Thank God for skunks

[rossum]

Perhaps that is where we diverge on our views.
My ID tells me that everything was designed. God did it all.
The tools he used may or may not be within our science to fathom, but God still did it.

That is fine, but unfortunately for ID it completely negates the political purpose of ID. Your approach is perfectly valid, but it puts ID squarely in the realm of philosophy or theology. ID has a political purpose, to get itself taught in science classes. It is not interested in theology or philosophy classes. Your form of ID is not suitable for a science class because it is not science.

There would be no point in a detector, assuming one was capable of being made, it would stay in a continual state of on. Unless we also were capable of removing it from creation and running it by itself.

Have a look at Proposal for a Theistic Design Detector. That expresses just how scientifically useless the concept of universal design is.

Is ID a back door to creationism?
Not in my view. As I have stated before, ID does not alter the processes at all. It simply proposes an alternative motivation behind it all.

Political ID most certainly is such a back door. You should read the Wedge Strategy, which is fundamental to understanding the political aims of ID.

rossum

 

[CTuck]

Rossum, what is the definition of science? What is design and is it detected scientifically? If yes, then how?

Also, we should all admit the political agenda of those he keeps bringing up so that it doesn’t have to come up further, seeing as it is irrelevant. I think it comes up because of the use of a common term. The concepts of intelligent design and evolution go back farther than any modern political movement anyway. St. Augustine, and more explicitly St. Thomas Aquinas, both were great defenders of science and natural philosophy, seeing the wisdom of their Greek and Roman predecessors. They saw no reason why faith and science would contradict, and were actually proponents of evolutionary theory, as we all know.

 

[rossum]

Rossum, what is the definition of science?

Science is a methodology for systematically discovering regularities in the material world.

What is design and is it detected scientifically? If yes, then how?

Design is detected by archaeology and Forensic science, to give the two obvious examples.

Detection is done by evaluating what is possible for the designer, what is not possible for the designer, what is possible from non-designer causes and what is not possible from non-designer causes. Working those four together will give some sort of probability of design. For example, an aluminium cylinder block cannot have been designed by palaeolithic man because palaeolithic man did not have the technology required to design and make an aluminium cylinder block.

One aspect that ID misses is that it has not specified the powers of its proposed designer and so it is unable to state what the designer could not have done. That severely limits its power when compared to archaeology for example.

rossum

 

[vz71]

. Your form of ID is not suitable for a science class because it is not science.

Except for one critical point…
It provides a working theory for holes our science does not have adequate answers for. Forum rules forbid going through evolution theory, suffice to say there are a number of holes that ID fills quite well.
Likewise physics.
etc.

Is it really so unscientific to say of an unknown that something beyond what we know did this using processes we do not yet understand?

Sure it sounds theological. But it is really a quite scientific stance.
We know what we know, and we recognize what we do not.

 

[vz71]

Design is detected by archaeology and Forensic science, to give the two obvious examples.

I think we are after a definition.
I am having difficulty understanding why those opposed to ID find it so difficult to lay down a hard definition for design.

Detection is done by evaluating what is possible for the designer, what is not possible for the designer, what is possible from non-designer causes and what is not possible from non-designer causes. Working those four together will give some sort of probability of design. For example, an aluminium cylinder block cannot have been designed by palaeolithic man because palaeolithic man did not have the technology required to design and make an aluminium cylinder block.

One thing though, you failed to determine if the cylinder was designed or not.
You successfully showed why a specific group could not have designed it, but you have not shown that it was not designed.

One aspect that ID misses is that it has not specified the powers of its proposed designer and so it is unable to state what the designer could not have done. That severely limits its power when compared to archaeology for example.

It simply limits what a designer could not have done to what we know we can do.

Were I to find an aluminium cylinder in an archeological dig, I would assume it was designed by modern man and dumped there.
Were we to find the same on Mars for example, then we would have to concede an unknown designer did it.

 

[rossum]

I think we are after a definition.
I am having difficulty understanding why those opposed to ID find it so difficult to lay down a hard definition for design.

How about “Manufactured by an evidenced intelligent entity”?

One thing though, you failed to determine if the cylinder was designed or not.
You successfully showed why a specific group could not have designed it, but you have not shown that it was not designed.

I used an aluminium cylinder block as an example of something that could not have been designed by a specific group of designers. One of the problems with ID is that they cannot provide such an example for their proposed designer since they refuse to either specify or to investigate the powers of their designer. They have yet to show that their designer has the power required to change even a single base pair of DNA. We already know that evolution can change DNA so on that front ID is behind.

It simply limits what a designer could not have done to what we know we can do.

That is not unreasonable. What scientific experiments has ID performed to show that their designer can alter DNA? Biologists routinely perform experiments that show how evolution is capable of altering DNA; why canot ID do the same?

Were I to find an aluminium cylinder in an archeological dig, I would assume it was designed by modern man and dumped there.

Agreed. So would anybody.

Were we to find the same on Mars for example, then we would have to concede an unknown designer did it.

