Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What constitutes Intelligent design?
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 1 of 61 (447065)
01-07-2008 10:49 PM


It comes to my attention in looking over the many posts in the forum that IDist and creationist claim that where there is design there must be a designer. It strikes me that in none of these claims for design being prevalent everywhere no one states what constitutes design.
In other words by what criteria do you tell something is not designed?
I submit that the appearance of design that objects acquire is no more than a consequence of a balance of the undirected forces at work upon these items.This is consistent with what we observe. When we manipulate metals, for instance, to produce something we can observe the changes produced through our actions and we can explain how these manipulations occur.
The structure of the world and the life therein obey the four known forces of nature {strong ,weak, electromagnetic and gravitational forces}. I would say that design by an entity must show a mechanism by which these four forces can be manipulated.
In no way is there evidence that these forces are manipulated by unknown entities nor any hypothesis brought forth to claim they are.
SO is there a mechanism that IDist's or creationists can bring forth to explain their claims that objects are designed by an intelligent means?
Also, it would be good to have them explain what designed the complexity behind the intelligence they invoke as necessary to explain the complexity of the world.
Edited by sidelined, : No reason given.

"Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere."
Albert Einstein

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminNosy, posted 01-07-2008 11:46 PM sidelined has replied
 Message 5 by sidelined, posted 01-09-2008 9:05 PM sidelined has not replied
 Message 6 by sidelined, posted 01-10-2008 8:26 AM sidelined has not replied
 Message 27 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-15-2008 10:45 PM sidelined has not replied
 Message 44 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 03-16-2008 5:30 PM sidelined has not replied
 Message 45 by Eclogite, posted 03-25-2008 7:40 AM sidelined has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 61 (447075)
01-07-2008 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by sidelined
01-07-2008 10:49 PM


Some examples please
I think, sidelined, that you need some examples of objects to be classified. You might also give your own answer as to how you would distinguish designed from not designed.
Maybe you should, as Ned was elsewhere, give your definition of design to solicit the definition form others.
(This would go into ID I presume)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by sidelined, posted 01-07-2008 10:49 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by sidelined, posted 01-09-2008 1:52 AM AdminNosy has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 3 of 61 (447366)
01-09-2008 1:52 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminNosy
01-07-2008 11:46 PM


Re: Some examples please
AdminnNosy
I have edited the original post. Is it up to muster or shall I add some to it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminNosy, posted 01-07-2008 11:46 PM AdminNosy has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 4 of 61 (447369)
01-09-2008 1:57 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 5 of 61 (447579)
01-09-2008 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by sidelined
01-07-2008 10:49 PM


Bump

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by sidelined, posted 01-07-2008 10:49 PM sidelined has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 6 of 61 (447623)
01-10-2008 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by sidelined
01-07-2008 10:49 PM


Since it seems ,perhaps, that a nudge is needed to have people make their claims known, then I will post some images and ask questions.
Are these examples of design? Why or why not? Explain your answer.
Is this designed?
Why or why not? Explain.
How about these?
Is this designed?
Perhaps the people who back ID or creationism could explain what they feel justifies design in the first place and then explain their position.One last picture though.
YERSINIA PESTIS
Any takers?
Edited by sidelined, : No reason given.

"Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere."
Albert Einstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by sidelined, posted 01-07-2008 10:49 PM sidelined has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by nwr, posted 01-10-2008 9:28 AM sidelined has replied
 Message 9 by Taz, posted 01-10-2008 10:30 AM sidelined has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 7 of 61 (447630)
01-10-2008 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by sidelined
01-10-2008 8:26 AM


