|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is a Concept of a Designer unscientific? | |||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Hmm, considering that this topic is entitled "Is a Concept of a Designer unscientific?", perhaps it is not so shocking that we would be discussing issues using "the scientific mindset"?
quote: It was a direct statement to be sure. It was also true. However the OP was not stated in tentative terms, especially. Not everyone who is a newbie here is a newbie to the debate.
quote: I think the responses have been, by and large, perfectly fine and appropriate for a debate forum such as this. Could they have been gentler? Perhaps. I don't think they were out of line, however.
quote: This is nonsensical, really. If a Designer/god was responsible for the nature of the universe, it dosn't mean it is observable, testable, nor falsifiable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
...and depending upon the lighting angle, it doesn't even look designed: that's the best you could do?
like most arguments of design, it is not only unprovable, but you have to squint your eyes a little to even see it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
This is only you first post and you've already been insulted by "betraying a staggering ignorance of scientific method" How rude and unwelcoming! If someone had serious misconceptions about the prosecution of the scientific method, what would you call it but ignorance? You seem to think that's a dirty word. I disagree. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, I may be ignorant, but you're ugly. But I can always study.
For someone who has made an average of 10 posts a day for 17 months (yes over 6000) I would expect a little more consideration for a newbie. When folks roll in and ask honest questions, I'm invariably polite, to such an extent that people wonder what the fuck is wrong with me. But when folks roll in and act like the know everything, when it's obvious they don't, then I don't feel particularly inclined to cut them a lot of slack. She knew the risks of acting like a know-it-all; namely, that people who do know way more than you won't take kindly to it. This message has been edited by crashfrog, 10-05-2004 04:10 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
agnostic Inactive Member |
quote: You are quite right, let me make another point... Currently there is not, and there never will be a scientific test to conclude with 100% certainty that our universe was not designed. Therefore, the concept of a designer is highly unscientific - i.e. completely magical. (I don't beleive in magic because defies the laws of physics)
|
|||||||||||||||||||
agnostic Inactive Member |
Crashfrog,
I clearly jumped to the wrong conclusions by viewing only 1 of your replies. apologies for the unjustified criticism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: True, but meaningless for several reasons; 1) There is not and never will be a scientific test that will allow us to conclude anything with 100% certainty. 2) You cannot ever prove a negative.
quote: Well, the concept of a designer could be quite scientific as long as the designer isn't supernatural. It is also true that one could scientifically test any supernatural claim for effects in the natural world. What we understand as "magic" might just be superior beings with very advanced technology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
tsig Member (Idle past 2939 days) Posts: 738 From: USA Joined: |
just like I cannot lay my hands on the designer of a car, by examining it. Why of course you can find out the designer of a car. Determine the make, model and year, then find out who were the corporate engineers on the project. You'll find that no one individual designed it de novo, but that they used previous designs and improved upon them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Kelly. J. Wilson writes: If evidence is interpreted as showing design in living organisms, then is it truly unscientific to conclude that there was a Designer? Big key word here is the initial "IF" ... for certainly evidence can be interpreted to meet a number of different ideologies. The question is how does the evidence really match the interpretation, how valid is the interpretation. Take a kaleidoscope: looking in one end you see a pretty pattern that shows clear design elements of symmetry and structure, a pattern that would obviously be designed if it were a stained glass window. Look in the other end and you see a purely random jumble of colored beads with no structure or symmetry. Look inside and you see that the apparent symmetry and structure come from the mechanism that was used to observe the beads, the angle and placement of the mirrors. Thus to infer a designer you need to eliminate every other possibility through a thorough scientific process, including evaluation of things NOT known yet. To leave any one science out of the mix, to leave any one avenue of scientific inquiry out of the mix is to only look through one end of the kaleidoscope. ps - welcome to the fray. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1510 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
I don't think that a concept can be considered
unscientific at all. The concept of a designer is not unscientific(any more than it is scientific) ... it is simply a concept. Concepts may or may not lend themselves to scientificenquiry. The concept of a designer is one that, at present,cannot be investigated scientifically because we have no framework for such an investigation. We cannot even identify design in known designed objects without looking up the design team, so how can we investigate design in nature? |
|||||||||||||||||||
Itachi Uchiha Member (Idle past 5646 days) Posts: 272 From: mayaguez, Puerto RIco Joined: |
Kelly J. Wilson writes: I leave you with the following question: If evidence is interpreted as showing design in living organisms, then is it truly unscientific to conclude that there was a Designer? This one still has me scratching the back of my head. I'm eating a sandwhich right now and I look at it and it gives me evidence of a cook or baker that made it. So I guess it would be unscientific to say there was a baker who made it. Can someone please explain this better to me? I simply dont understand. I believe in intelligent design because I sort of see a program running everything. In civil engineering (my area of work) programming is an essential part of our work in these modern times. Thanks to programs we can now design structures higways and water resource systems quicker and more efficiently. Whem you make a program(it doent matter what language) you have to define variables, equations and procedures for it to work porperly. My piont is that if there is no program that says that two hydrogen atoms combine with one oxygen atom to form water, what then makes them react. In pseudocode it would be something like:SUB (formation of water) c = hydrogen atom d = oxygen atom x = atom of another element If c ^ d (water combines with hydrogen) Then c ^ d = water If c ^ x Then Exit If d ^ x Then exit END SUB In this program only water is analyzed if c or d reacts with x then it would be another substance. I believe the elements are programed to combine or react with some elements or not react with others. If they aren,t programmed why then do they act the way they do. Ponlo todo en las manos de Dios y que se joda el mundo. El principio de la sabiduria es el temor a Jehova
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1510 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: The problem is that the sandwich doesn't provide evidence ofa cook or baker at all. Previous experience with sandwiches suggests that they are made by a sandwich maker of some description, but there is nothing inherent in the sandwich to confirm or deny that any particular instance of a sandwich was, in fact, made rather than just popped full-formed into existence on the kitchen work-top. An examination of the sandwich edge MAY disclose the use ofan implement implying that cuts were made to the bread (and filling possibly), there may be marks in the butter/sandwich spread that fit the pattern of a knife in the kitchen sink or drawer and thus be suggestive of an implement having been used. We may be able to find evidence of food remaining in the fridgethat has a quantity missing consistent with the quantity of same material within the sandwich. These evidences may combine to lead us to the conclusion thatthe sandwich was, indeed, made by a sandwich maker. The sandwich itself is not evidence of a sandwich maker, however.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024