Or that some other Mars expedition had got there before us. Or that some aliens had made a mistake and abducted it from Earth and then dumped it when they realised their mistake. In both these cases the designers are human, it just took an unusual route to get from Earth to Mars.

Remember also that the default position in science is “We don’t know”. If evolution is proven wrong overnight then the scientific position reverts to “We don’t know”. At that point scientists will expect ID to present enough evidence to move science away from “We don’t know” to “It was ID”. Currently ID lacks sufficient evidence to do that. In scientific terms it is always a false dichotomy to say it must be one of two alternatives. There is always the third alternative of “We don’t know”.

rossum

 

[vz71]

How about “Manufactured by an evidenced intelligent entity”?

Sorry.
That definition fails.

Consider for a moment if we were to find a craft similar in construction to our space shuttle in orbit around Europa.
The craft has writing on it that is not recognized as a language from earth, yet we can also recognize engines, windows, and landing gear…
The definition you have provided would exclude such an obvious design for lack of evidence of the people that built it.

 

[vz71]

We already know that evolution can change DNA so on that front ID is behind.

As can UV radiation…I am uncertain that proves anything.
Whenever two of a given species mate, the product will have different DNA from the parents. Of course, they are still the same species.

ID fills in the gap between species rather nicely.

 

[vz71]

Or that some other Mars expedition had got there before us. Or that some aliens had made a mistake and abducted it from Earth and then dumped it when they realised their mistake. In both these cases the designers are human, it just took an unusual route to get from Earth to Mars.

Remember also that the default position in science is “We don’t know”.

I agree, default is ‘we do not know’
Yet it would seem the ID in this case is making fewer assumptions then you.

ID simply looks at the cylinder and says something designed it.
You are stuck trying to tie this thing to humans.

Could this be because your thus far unmentioned definition of design is tied to human hands?

 

[rossum]

Sorry.
That definition fails.

Consider for a moment if we were to find a craft similar in construction to our space shuttle in orbit around Europa.
The craft has writing on it that is not recognized as a language from earth, yet we can also recognize engines, windows, and landing gear…
The definition you have provided would exclude such an obvious design for lack of evidence of the people that built it.

We have two possible answers: 1 it was a spoof built by humans. 2 it was built by some otherwise unknown aliens. How are you going to pick between 1 and 2?

As can UV radiation…I am uncertain that proves anything.

It shows that so far there is more evidence for UV radiation changing DNA than there is for the ID designer changing DNA. ID claims that their designer can change DNA but have provided no evidence that he/she/it/they is actually capable of doing so.

Whenever two of a given species mate, the product will have different DNA from the parents. Of course, they are still the same species.

ID fills in the gap between species rather nicely.

We have observed examples of speciation both in the lab and in the wild. In none of these cases is there any evidence of an otherwise unknown designer. Remember that even AiG now accepts that species can evolve - they need it to be able to fit all modern species into the Ark.

I agree, default is ‘we do not know’
Yet it would seem the ID in this case is making fewer assumptions then you.

The problem is that ID is all assumptions and no evidence. There are not as many assumptions in evolution as creationist websites like to mislead you into believing.

ID simply looks at the cylinder and says something designed it.

Which is precisely its problem. “It sure looks designed to me.” It has no scientifically objective way to detect design, despite many years of looking.

You are stuck trying to tie this thing to humans.

I have already said that we have examples of design from other apes and from some birds.

rossum

 

[vz71]

We have two possible answers: 1 it was a spoof built by humans. 2 it was built by some otherwise unknown aliens. How are you going to pick between 1 and 2?

I’m not.
And ID does not require it.

I have already said that we have examples of design from other apes and from some birds.

And yet every single example in this thread has been answered with some explanation tying design directly to man.
In some instances, the explanations are especially strained (IE Aliens took it there.)

I find it interesting that the ID side is called unscientific, but the ID side is not the one grasping for answers with space aliens.

I am still waiting for the definition of design.

 

[rossum]

I’m not.
And ID does not require it.

Thank you for reminding me of yet another reason why ID is not science. An almost complete lack of curiosity.

And yet every single example in this thread has been answered with some explanation tying design directly to man.

The most obvious examples involve man. There are a few with apes. Here is one with birds: Tool Making Crow.

I find it interesting that the ID side is called unscientific, but the ID side is not the one grasping for answers with space aliens.

I have already mentioned that Dembski allows space aliens as possible designers. ID is looking at space aliens in an attempt to distance itself from religious creationism.

I am still waiting for the definition of design.

Try this one:A four-part process by which a designer forms a designed object:

1. *]A designer conceives a purpose or goal.
   *]To accomplish that purpose, the designer forms a plan.
   *]To execute the plan, the designer specifies building materials and assembly instructions.
   *]The designer or some surrogate applies the assembly instructions to the building materials.
   
