- Status
R
rossum
Guest
You accepted the definition. I took the definition from an ID site, ISCID, see here. It is ID which is nebulous. ID claims to be able to detect design. If it can’t provide an acceptable definition of what it claims to be detecting then it is no wonder scientists do not accept it as science.
I don’t have to. ID claims to be able to detect a very generalised form of design. All I claim is that science can detect certain specialised forms of design, as with archaeologists. They can detect some forms of human design. Archaeologists do not claim to be able to detect design by gods or by aliens. ID claims to be able to detect design by all sorts of entities, gods and aliens included. Once again ID needs to get down to specifics, and it has failed to do so.
ID as it currently exists is not science. It may possibly become science in future but if it is to do so then it has a lot of work to do first.
rossum
No, I have poked holes in each definition you have come up with.
And continued to ask, please define design.
Of course, now you are claiming…
Which really rings hollow given the previous attempts you have made.
Having tried twice to define it, and failed twice, the “I don’t have to” sounds more like a duck and cover then anything else.
R
rossum
Guest
I am content to use ID’s own definition. ID claim to be able to detect something. It is up to them to define what it is.
I am not the one claiming to have a generalised method to detect any and all design. I only claim that science can detect some kinds of design, as with archaeology.
ID has the burden of proof because ID is making the claim.
rossum
As stated earlier, I do not believe that.
Please provide proof indicating the science behind determination of design.
Having tried and failed to define design twice, I can understand your reluctance to take it up again.
The dictionary provides a definition for us, but I doubt it is something you would accept.
ID fits into it well.
R
rossum
Guest
Here is an example from archaeology: Was that Bone Boiled?. A boiled bone indicates design; cooking has a purpose.
I am perfectly happy with the ID provided definition of design which I gave earlier. If you don’t like their definition then you are free to provide an alternative definition. You may even want to try persuading the ID people to accept your alternative definition.
I am happy with the ID definition because with its emphasis on purpose it shows just how nebulous ID is. You never did answer my questions about the purpose of rocks, gazelles or cheetahs.
ID is not currently science. If it wants to be science then it has a lot of work to do. If it wants to remain as a mix of philosophy, theology and politics then it will find it very difficult to get itself into science classes.
rossum
T
tonyrey
Guest
It is significant that there has been no response to my post:
"It is** not **the assumption that something which functions with such complexity is designed but something which functions purposefully - in addition to the fact that purposeful complexity requires an adequate explanation.
It is absurd to imagine purposeless inanimate molecules alone have magically succeeded in producing immensely complex, purposeful living organisms without any insight or knowledge of what they are doing! It would be the greatest miracle in the history of the universe… apart from the spontaneous appearance of the universe from nothing…"
Silence implies assent!
"It is** not **the assumption that something which functions with such complexity is designed but something which functions purposefully - in addition to the fact that purposeful complexity requires an adequate explanation.
It is absurd to imagine purposeless inanimate molecules alone have magically succeeded in producing immensely complex, purposeful living organisms without any insight or knowledge of what they are doing! It would be the greatest miracle in the history of the universe… apart from the spontaneous appearance of the universe from nothing…"
Silence implies assent!
So you again tie in purpose to design.
Yet at the same time lay claim that it is too nebulous to be meaningful.
You may wish to pick a side.
You cannot bolster your arguments with a definition and claim the definition problematic at the same time.
Now then, please provide the proof indicating the science archeology uses to determine design.
R
rossum
Guest
With respect to human design it is far less nebulous; we know how humans act and what their motives are likely to be. We have independent knowledge of the designers. We have no such knowledge of ID proposed non-human designers.
You have still failed to answer my question about the purpose of rocks, gazelles and cheetahs. You demand answers to your questions yet fail to answer mine.
It is ID’s definition. If you have a problem with it then complain to the Discovery Institute, not me. I am critical of ID so I have no problem with criticising their definition.
Did you read the article I provided? That was about archaeology and described some of the methods they used. It gave an overview of the methods used to determine if a bone had been boiled. Follow up the links in the article for more detail, such as this one: A practical approach to the identification of low temperature heated bone using TEM.
That sort of detailed scientific work is what ID currently lacks.
You are also making a small error in asking for “proof”. Proof is for mathematics and alcohol, not science. Science only goes in for the balance of the probabilities. Every scientific result comes with error bars. A boiled bone could come from an animal falling into a geothermal pool, which is accident and not design. Unlikely in most areas but we cannot completely rule out non-design explanations.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
It is absurd to imagine that an unevidenced designer who has not been shown to have the ability to change even a single base pair of DNA can do anything whatsoever, let alone impart purpose to living organisms. All that is needed to understand the purpose of living organisms is the observation that “If your parents didn’t have any children then the chances are that you won’t either.”
