Thank God for skunks

[CTuck]

I am curious as to how, with as skeptic of views as we have seen, mankind could have scientifically verified the presence of a design, or designer, of anything ever, without observing the designing process firsthand,. I would think that determining “designed or not” would take a philosophical approach at some point. What should we do with Stonehenge, cave paintings, or crop circles? I bet it would never be argued, if we had never seen birds build them, that a bird’s nest was actually something the trees did.

 

[rossum]

If they are indistinguishable to mainstream science also, the question then becomes ‘design without a designer or design with a designer’; either way supports design.

Mainstream science is able to distinguish them. Archaeology and Forensic Science both distinguish designed objects such as stone tools and murder from non-designed objects such as jagged rocks and accidents.

ID has failed so far to provide any equivalent to Archaeology. It cannot yet distinguish design from non-design.

rossum

 

[You]

Mainstream science is able to distinguish them. Archaeology and Forensic Science both distinguish designed objects such as stone tools and murder from non-designed objects such as jagged rocks and accidents.

ID has failed so far to provide any equivalent to Archaeology. It cannot yet distinguish design from non-design.

rossum

Explain again about Dawkins’ designoids.

 

[rossum]

Explain again about Dawkins’ designoids.

Dr Dawkins uses “designoid” to refer to something that looks as if it is designed but in fact isn’t. See more at digitaljournal.com/article/267362.

For example the hexagonal pillars of Giant’s Causeway may appear designed but in fact they aren’t, they are designoid.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

rossum

 

[Tonitz]

The “designoid” idea is fascinating. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the shape of the columns pictured are inherent in the material that comprises them as a function of their state upon cooling from, I would guess, basalt. It is the form the material takes under given conditions, it itself being part and inseparable from the condition.

Can we extrapolate this up and down from the state we perceive the columns to be in? I.o.w., would not every kind of form be a function of primal substance appearing as matter under given conditions due to time and space conditions?

As for it appearing suddenly, we know from systems analysis that systems change almost instantly under certain conditions. E.g., an ovum entered by a single sperm changes the surface of the ovum instantly into an impenetrable barrier for other sperm. In one moment, liquid can freeze or become gas

All of those changes are inherent within the substance based matter as it appears in combinations. And we can note that at different levels of complexity, different propertied are displayed that both include and transcend the previous. Sub atomic particles constitute atoms, but atoms do not behave like their constituents, though having potential to do so on discombobulation. Molecules have different properties from atoms according to their combination and conditions, including and transcending the properties of atoms. And so on up.

Is it so unreasonable to wonder if in some way what is inherent in matter as the substance it springs from can eventually emerge as awareness, and then self awareness, if since we believe that A) God made the Universe B) The debates between religion and science does not constitute a unified answer, or at least neither one satisfies the other, and C) Maybe we don’t know everything yet, ether in a religious nor a scientific context.

So while we can then say that God Created the Universe, we leave it to God as to how it was done or is being done, and have the humility to realize that we are both landlubbers and sailors in different capacities. See, I tend to be more of a both/and person then and either/or thinker.

 

[vz71]

Archaeology and Forensic Science both distinguish designed objects such as stone tools and murder from non-designed objects such as jagged rocks and accidents.

ID has failed so far to provide any equivalent to Archaeology. It cannot yet distinguish design from non-design.

rossum

Really?
Are you certain of the exactness you are claiming here?
How? What aspect of these gives away the design from the random?

 

[You]

Dr Dawkins uses “designoid” to refer to something that looks as if it is designed but in fact isn’t. See more at digitaljournal.com/article/267362.

For example the hexagonal pillars of Giant’s Causeway may appear designed but in fact they aren’t, they are designoid.

http://www.sibbett.net/NIGATarchive/Images/GiantsCauseway1.jpg

rossum

They are nice! What makes you think they are not designed? How does Dr. Dawkins prove that basalt was not designed?

 

[rossum]

Really?
Are you certain of the exactness you are claiming here?

