|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5936 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What constitutes Intelligent design? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5936 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5936 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
AdminnNosy
I have edited the original post. Is it up to muster or shall I add some to it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5936 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Bump
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5936 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
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.
Any takers? Edited by sidelined, : No reason given. "Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere." Albert Einstein
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5936 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3319 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Please edit to shrink that first picture... on second thought please shrink all of them.
sidelined writes: TazI 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5936 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Taz
I hope that makes it easier for you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4217 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5936 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5936 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
bump for input
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5936 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Is there no one confidant enough in the hypothesis of intelligent design that would be willing to clear up these issues?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3319 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Nemesis Juggernaut, I hear, is a devout cdesign proponentist. Perhaps you should invite him?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024