Organisms that don’t reproduce have no descendants. You and I are both descended from billions of generations of organisms that did succeed in reproducing. Not one failure. Not one. That means that you and I both have a very powerful purpose built into us. We are descended from a very long line of winners, not one loser in the whole bunch.
You are proposing an entity with no scientific evidence for its existence and no evidence that it is actually able to do anything at all. That really is absurd.
You do not have my assent. Show me an experiment where the ID designer changes some DNA, even a single base pair, and I will reconsider.
rossum
It makes no mention of purpose, or design as you claimed.
Here is the entirety of the article you listed:
Please indicate the design you claim archeology can scientifically discern.
With every unique strand of DNA, the fact of the DNA manipulation becomes evident.
What you propose is that it all came from nothing.
And that is a logical fallacy.
R
rossum
Guest
Is cooking a random process or a designed process? By detecting cooking, with a high degree of probability we can detect design with a high degree of probability.
Archaeology does not detect design in the abstract. It detects specific design. Is this a manufactured rock or a random rock? Was this bone cooked? Does this bone show signs of being butchered for meat?
The techniques used to determine that a bone was cooked are different from the techniques that detect if a rock was manufactured.
Do you not think that making stone tools, cooking or butchery are designed actions by humans?
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
The DNA has been manipulated by known scientific processes. You cannot just assume that existence of another unevidenced process. Where is any evidence of the ID designer affecting DNA. We have evidence of some chemicals affecting DNA. We have evidence of some forms of radiation affecting DNA. Is your designer a chemical?
Far from it. I propose that DNA is changed by known physical and chemical processes. It is you who are proposing the existence of something with no evidence to support it. Where is you evidence that your designer can change even a single base pair of DNA?
You seem to be assuming what you have to show. Where is evidence that your proposed designer can actually do anything? So far I have not seen anything either from you or from ID in general. Evidence is very important in science and ID has precious little of it.
rossum
T
tonyrey
Guest
It is absurd to imagine that the unevidenced power of blind, inanimate matter - which has not been shown to have the ability to transform itself into a rational being - can do anything purposeful whatsoever let alone impart purpose to living organisms.
Why do you consider it necessary to supplement Materialism with Buddhism if matter is an adequate explanation of reality?
How can the fact that reproduction occurs possibly explain the origin of that purpose?
The question is** how **that powerful purpose was built into us…
What scientific evidence can you produce for the existence of your mind that makes plans and purposeful decisions? Do you regard yourself as a mindless body? That really is absurd.
Show me an experiment where the truths of Buddhism are confirmed by an experiment.
I suppose that without a solid definition for design, it would be easy for archeology to point to anything and claim a design.
Thus far you have not approached defining the term, yet you keep claiming design in various places. This makes little sense.
The evidence of the designer is the design itself.
Remember the footprint example I provided.
You see footprints in the sand, you know something made them.
R
rossum
Guest
I have defined it by using IDs own definition. It is you who do not like that definition, I am happy to use it in a discussion about ID.
Do you not see cooking as a valid example of design? If yes then my point is made. If no then you will have to supply your definition of design that excludes cooking.
So, you accept the existence of DNA as valid evidence for the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
That will not fly as science. The furthest you can get in science in that direction is “cause unknown”. That is not evidence for anything but is merely a flag for “we need to do more work in this area”.
You are also assuming what you need to prove. You assume design and deduce a designer. You have not proved design, since what you assert as design might actually be designoid, and hence not require a designer. What you need is that design detector that ID has so far failed to come up with. Until you can actually distinguish design from non-design then you will not be able to progress.
rossum
Having beaten my head against a wall concerning your ducking the definition of design, I have decided that you do have a point.
Design is defined. As you have defended it over and over, and claim to accept it, I will go with that.
And given these, there is a design to everything around us.
And since there is a design, there is a designer.
ID is proven…by the terms you accepted.
R
rossum
Guest
ID design rests on purpose. What is the purpose of a rock? What is the purpose of a gazelle? What is the purpose of a cheetah?
Not quite. ID still has to distinguish design from designoid. Behe’s IC is insufficient, as Professor Behe himself recognises. Dembski’s CSI has major problems both with the subjectivity of deciding what constitutes a valid specification and with the problem of “Apparent CSI” where information is copied from an outside source rather than generated de novo.
The second problem is a major one since is it very easy to show that evolution is a process which copies information from the environment into the genomes of populations living in that environment. Evolution has no need to generate CSI when it can merely copy it in from the environment. Showing that evolution cannot generate CSI would therefore not negate evolution since currently ID cannot distinguish between internally generated and copied CSI.
ID still has a long way to go.
rossum
- Status