I am not claiming exactness. Very little of science is exact; the great majority of science comes with error bars. Degrees of error vary. A fragment of Roman pottery will be pretty certain. A primitive stone tool may well be less certain.

How? What aspect of these gives away the design from the random?

Ask an archaeologist. I am not an archaeologist so I do not know the precise methods they use.

rossum

 

[rossum]

They are nice! What makes you think they are not designed? How does Dr. Dawkins prove that basalt was not designed?

They are crystals and we know that crystals have a regular shape. Salt crystals are cubic. Basalt crystals are hexagonal prisms. The shapes of snowflakes, another example of a designoid object, is down to the crystalline properties of water ice.

It is usually a mistake to use the word “prove” in science. As the saying goes, “Proof is for alcohol and mathematics.” Proof implies certainty and science is usually dealing with probability rather than certainty. The overwhelming balance of the evidence indicates that Giant’s Causeway arose from the natural properties of slowly crystallising basalt.

rossum

 

[You]

They are crystals and we know that crystals have a regular shape. Salt crystals are cubic. Basalt crystals are hexagonal prisms. The shapes of snowflakes, another example of a designoid object, is down to the crystalline properties of water ice.

It is usually a mistake to use the word “prove” in science. As the saying goes, “Proof is for alcohol and mathematics.” Proof implies certainty and science is usually dealing with probability rather than certainty. The overwhelming balance of the evidence indicates that Giant’s Causeway arose from the natural properties of slowly crystallising basalt.

rossum

Indeed that is how it formed. But wouldn’t the designer have designed the atomic structure of elements in the knowledge of the shapes they would produce under every condition of temperature, pressure and composition. If I can understand crystallography a bit, then the designer of crystallography would understand it totally. So, how does someone say they know the Giants Causeway was not designed; after all, the old people recognized the design element in it enough to ascribe its construction to their hero Fionn Mc Cool.

 

[rossum]

If I can understand crystallography a bit, then the designer of crystallography would understand it totally.

Crystallography is complex. Hence your proposed designer of crystallography is also complex. Please explain the origin of such a complex object as the Designer of Crystallography. Could it be that the Designer of Crystallography needs a Designer of Crystallography Designer to explain her existence?

For any proposed designer there is always the question of the origin of the designer. This is another question which ID consistently fails to answer.

So, how does someone say they know the Giants Causeway was not designed; after all, the old people recognized the design element in it enough to ascribe its construction to their hero Fionn Mc Cool.

The ascription to Fionn mac Cumhaill was incorrect, the causeway existed long before any possible dates for Fionn mac Cumhaill. Yet another example of people mistaking a designoid object for a designed object.

rossum

 

[You]

Crystallography is complex. Hence your proposed designer of crystallography is also complex. Please explain the origin of such a complex object as the Designer of Crystallography. Could it be that the Designer of Crystallography needs a Designer of Crystallography Designer to explain her existence?

For any proposed designer there is always the question of the origin of the designer. This is another question which ID consistently fails to answer.

Because we have a problem with a product which is complex; - a product will not design itself any more than a creator will create Himself.
That is why the nomenclature is different, for a complex product we need a complex creator. If the creator is a product then he has a Creator. But if there is no First Creator then there is equally no End Product. If infinity is ‘filled’ with creators there is no room for created end products.

The ascription to Fionn mac Cumhaill was incorrect, the causeway existed long before any possible dates for Fionn mac Cumhaill. Yet another example of people mistaking a designoid object for a designed object.

rossum

I see these stories as drawing the landscape and the people together. Peoples imaginations automatically snap to the unusual, such as the very strong design element of the Giants Causeway basalt.

 

[vz71]

Degrees of error vary. A fragment of Roman pottery will be pretty certain. A primitive stone tool may well be less certain.

I see.
So the less we recognize the handiwork the more certain we are that there is no design?

Seems you are falling into the same issue you have with ID.
You do not see a design, therefore ID must be wrong.

That is fine.
But there is a problem I see straight away. The meaning of the word design.

Ask an archaeologist. I am not an archaeologist so I do not know the precise methods they use.

rossum

If you are going to rely upon their work, shouldn’t you have at least a rudimentary understanding of it?
If not, then I believe you are entirely mistaken concerning the science of archeology.
They have no method to determine design.

 

[vz71]

The ascription to Fionn mac Cumhaill was incorrect, the causeway existed long before any possible dates for Fionn mac Cumhaill. Yet another example of people mistaking a designoid object for a designed object.

rossum

True enough.
What we have is science explaining how it was built.

Knowledge of the building process does not negate knowledge of the architect.

 

[wanstronian]

I really wish you stop those subtle jabs at those who have shown evidence for Intelligent Design.

Nobody has shown robust evidence for intelligent design, unless you you’re referring to humans as designers, which is not quite what IDC is all about!

There seems to be a correlation with those who take the atheist side and those who do not. That is, that those who agree with atheists are not idiots and those who do not agree are idiots. I would agree with the Creationist/Evolution side.

Which? Creationism or Evolution? You can’t agree with both, they’re mutually exclusive.

However, that last part is an absurd statement considering the overwhelming evidence for design. I am sure you will say the contrary to that though.

Bang on - there is no evidence. Just wishful thinking phrased in scientific-sounding terminology.

We should leave that for the people that actually do the studies though. In the meantime, it would be wise to cease those remarks with no reason to think so, other than Richard Dawkins and his fellow Darwinians saying that Intelligent Design just aint so based on the subjective idea of how we would put it.

The non-science of IDC has nothing to do with Richard Dawkins, and nothing to do with Darwinism. IDC is just pseudo-science, and this was realised long before Richard Dawkins said it.

It’s funny, the number of theists who think all atheists get their ideas from Richard Dawkins!

 

[rossum]

Because we have a problem with a product which is complex; - a product will not design itself any more than a creator will create Himself.

But a complex product may arise from a non-design process; it may arise from a simple non-design process. Consider the Mandelbrot Set which is extremely complex and yet arises from a very simple equation.

That is why the nomenclature is different, for a complex product we need a complex creator.

You are assuming that which you need to prove. A complex product may have a design or a non-design origin. We can only assert that the design origin requires a complex creator/designer. A non-design origin may not require complexity and certainly does not require a designer. You have not shown that the product has a design origin.

If the creator is a product then he has a Creator.

Or he/she/it/they have a non-design origin. What is your evidence that all products must have a design origin.

But if there is no First Creator then there is equally no End Product. If infinity is ‘filled’ with creators there is no room for created end products.

I am end product of my parents. I am the creator of this post. Why cannot something simultaneously be a product and a creator?

I see these stories as drawing the landscape and the people together. Peoples imaginations automatically snap to the unusual, such as the very strong design element of the Giants Causeway basalt.

But peoples’ imaginations are not scientifically reliable indicators of design. You have still failed to show how ID goes beyond “It sure looks designed to me”.

rossum

 

[rossum]

So the less we recognize the handiwork the more certain we are that there is no design?

No. The less we recognize the handiwork the less sure we are that there is design. We also know that there are non-design explanations for jagged rocks. We have a known alternative to design; not all old jagged rocks are manufactured by humans.

Seems you are falling into the same issue you have with ID.
You do not see a design, therefore ID must be wrong.

ID cannot be wrong since ID is unable to articulate something that could not have been designed. In this respect ID is similar to last Thursdayism. Since it cannot be wrong then ID is not currently scientific. If “the designer did it” answers all questions then the answer is scientifically useless.

If you are going to rely upon their work, shouldn’t you have at least a rudimentary understanding of it?

I do have a very rudimentary understanding, however I do not have a full understanding. I cannot be expert in everything. At some point you have to trust the experts. You rely on your computer to post. Do you have a full understanding of the design and construction and programming of a computer from raw materials?

If not, then I believe you are entirely mistaken concerning the science of archeology.
They have no method to determine design.

What you believe is irrelevant in this case. Archaeologists are trained to be able to recognise designed objects and to be able to distinguish them from non-designed objects.

True enough.
What we have is science explaining how it was built.

Knowledge of the building process does not negate knowledge of the architect.

Such an architect is well outside the ambit of science. It is a very ancient God of the Gaps. The further science reaches back before the Big Bang the further back your ‘architect’ will have to go.

rossum

 

[You]

But a complex product may arise from a non-design process; it may arise from a simple non-design process. Consider the Mandelbrot Set which is extremely complex and yet arises from a very simple equation.

The equation is designed by very complex creatures.

You are assuming that which you need to prove. A complex product may have a design or a non-design origin. We can only assert that the design origin requires a complex creator/designer. A non-design origin may not require complexity and certainly does not require a designer. You have not shown that the product has a design origin.

A product has an origin, I feel an origin which logically cannot produce a product is simpler than the product and will never produce the product. An origin which logically can produce the complex product is therefore equally complex with the added complication of also needing an explanation to account for its complexity and its ability to produce a product in the first place.

Or he/she/it/they have a non-design origin. What is your evidence that all products must have a design origin.

How does design arise if design is not possible in the origin.

I am end product of my parents. I am the creator of this post. Why cannot something simultaneously be a product and a creator?

Because then you would be saying that the Giants Causeway basalt designed itself. That its origin was if fact design, because it created its design.
If the basalt was a creator then it designed itself - you are arguing against design in the basalt. If the basalt created itself it is not then a designoid - something which only appears to be designed.

But peoples’ imaginations are not scientifically reliable indicators of design. You have still failed to show how ID goes beyond “It sure looks designed to me”.

rossum

The only indicator we have in the universe for detecting design is human imagination and human minds. If we cannot trust what we can see we may as well give up now.

 

[rossum]

The equation is designed by very complex creatures.

The equation is derived from the axioms of the complex (mathematical meaning) number system and the rules of logic. Neither are particularly complex (information theory meaning).

A product has an origin, I feel an origin which logically cannot produce a product is simpler than the product and will never produce the product.

Your feeling does not provide a basis for a scientific theory. Perhaps a slightly different definition of ‘designoid’ could be “a complex system produced from a simpler precursor”. You are such a system. You were once a single celled zygote yet now you are a billion celled macroscopic organism. Is your brain complex? That simple zygote had no brain yet it produced you. The zygote was simpler that you are now.

How does design arise if design is not possible in the origin.

I am not claiming design. I am claiming “either design or designoid”. I am looking to ID to provide a way to distinguish between the two and I am seeing nothing. Science provides a number of ways for a simpler system to produce a more complex designoid product.

Because then you would be saying that the Giants Causeway basalt designed itself.

I see no design in Giant’s Causeway. I see designoid, and I have no problem with designoid not being designed.

The only indicator we have in the universe for detecting design is human imagination and human minds. If we cannot trust what we can see we may as well give up now.

We indeed cannot trust what we see. Can you see an atom? Science is a methodology that allows us to overcome the limits of what we see and to look behind the curtain. We see the Sun rise in the East and set in the West. Science tells us that this is an effect of the rotation of the Earth. Do you believe what you see or what science tells you? Does the Earth rotate?

rossum

 

[Defender1]

If you want to debate this further I will be glad too . Shall I provide you with quotes from scientist like Einstein that believed in an intelligent designer?How about Scientists today that do not share the atheist view ? Lets talk about the inadequate points of evolution .Lets talk about the human eye which screams “intelligent design” All the scientist in the world cannot form a human eye . Lets talk about the human soul . Lets talk on the first cause . Lets talk on the subject of American father quotes . Many atheists love to deny that this county was founded on Christian morals by quoting founding fathers . I have just as many if not more founding father quotes with references .I have quotes from Jefferson,Washington,John and Quincy Adams . John Handcock and Ben Franklin and more .I spent a few hours today taking notes on Pagan historians confirming Christs existence on earth such as Pliny the younger, Thallus and more . I have a notebook of notes I took to argue against your cases . Bring all your arguments on . I encounter atheists every day on youtube. They get frustrated and leave . Your welcome to come and go further with this I look forward to this .