|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The evidence for design and a designer - AS OF 10/27, SUMMARY MESSAGES ONLY | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 111 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
See Message 18 for the topic description. --Admin
While we will certainly repeat and I hope so, some of the points we had previously discussed, it is my intention to set out here what is actually involved in the term evidence Secondly to demonstrate that evidence is not always demonstrated by groups claiming said evidence and that what is required of others is not required of that same group Thirdly, to demonstrate that conclusions, of EVEN undetermined probabilities are a natural, logical and necessary part of evidence. they follow out of those probabilties. Finally of course, to show how said evidence demonstrates the design probability, AS STRICLY EVIDENCE, without simple contemplation of, or producing a designer. IOW, its not required of either of those, to demonstrate DESIGN as evidence Ill start the ball rolling in a few hours with more specific points in relation to the above illustrations, as an addition to this post Back in a few Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Admin, : Change title. Edited by Admin, : Add comment and hide. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added the "- AS OF 10/27, SUMMARY MESSAGES ONLY" part to the topic title (topic currently at 636 messages).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13040 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Topic Description:
Dawn Bertot writes: This thread is about the evidence for design and a designer, and discussion will focus on these areas:
For this discussion the definition of evidence is anything that is apparent to our senses. If we can see, touch, hear, feel or taste it, it's evidence. Evidence that is indirect is still valid evidence. For instance, the reading on a thermometer is valid evidence of the temperature, even though we're not feeling the temperature directly. Edited by Admin, : Reduce to topic description only.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13040 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Thread copied here from the The evidence for design and a designer thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Let's start off with empirical evidence for design.
Whatever standard you apply must conform to the rules of science, and must separate, to a high degree of certainty, those things that are designed from those that are not designed, i.e., that are natural. Can we agree that snowflakes, stalactites, and quartz crystals are natural? If so, then you need to provide rules that separate those from items you claim are designed, and those rules must be based on empirical evidence. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
What requirements do scientists hold creation science to that they do not hold for themselves?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Annafan Member (Idle past 4607 days) Posts: 418 From: Belgium Joined: |
Since intelligent design by humans is the only unquestionably verified example of design that we have, would it make sense to qualify something as intelligent design even if it clearly goes against universal properties of that human design?
I'm thinking about: - reusing one design while another - clearly superior - alternative is already used somewhere else- blatant sub-optimal design that could easily be improved - total absence of transparancy - complexity where simplicity is possible - working elaborately around small errors instead of simply correcting them - ...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 111 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Admonishment writes
This thread is about the evidence for design and a designer, and discussion will focus on these areas: How evolutionists hold others to requirements they do not impose on themselves. How analysis of the evidence by the same requirements evolutionists hold themselves to supports design and a designer.For this discussion the definition of evidence is anything that is apparent to our senses. If we can see, touch, hear, feel or taste it, it's evidence. Evidence that is indirect is still valid evidence. For instance, the reading on a thermometer is valid evidence of the temperature, even though we're not feeling the temperature directly. Larni writesWhat requirements do scientists hold creation science to that they do not hold for themselves? No coyote, we will start here since Larni has actually addressed an issue that Admin wishes discussed. Every position, teaching, ideology, study concerning physical realities, in this instance, the physical world and its makeup, hav three basic tenets. The evidence that suggests what it is presently, what that evidence suggests abouts its origins and the conclusions as to what it will be or become, once it has exhausted its resources. No position that deals withthe physical world can avoid these logical conclusions and assumptions. The answer to your question is this Larni. Creation science suggests and indicates designby way observation and experimentation, STRICLY from the available evidence. Yet this is not good enough for the scientific method, because it is required to produce a designer or it suggests that we have not seen God designing anything. Yet in the scientific method no requirement is made for the initiation source of the physical realities, or present physical evidence that leads one to the conclusion of the TOE. Even if itis implied or suggested that things have always existed, one would need to provide evidence of the same nature that is required of the theory of design to produce a designer. Hence Larni, you have a requirement for the design camp that one does nto have for themeself. Therefore, all things being equal larni, we can only deal with the present physical evidence. evolution draws its conclusions about Macro change from the present limited evidence. If its going to require a designer designing or indicate that we need to see the designer Then I must require the TOE, to provide evidence that someone or something DID NOT provide the materials in the first place. If neither of us require such conclusions about our respective tenets, then the present physical evidence will support the design principle soley by the available evidence To suggest otherwise would be presumpsuous and ILLOGICAL Dawn Bertot Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 111 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Since intelligent design by humans is the only unquestionably verified example of design that we have, would it make sense to qualify something as intelligent design even if it clearly goes against universal properties of that human design? This type of argument avoids the fact and presumes that design is the only position lacking positive and absolute available evidence, concerning the physical world. Its a kind of a side issue, to the main point that needs to be resolved, concerning the available evidence and what it suggests for design and the TOE Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2323 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Dawn Bertot writes:
No we don't, snice we don't postulate something "made" the universe, the universe simply is the universe.
