Intelligent design and Dawkins' designoid

An intelligent design is exactly the same object as a Dawkinian designoid.For example, to notice a fish's eye we must apply a design template so that we can see or construe what we see as an eye. But whether that template comes from God (intelligent design) or Man (design appearance or designoid), matters not, for the fact that a template or design is involved at all is all that both parties ever argued for.Sadly, this meeting of minds between Dawkins and the creationists is roundly ignored by both parties. Both parties insist that the fish's eye identifies and manifests itself as an eye. On this reading, the creationists regard the fish's eye as a design itself, and the Dawkinians regard it as a random structure.Here, both are wrong because:1) The creationists are wrong because they cannot assert that the fish's eye is itself a design - we do not have a faculty of being able to see how something is in itself. I would also make the observation that Dawkins can only "suggest" the creationists are wrong, hinting that the eye is, instead, a random structure.2) Dawkins is wrong because he needs a design template to identify a fish's eye. This makes a designoid more than mere empty appearance - the designoid's "apparant" design is used to identify a real, particular, random structure.So, would it not be easier for them both to agree on the reality of design, and both to be right on the matter, in the way I suggested?Edited by John Jones, : grammarEdited by John Jones, : additionEdited by John Jones, : commaEdited by John Jones, : No reason given.

In an earlier thread proposal (The common belief of creationists and evolutionists) I asked you to put things in terms other people could understand. For example, I asked you if you could find another way to say that something "identifies itself." I see that you performed some edits, but it still isn't possible to understand what you're saying, and this thread proposal is also very difficult to understand, and in fact you're using some of the same terms.Rather than again asking you to put things in terms that others can more easily understand, this time I'll ask if you're presenting ideas you've seen described elsewhere. If so, could you supply some references? It might help me understand what you're trying to say.

"identifiy" is used in the normal way. For example, we are asked by the police to "identify" an assailant from a selection of suspects. Similarly, Dawkins must "identify" a fish's eye from a selection of random structures.
I'm not aware of any other discussions along these lines, though I think there must be some somewhere. Here's the edit:An intelligent design is exactly the same object as a Dawkinian designoid.For example, to notice a fish's eye we must apply a design template so that we can see or construe what we see as an eye. But whether that template comes from God (intelligent design) or Man (design appearance or designoid), matters not, for the fact that a template or design is involved at all is all that both parties ever argued for.Sadly, this meeting of minds between Dawkins and the creationists is roundly ignored by both parties. Both parties insist that the fish's eye is a fish's eye, whether or not anyone or any thing recognises or identifies it as one. On this reading, the creationists regard the fish's eye as a design in and of itself, while the Dawkinians regard it as a random structure in and of itself.Here, both are wrong because:1) The creationists are wrong because they cannot assert that the fish's eye is itself a design - we do not have a faculty of being able to see how something actually is, in itself. I would also make the observation that Dawkins can only "suggest" to the creationists that they are wrong, hinting that the eye is, instead, a random structure. But again, we have no faculty of reconising that something is, in itself a random structure.2) Dawkins is wrong about the lack of design in nature. He needs a design template or designoid that can help him distinguish or identify a fish's eye from a selection of random structures. Without the designoid of a fish's eye he cannot identify anything as a fish's eye. This makes a designoid more than mere empty appearance. Application of the design template or designoid is the only way in which a random structure can be distinguished or identified as a fish's eye.So, would it not be easier for them both to agree on the reality of design, and both to be right on the matter, in the way I suggested?

Hi John Jones,I see you've modified the places where you said that something would "identify itself." The proposal is easier to understand now, so I have several questions/comments:

1. Could you clarify what you mean by this:
   ​
   Both parties insist that the fish's eye is a fish's eye, whether or not anyone or any thing recognises or identifies it as one.
   ​
2. About this:
   ​
   1) The creationists are wrong because they cannot assert that the fish's eye is itself a design - we do not have a faculty of being able to see how something actually is, in itself.
   ​
   What is the result of study and analysis then? What you're saying seems equivalent to a claim that we can never know how anything actually is, but what I think you really mean is that we can never know everything about anything, which I think few would argue with. But you can't turn this on its head and use it as a basis for claiming that we can't know anything about anything.
   ​
3. About this:
   ​
   2) Dawkins is wrong about the lack of design in nature. He needs a design template or designoid that can help him distinguish or identify a fish's eye from a selection of random structures.
   ​
   Could you provide a definition of "designoid"? I don't believe Dawkins defines it as a template.
   ​
   Also, I don't believe Dawkins has ever referred to the eye as "a random structure."