   What emerges is a designed object, and the designer is successful to the degree that the object fulfills the designer’s purpose.
   
   rossum

 

[vz71]

Try this one:

A four-part process by which a designer forms a designed object:

1. 
   *]A designer conceives a purpose or goal.
   *]To accomplish that purpose, the designer forms a plan.
   *]To execute the plan, the designer specifies building materials and assembly instructions.
   *]The designer or some surrogate applies the assembly instructions to the building materials.
   
   What emerges is a designed object, and the designer is successful to the degree that the object fulfills the designer’s purpose.
   rossum

1. 
   OK, then we simply have to lok around at and discover the purpose in each object.
   
   Of course, does that mean there is no design if we cannot comprehend the purpose?
   A light switch definitely has design, but if it lights a room miles away, we may never perceive the purpose.

 

[Tonitz]

Geeze, I guess the, or at least this, supporter(s) of ID argue vehemently for lack of logic, pertinent data, and imagination.

 

[vz71]

I have already mentioned that Dembski allows space aliens as possible designers. ID is looking at space aliens in an attempt to distance itself from religious creationism.

That is where the unscience like lack of curiosity you mentioned comes in handy.

You are free to insert whatever designer you wish. Aliens, crows, monkeys, or us.

Eventually you may prove right. Then you can move on to the next mystery.

 

[Defender1]

Scientific research in recent years has shown a first cause (Big Bang ) This had to happen by an intelligent designer .Not only that but the Big bang had perfect bit of force .Any slower or faster and the earth would not be the way it is today .The whole big bang would have created a mess . The Human eye has a meaningful purpose and function . An intelligent designer is the only reasonable solution . Look at the watch .It has a perfect function .To tell time is its purpose . An intelligent designer made it . Look at the eye . Every little part of it is important and works hard to produce one function which is to see . Einstein , Frick and Newton all believed in an intelligent designer .I would like you to read my atheist blog.
www.defendingthefaith-frankie.blogspot.com. I plan to add more blogs arguing atheism soon.

 

[CTuck]

Geeze, I guess the, or at least this, supporter(s) of ID argue vehemently for lack of logic, pertinent data, and imagination.

Imagination, that is something to argue for.

It’s a wonder how philosophy has lost it’s credibility to discover truth, yet scientism is the exception.

 

[rossum]

OK, then we simply have to lok around at and discover the purpose in each object.

Not so easily done. It is quite obvious that the purpose of humans is to manufacture and open tins of catfood. Bow down and worship our feline overlords!

You are looking for a single purpose when objects may have multiple purposes. Gazelles have a purpose to make more gazelles. They also have a purpose to provide fresh food for cheetahs. Which purpose is the correct one? Or are both correct? Is neither correct? You are opening a very large can of worms here.

Of course, Cheetahs are a form of cat so that was probably a bad example. Gazelles are obviously just another form of catfood. Praise to our magnificent feline overlords! Hail the mighty Tiddles!

rossum

 

[vz71]

OK, then we simply have to lok around at and discover the purpose in each object.
rossum;7541291:

Not so easily done. It is quite obvious that the purpose of humans is to manufacture and open tins of catfood. Bow down and worship our feline overlords!

You are looking for a single purpose when objects may have multiple purposes. Gazelles have a purpose to make more gazelles. They also have a purpose to provide fresh food for cheetahs. Which purpose is the correct one? Or are both correct? Is neither correct? You are opening a very large can of worms here.

Of course, Cheetahs are a form of cat so that was probably a bad example. Gazelles are obviously just another form of catfood. Praise to our magnificent feline overlords! Hail the mighty Tiddles!

rossum

I see this so many times on the forum. It is disappointing.
Sarcasm and irreverence are the order of the day when an argument is effectively losing.

All that aside, you have not answered the rest of the post.

You did tie purpose into design, so does that mean there is no design if we cannot comprehend the purpose?
A light switch definitely has design, but if it lights a room miles away, we may never perceive the purpose.

 

[rossum]

You did tie purpose into design, so does that mean there is no design if we cannot comprehend the purpose?

The purpose of my post was to show that purpose is so nebulous as to be useless. I can easily think of ten different uses for a rock. There are no doubt more. How do we determine which of the many different uses for a rock are the designer’s purpose for the rock and which other uses just happened? More specifically how do we determine the correct purpose without knowing anything at all about the motives of the designer, since ID refuses to characterise the designer.

A light switch definitely has design, but if it lights a room miles away, we may never perceive the purpose.

What is the purpose of a rock? Which of its many possible uses is the actual purpose intended by its designer? What is the purpose of a gazelle? Is it to stop the African savannah becoming overgrown with grass? Are cheetah’s made by a different designer whose purpose is to spread grass everywhere and so designed carnivores to kill grass-eating herbivores?

You have not answered many questions by opening up discussion on ‘purpose’. Earlier you criticised me for using only human examples of design. Now you are only using a human example of purpose. What is the purpose of a rock? What is the purpose of a gazelle? What is the purpose of a cheetah? What are the motives of the designer/s of these three items?

rossum