As far as I know, William Dembski is the person mainly saying things about how to tell what is and isn't design. His analysis uses the term "specified complexity". If you google for "William Dembski" or "specified complexity" you should be able to locate some of the literature.
I suspect your first picture would be consider unspecified complexity (the result of random processes), so would not be a candidate for design. I'm not sure of the snowflake, but I think he counts it as specified complexity, but rules it out as design since that specified complexity is, in effect, specified by known lawful processes.
As best I can tell, Dembski's writings are pretty much all philosophy, with little or no empirical work. That is to say, there does not appear to be any measuring procedure that you could apply to a real thing that would give you a "design probability" readout.
I see this as a "God of the gaps". That is, we infer design from our lack of knowledge as to how the complexity arose. But it is always possible that future science will explain that particular complexity (much as we can explain snowflakes), so the design inference is made based on our current lack of knowledge.
I think Dembski is basing this on Kolmogorov complexity. And that's what lets the snowflake out. A snowflake turns out to be not all that complex, since all of the symmetries allow a relatively simple description.
It's been a while since I last tried reading any of Dembski's work, so the above is from memory and might be a little confused.

Let's end the political smears

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by sidelined, posted 01-10-2008 8:26 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by sidelined, posted 01-10-2008 9:54 AM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 8 of 61 (447637)
01-10-2008 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by nwr
01-10-2008 9:28 AM


nwr
Thank you for your response concerning Dembski. However I am not looking to debate Dembski but rather the people here who make claim to having an explanation for the design that they see and to be able to describe in what way they arrive at this.
If any people here wish to use Dembski as a basis for making the arguement that is all well and good but I have yet to see anyone making any response whatsoever. I feel that the evidence they may have is not very compelling.
Perhaps they do not wish to have to defend it in any way since that would involve having to answer questions that may be raised that they themselves have not thought through the answers on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by nwr, posted 01-10-2008 9:28 AM nwr has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by bluescat48, posted 01-10-2008 11:41 AM sidelined has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 9 of 61 (447647)
01-10-2008 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by sidelined
01-10-2008 8:26 AM


Please edit to shrink that first picture... on second thought please shrink all of them.
sidelined writes:
Taz
I hope that makes it easier for you.
(In the following message)
The larges images messing up the thread's format left a big scar in my psyche. I plan to file a lawsuit for this life altering emotional scarring.
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by sidelined, posted 01-10-2008 8:26 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by sidelined, posted 01-10-2008 10:47 AM Taz has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 10 of 61 (447650)
01-10-2008 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Taz
01-10-2008 10:30 AM


Taz
I hope that makes it easier for you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Taz, posted 01-10-2008 10:30 AM Taz has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 11 of 61 (447668)
01-10-2008 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by sidelined
01-10-2008 9:54 AM


It seems that the ID/Creo people have no idea what design is since no one has answered as of yet. It is 3 days since you posted the question.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by sidelined, posted 01-10-2008 9:54 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by sidelined, posted 01-10-2008 12:57 PM bluescat48 has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 12 of 61 (447685)
01-10-2008 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by bluescat48
01-10-2008 11:41 AM


bluescat48
Well one can always hope they somehow find the cajones to bring forth a reasonable attempt at showing the workings of their logic and thinking.
Until then the best we can do is keep bumping it for 300 posts at which point we can claim victory by default.
Edited by sidelined, : fixed spelling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by bluescat48, posted 01-10-2008 11:41 AM bluescat48 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by sidelined, posted 01-11-2008 7:25 AM sidelined has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 13 of 61 (447864)
01-11-2008 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by sidelined
01-10-2008 12:57 PM


bump for input

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by sidelined, posted 01-10-2008 12:57 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by sidelined, posted 01-11-2008 11:06 PM sidelined has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 14 of 61 (448096)
01-11-2008 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by sidelined
01-11-2008 7:25 AM


I am shocked !
Is there no one confidant enough in the hypothesis of intelligent design that would be willing to clear up these issues?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by sidelined, posted 01-11-2008 7:25 AM sidelined has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Taz, posted 01-11-2008 11:14 PM sidelined has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 15 of 61 (448100)
01-11-2008 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by sidelined
01-11-2008 11:06 PM


Re: I am shocked !
Nemesis Juggernaut, I hear, is a devout cdesign proponentist. Perhaps you should invite him?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by sidelined, posted 01-11-2008 11:06 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by sidelined, posted 01-12-2008 6:05 PM Taz has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024