obviously prefer to believe purposes and reasons are produced by inanimate objects which lack purposes and reasons!

1. We design purposeful entities
2. We know inanimate objects do not design purposeful entities
3. Therefore we know inanimate objects do not design entities which design purposeful entities
4. Therefore we know we must be designed by an Entity which can design purposeful entities

 

[tonyrey]

Everyone has tested it by their daily experiences. The inability to distinguish between a purposeful and a purposeless event reveals a lack of intelligence…

I am referring to our experiences…

How do you test whether your life is useful or useless, purposeful or purposeless?

I am not the one associating design with purpose. You are the one making that association, so the question is one for you to answer. I am merely asking how any proposed design detector can be tested to ensure that it is accurate.

Then you are implying there is no connection between design and purpose in your life - which is absurd.

The main issue is not whether inanimate objects are designed but whether rational beings have a rational origin.

I have never limited the range of testable objects to inanimate objects. A general design detector should be capable of detecting design in rational, animate and inanimate objects.

Then you don’t have to look very far! Do you think you are capable?

Do you believe particles could have designed a person? The only necessary criterion for evidence of design is that the designer is more intelligent than a human being. Do you think that is an impossibility? If so why?

That assumes that “the designer” exists. Until you have an accurate method of detecting design then such an assumption remains unproven.

I am not assuming anything. I am asking whether you believe particles could have designed a person…

I shall assume that your answer is in the negative - which leaves you with the problem of how the power of design originated.

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.

I reject all reification, and the bulk of what you are talking about here is reification. Beauty is an adjective, not a noun. It has no meaning without an object to which it is attached.

The “bulk” leaves a significant residue that you have not explained. Are truth, freedom and self-determination reifications? If not how do account for them?

 

[buffalo]

The Positive Case for Design

Many critics of intelligent design have argued that design is merely a negative argument against evolution.
This could not be further from the truth. Leading design theorist William Dembski has observed that “[t]he
principle characteristic of intelligent agency is directed contingency, or what we call choice.”1 By
observing the sorts of choices that intelligent agents commonly make when designing systems, a positive
case for intelligent design is easily constructed by elucidating predictable, reliable indicators of design.
Design can be inferred using the scientific method of observation, hypothesis, experiment, and conclusion.
Design theorists begin with observations of how intelligent agents act when designing, to help them
recognize and detect design in the natural world:

more…

 

[inocente]

The obvious answer is that we don’t know what their purpose is but the sheer number of galaxies is irrelevant. You seem to be implying that the more there are the more likely they are to be purposeless - which is absurd.

No. I’m saying that since there are so many galaxies and they are so big, they are an obvious test of your logic.

I say that many of them may well have a similar purpose to ours!

Then heaven must be really big.

I say nothing of the kind. Why on earth would I make the ludicrous assumption that the universe exists solely for our benefit?

I know you didn’t, I was being hypothetical, hence the “If”.

You are the one who who is speculating about their purpose!

Not me, it’s you who want purposes and designs, I’m very content without them.

The connection between purpose and design is not potential but real - unless you believe one of them is an illusion. You obviously prefer to believe purposes and reasons are produced by inanimate objects which lack purposes and reasons!

I agree with the connection but am saying by that logic you can’t say there’s evidence the universe is designed unless you can objectively state the purpose of the universe. Can you?

2. We know inanimate objects do not design purposeful entities

Surely that can’t be true. Gravity designed the Earth, are you saying the Earth is without purpose?

 

[reggieM]

Dawkins referred to things that look as if they were deigned for a purpose. Their appearance is deceptive.

Here is where your design detector must have been used. Dawkins recognizes things that look like they were designed. He then tests them and concludes that they were not designed. This must be a necessary part of science since he describes biology as the study of things that look like they were designed.

Notice this also –

– Dawkins states that biology is the study of things that look like they were designed.
– But biology is the study of living things in nature.
– Those living things could not have been designed by human intelligence
– However, they look like they have been designed.

Clearly, Dawkins is pointing to some other kind of intelligence which must possibly exist. Biology does not know what that intelligence is, merely that it possibly exists.
The possibility that a designing, non-human intelligence exists is so strong, that science has to test to determine if that intelligence was at work, or if the design is deceptive.

This must be obvious for all biologists – since that is what the study is.
When they see things in nature that look like they were designed for a purpose, biologists must necessarily recognize what those kinds of things are, and that they could have been designed by a non-human intelligence.

If it was not possible for a non-human intelligence to design things, then nothing in nature could look like it was designed.

They show that the designer is skilled at designing jewellery. They show that certain skills and capabilities are present. We cannot infer everything about the designer (or designers) but we can infer a certain minimum.

Right – so we recognize things that “appear to have been designed for a purpose” – thus the designer would have certain capabilities and characteristics.

But what if the designer deliberately designed something without a purpose.

Could you explain how that would be possible? Can you deliberately do something that has no purpose at all?

Or perhaps it does have a purpose that you are not aware of. Purpose is a very subjective criterion, relying on the knowledge of the person making the determination.

It’s clearly objective enough for the entire science of biology to be based on it.
So, that really shouldn’t be a problem.

Then neither intelligence nor reason can originate by design. If intelligence and reason are required for design then they must exist prior to the first design. Since all intelligence and reason is associated with life, you have just shown that life cannot have been designed. Life is required for both intelligence and reason. Intelligence and reason are required for design. Hence life must have occurred before the first design. Life cannot have been designed.

Intelligence and reason are required for purposeful cause to exist. Life itself is a purposeful cause which (I think from your perspective) had a material “origin”. Therefore, in order for life to have an origin, intelligence and reason must have existed prior to the first life. And therefore also, it would not be true to believe that biological life is necessary for the presence of intelligence and reason. This is evidence that intelligence and reason are immaterial essences.

Or that we are mistaken. If I see a face in the clouds, am I right to think that the face I see was designed?

You could use Richard Dawkins’ design-detector to determine something about what you see. If you observe a murder scene, you might be right or wrong about the aspects of design that a present. You test what you observe by other things you know.

If a person is willing to state that he cannot tell the difference between design and non-design, that’s an interesting point of view and a good starting point for the argument.

Because to be unable to recognize that difference at all would mean that the person must assert “everything looks like it was designed”.

If that is the point that you’re raising, then that’s a very strong confirmation of the design argument. Design can only come from reason and intelligence. If everything you see looks like it was designed, then that’s very strong evidence that a non-human, non-material designer must exist.

 

[Al_Moritz]

In order to even discuss the “biological origin of human beings”, science would have to first determine what the demarcation line is between a human being and the last non-human ancestor.

That is false. You confuse metaphysics with biology. The biological origin of humans (not “human beings”, a metaphysical term not commonly used in science) is gradual through evolution. The metaphysics of humans require that a soul is fused with the biological body (this event is not a biological, but a metaphysical origin), but this sudden event stands apart from the gradual biological origin through evolution that is observed. No demarcation line is required here.

Organisms are judged to be “early humans” based on biological evidence alone. That again is a metaphysical claim through a scientific method. It is not possible to determine that a biological, human-looking organism is actually human without knowing if it has an immortal soul or not.

. . . ]

A soul cannot be divided into parts – either you have it or you don’t. You’re either a human or your not. Science claims to know the difference between a non-human and a human merely through the observation of biological forms.

I will readily concede that here you have a valid point. Mere biological features are often confused with human nature as such, and the culture of anthropological science is guilty of this. In defense of science though I will point out that there is a discipline in anthropology that does just that: trying to define the earliest demarcation line of what makes us uniquely human and sets us apart from other animals. This unique human feature would be rationality, and science tries to discern where it started, judging from past behavior that they observe. But how do you do that? Is certain toolmaking the beginning of rationality? Or does it start with the cave paintings of 35,000 years ago? I would suggest that this would have to the very latest possible date for the origin of rationality, since these paintings require conceptual thinking that is a hallmark of rationality. However, there may very well be earlier tell-tale signs of rationality, perhaps certain tool-making indeed.

In order to claim that you know how humans originated, science has to claim to know the origin of rationality – since that is essential in even defining what a human being is.

Science can very well – and should – study the biological origin of humans. For that science does not need to claim to know the metaphysical origin of rationality – even though, as I will readily concede, many scientists try to find a naturalistic explanation for the origin of rationality.

That is science taking the role of metaphysics. Science cannot declare that some beings were rational and virtually identical beings were not – without making metaphysical conclusions.

That is not true. In order to declare some beings are rational and some are not, you can do this from outward signs, for example from distinction by tool-making. You do not need to know the metaphysics of rationality for that.

Atheists and theists both agree that humans are rational, even though they disagree on the metaphysics.