Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Design With No Designer
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 8 of 50 (44865)
07-02-2003 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by MrHambre
07-02-2003 9:46 AM


I raised the same point in the 'Intelligence behind design'
thread that I opened.
Seems IDists who frequent this site are somewhat silent
on the intelligence aspects ... or how intellgence is
to be inferred if 'dumb design' is also possible.
[This message has been edited by Peter, 07-02-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by MrHambre, posted 07-02-2003 9:46 AM MrHambre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by MrHambre, posted 07-02-2003 5:57 PM Peter has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 12 of 50 (44920)
07-03-2003 4:25 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by MrHambre
07-02-2003 5:57 PM


quote:
However, my main point here is to establish the criteria for the way IDC equates design with intelligence as a foundational assumption with no supporting evidence other than metaphors and analogies.
Mine too.
The thinking seems to go along the lines that if something is
designed it must have a designer (which seems reasonable), but then
leap to the assumption that a designer must be 'intelligent'.
The assumption makes 'intelligent design' a kind of tautology.
Several people here have pointed out that computer algorithms
that operate on the proposed evolutionary principle (heritable
variation + natural selection) can produce elecrical circuit
designs so novel that some companies have patented them ...
only to be confronted with the 'yes but an intelligence wrote
the program' and 'the output was predefined within the program'
arguments that computer models/simulations are always lamblasted
with.
For biological systems I can see indications of a lack of
intelligence in the designs, but nothing that jumps up and
says 'this is the product of an intelligence.'
I too, therefore, would like to hear the support for the claim
to 'intelligence' behind bio-designs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by MrHambre, posted 07-02-2003 5:57 PM MrHambre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Mammuthus, posted 07-03-2003 5:45 AM Peter has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 14 of 50 (44935)
07-03-2003 6:37 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Mammuthus
07-03-2003 5:45 AM


Couldn't agree more!!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Mammuthus, posted 07-03-2003 5:45 AM Mammuthus has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 16 of 50 (45038)
07-04-2003 4:54 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by MrHambre
07-03-2003 12:01 PM


Anyone who has been involved in engineering process will know
that those lines aren't even drawn in man-made design!!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by MrHambre, posted 07-03-2003 12:01 PM MrHambre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by MrHambre, posted 07-07-2003 10:01 AM Peter has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 18 of 50 (45299)
07-07-2003 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by MrHambre
07-07-2003 10:01 AM


I find it easy to visualise natural selection chipping away
at the bio-sphere and sculpting innumerable, exquisite forms
that are suited to the prevailing environment ... that
doesn't stop people claiming it cannot possibly have
happened that way.
I think we agree in the main ... a creator detracts from
nature rather than adds to it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by MrHambre, posted 07-07-2003 10:01 AM MrHambre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by MrHambre, posted 07-08-2003 9:15 AM Peter has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 20 of 50 (45396)
07-08-2003 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by MrHambre
07-08-2003 9:15 AM


The problem with human design analogies is intention.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by MrHambre, posted 07-08-2003 9:15 AM MrHambre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by MrHambre, posted 07-08-2003 6:52 PM Peter has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 23 of 50 (45484)
07-09-2003 4:34 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by MrHambre
07-08-2003 6:52 PM


Re: Analogies Are Like Mousetraps
I agree about the power of a good analogy ... it's a shame
that many of those to whom such are directed are so used
to literal interpretations of text that they start screaming
about the bits that don't match ... and totally miss the
point in the process.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by MrHambre, posted 07-08-2003 6:52 PM MrHambre has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 24 of 50 (45486)
07-09-2003 4:38 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Mammuthus
07-09-2003 3:56 AM


Re: Analogies Are Like Mousetraps
Perhaps they should spend more time addressing the issues
that are relevent.
As far as I can see intelligent design postulates that
biological systems originated from a design act by an intelligent
individual.
To support that they need to put forward some convincing
criterion for the identification of design (but as this thread
and one of my own have pointed out) evolution can output
'designs' ... and make statements of what trace 'intelligence'
should be expected to leave on a design.
We cannot know how a designer will designer, but there must
be some aspect of intelligently designed artifacts that
can differentiate them from dumb design.
That was the question I asked in 'Intelligence Behind Design'

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Mammuthus, posted 07-09-2003 3:56 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Mammuthus, posted 07-09-2003 5:04 AM Peter has seen this message but not replied
 Message 26 by MrHambre, posted 07-09-2003 9:49 AM Peter has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 28 of 50 (45529)
07-09-2003 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by MrHambre
07-09-2003 9:49 AM


I'm guessing the 'junk DNA' term is a pop.lit.
thing anyhow ...
In terms of finding 'intelligence' behind genomes I would think
that one would have to suspect non-intelligent intervention
based upon 'broken genes' (like Vit.C synthesis is humans and
guinea pigs). It's like transmission error in digital media
accidently
adding a new-line/carriage return sequence.
My feeling is that if evolution doesn't happen why did the
designer spend the effort to develop an adaptive system?
If ID wants to target abiogenesis (or not) then OK, but it
doesn't make any sense to try to refute evolution with the
claims I have seen IDer's make ... which is a poor line of
suport in any case (refuting something else doesn't proove
your own case).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by MrHambre, posted 07-09-2003 9:49 AM MrHambre has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 48 of 50 (60407)
10-10-2003 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Gemster
09-23-2003 9:36 PM


Re: camera
The fossil record is not compatible with YEC suggestions.
There is no justifiable reason that fossils deeper in the
ground should be increasingly different from those at
higher levels.
Sorting does not cut it -- check out research on hydrodynamic sorting

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Gemster, posted 09-23-2003 9:36 PM Gemster 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