Hence Larni, you have a requirement for the design camp that one does nto have for themeself. Therefore, all things being equal larni, we can only deal with the present physical evidence. evolution draws its conclusions about Macro change from the present limited evidence. If its going to require a designer designing or indicate that we need to see the designer
No. You are the one making that claim, therefore you are the one that needs to provide evidence for it.
Then I must require the TOE, to provide evidence that someone or something DID NOT provide the materials in the first place. If neither of us require such conclusions about our respective tenets, then the present physical evidence will support the design principle soley by the available evidence
And it would still violate parsimony, and is therefore bad science.
To suggest otherwise would be presumpsuous and ILLOGICAL
No, it would be following the rules of science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Dawn, how do we determine whether or not something has been designed?
How do we do so objectively? Until you can tell us how, all your ramblings are pure bullshit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Creation science suggests and indicates designby way observation and experimentation That's a good answer! Could we go further and test the design hypothesis? What obsevations of design are apparent, what predictions can we propose and which experimental designs can we use to test them? All the best, Larni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Annafan Member (Idle past 4607 days) Posts: 418 From: Belgium Joined: |
quote: It is far from a side issue. It's one of the fundamental issues that will need to be resolved before you will be able to substantiate your "fact" that is supposedly "avoided". If you want to argue about intelligent design in nature, you either gotta be able to demonstrate that you can precisely define the properties of intelligent design (one way to recognize it), or as a fallback at least be able to make everyone agree about whether something is intelligently designed or not on the basis of a less stringent "you recognize it when you see it" approach. Upon closer look (see remarks above), at least the "you recognize it when you see it" fallback won't cut it, because investigation of the facts often indicates the opposite of what we would recognize as "intelligent design" based on our human experience.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3991 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
DB writes: The answer to your question is this Larni. Creation science suggests and indicates designby way observation and experimentation, STRICLY from the available evidence. What experiments support the theory of intelligent design? Can I try to duplicate those experiments myself? Edited by Omnivorous, : No reason given. Dost thou prate, rogue? -Cassio Real things always push back.-William James
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13040 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Dawn Bertot writes: Yet in the scientific method no requirement is made for the initiation source of the physical realities, or present physical evidence that leads one to the conclusion of the TOE. Even if itis implied or suggested that things have always existed, one would need to provide evidence of the same nature that is required of the theory of design to produce a designer. ... Then I must require the TOE, to provide evidence that someone or something DID NOT provide the materials in the first place. You're arguing that the theory of evolution is missing the evidence for how the universe originated, and that because it is missing this evidence that it is not being held to the same standards ID is being held to. But the origin of the universe is a topic of cosmology and has nothing to do with evolution, except to the extent that it's the source of all the matter and energy that are fundamental to every field of science, from geology to chemistry to anthropology. We spent much effort getting clear on the topic of this thread. If this is what you wanted to talk about then you should have said so. Since you didn't include this as part of the topic, that means that it is off-topic in this thread. If you would like to discuss how the various fields of science outside of cosmological investigations of origins are incomplete if they don't include how the universe originated then you'll have to propose a new thread. