You provide a big list of things that you claim support Intelligent Design. Conspicuous by its absence within that list, is evidence.
The equation was designed. It is complex because it is designed.
The argument is that the system, on whatever scale you wish to view it produces design on the larger scale. The problem is understanding why there is design at all, or as you may put it ‘an appearance of design’.
No it doesn’t, it is simply describing design on a smaller scale, hoping that no-one will notice.
You see, you do see design, you don’t want to see design.
I have in fact seen either gold atoms or copper atoms. It was a computer generated image from a scanning tunneling microscope . There is no machine which can log an instance of design that has not had to be designed by people to do so. Humans are the original and only receptors of design in nature. Take a look at the impressed and incised patterns in ancient terracotta vessels and you may see design both inspired directly from design in nature and also pure inspiration springing from the human aptitude for and appreciation of design.
Back to another of my questions earlier in the thread.
The evidence of design is all around us.
The equation is less complex that the set which it generates. My example was not about design but about generating increased complexity from a less complex origin.
Then you have a problem. To go back to Paley’s ‘Watch on a heath’, you are unable to distinguish the watch because the watch is designed, the plants on the heath are designed, the sky is designed. Everything is designed so your design detector lights up green whatever you point it at. You have reduced ‘design’ to a synonym of ‘exists’ and so design becomes redundant because it is universal.
I have no problem seeing design. I have shown some designiod rocks. Here is a designed rock:
You have seen an image on a computer screen. You have not seen an atom.
I have no problem with human design. We see many examples every day. ID is asserting design by an unevidenced non-human entity. It is asserting design where it has no objective method of detecting design. Its assertions are so general that they become meaningless; design becomes a universal attribute. ID’s assertions are unfalsifiable; it has failed to show something that could not have been designed.
There is some evidence of design among other apes and a few birds. What other creatures are you proposing?
I do not use that argument. I prefer “not made by any evidenced entity”. There is no independent evidence of the existence of ID’s proposed designer. There is not evidence for what it can, and can not, do. There is no evidence of when it acted. There is no evidence of any mechanism it used to move pieces of DNA around.
Sorry, but in the interests of objectivity and intellectual honesty, I’m going to need a little more than you just arbitrarily declaring x, y and z as “design.”
Why would I need to do that? I’m not the one making a positive claim. It may well be that we’re all the product of design. But without any evidence to support such a hypothesis, there’s no reason to assume that it’s true. One might as well just arbitrarily believe in IFT.
The increased complexity is inherent in the equation. It is not less complex than its origin, its origin includes all possible complexities.
No, design becomes universal, not redundant. If only a few things in existence were actually designed they would become impossible, as they are made of the same substance as everything.
Nice rock. Who designed the quarks.
I have seen an image of an atom, so I am told.
If something is even designoid it is tipping its hat to the reality of design in nature. It appears to you to have design because design is an attribute of its origin.
You don’t use that argument…?
Well, I was just wondering if you were confident enough in your claims to face the reality of what exactly design is.
You have a gift for understatement.
I propose a property called “forglemunz”. I design a forglemunz detector, which consists of a button and a green light. When the button is pressed the green light lights up. When I point the detector at anything and I press the button, if the green light illuminates then I have detected forglemunz. How is my forglemunz different from your design? How is my forglemunz useful? Forglemunz is a universal property, everything has it.
So, please indicate the evidence you have for the design of the quark. What designed it? When it was designed? How was the design implemented? What forces were used to manipulate mass-energy? All the usual nitty gritty scientific detail that ID lacks. Until it has done all the hard work ID is not science. Science is hard work, it is not like philosophy. So far all ID has is some philosophy/theology and a lot of politics. It has hardly any science and appears not to be doing any new work. The ID Journal PCID was meant to be quarterly and hasn’t published since 2005. That is not science, it is laziness.
You tell me, I already asked that question. I am only claiming design for the rock, not for the quarks.
Our sense of design can be mistaken. ID desperately needs a working design detector. So far all its attempts have failed, or have turned out to be very much like my forglemunz detector.
To which claim do you refer? The one where I point out the lack of objective evidence for ID? Yes, I’m totally confident about that. I have yet to see any evidence. All I’ve seen from you is bare assertion and ropey logic, leading you to conclude that Intelligent Design is true because you personally believe you can see design in nature. As I said before, your personal conviction is irrelevant to everybody except you.
Here is a fuller copy of what I said:
We can see jagged rocks being made by a torrent; the water bangs rocks together and pieces chip off. Are you claiming that a lot of rushing water is a designer? I am saying that we have an alternative non-design explanation and we have no evidence of a designer. Following the presence of evidence on one side and the absence of evidence on the other I know which decision I would make.
This reminds me of a maths movie, unfortunately the poor old guy was mad. His reply would sound like this;
Unnecessary to test for the presence of that which exists. You see design, you design a machine to see design, you see design.
The quark exists. The form of its existence allows design to be seen, or as you may put it something which looks designed.
To design is human, design is Divine.
Richard Dawkins is widely respected among his peers.
But in any case, how can you claim no evidence for that which you have not defined?
“I have my answer” refers to the willingness you have demonstrated to put the theory to the test knowing it may lose.
He does have the virtue of not utilizing ad hominem to argue a point.
Perhaps that is where we diverge on our views.
The definition being the ability to move it all??