Could you please try another revision that addresses these issues?I see you've also posted this over at your blog: Maybe you want to discuss it there through the comments section instead of trying to get through the thread proposal process here.

"Both parties insist that the fish's eye is a fish's eye, whether or not anyone or any thing recognises or identifies it as one."Dawkins cannot claim that a fish's eye is a random structure because there are no structures in randomness. If he claims to see a particular thing or structure in randomness then he can only claim that what he sees is an actual fish's eye. Similarly, the creationists claim to see an actual fish's eye. A fish's eye is a design template.They then go on to say where this design template comes from. But it does not matter where it comes from because, essentially, both parties agree that the object we call a fish's eye's is a design. This is their common mistake."1) The creationists are wrong because they cannot assert that the fish's eye is itself a design - we do not have a faculty of being able to see how something actually is, in itself."Yes, now we are getting into the nitty gritty. The argument you presented (transcendental realism) for our inability to see objects as they really are, is a view held by most philosophers (Strawson et al) who misinterpreted or argued against Kant.But there is an alternative (transcendental idealism, see Henry Allison on Kant). Objects may or may not exist of course. But in the first instance, all objects need to be identified as objects. For example, a TV may or may not exist. But it can't exist unless it's limits are first created or identified. We, not hidden matter, set those limits. Otherwise, the TV would be indistinguishable from the carpet it stands on. So we know as much as we need to know about objects as it is we who identify, construct or form them.A designoid is an identifying condition. By applying the identifying condition of a designoid we see a TV, or a bouquet, or fish's eye. A designoid is a design template, framework, or identifying condition of some sort that allows us, creationists, and Dawkins, to pick out the physical limits of a random or randomly produced structure as a a fish's eye.My argument was that the designoid, however formulated, and the creationists' fish's eye, are all design templates or identifying conditions. This is all that both parties needed to say, and in saying it, they would find a semblance of agreement that design is real. The creationist's could argue that God's design was to place the design or designoid in the world, and Dawkins could argue that the the designoid is real in that it allows him to see construct or identify particular objects.Yes, the Blog's there, I'm OK with that. You see, I did Kant and university, and though he is associated with fuddyduddyness, that is a construal by the old Kantians. What he wrote was quite revolutionary and misinteroreted.

You'll need to document where Dawkins claims that a fish eye (or any eye) is a random structure. You'll need to provide support for this bare assertion. I believe that in your previous post you said that Dawkins called the eye a "template or designoid." At least with designoid you're on firm ground, since I believe Dawkins coined the term. I don't believe that Dawkins defines designoid as a template but as something that has the appearance of design but was not designed. You need to be accurate about what Dawkins believes. Let's keep the philosophical mumbo-jumbo about whether reality exists or not out of the thread proposal. You want to talk about ID, let's keep the focus on that. No more Kant. No more idealism versus realism. Again, I don't believe Dawkins defines it this way, so if I'm wrong you'll have to prove it. Gee, I never saw that coming! Again, let's keep the focus on ID.

Dawkins bases or builds natural selection on random events, like his weasel program, or this from the Blind Wattchmaker..^ For a string of 28 characters, with 27 possible characters (A-Z plus space), any randomly generated string has the probability one in 27^28 of being correct; that is..
Random events are "selected". Objects that we say are "selected" are chosen from the retrospective application of a design, like a fish's eye upon random events. Dawkins indicates that natural selection or survival picks out these forms, and says that these forms are not designs. But he still needs to apply that design or template to pick them out. That's why they are designs.
How can we pick out an eye from random nature unless we have a pattern or design to help us do that? The alternative is that eye's announce or present themselves to us. But that's an impossibility.You get the idea, I know, and have done for some time, but don't want it out there. Moderators often see it their task to protect a single interest group from certain ideas. I'm not surprised. For my part, all I've done, again, is show the animosity and dearth of neutrality in creation/evolution forums, particularly when they are run by evolutionists, that's how it is unfortunately. Still, I think you've a had a few warning shots that you won't forget in a hurry, so that's a good thing. Bye.Edited by John Jones, : No reason given.

Naturally it makes little sense to invest time responding to a member who is no longer participating. Let me know if you decide to return.

Looks like John Jones won't be returning, and I see there are 0 comments where he posted identical material at his blog (John Ivor Jones' Anti-Philosophy Blog: Intelligent design and Dawkin's designoid). Closing this down.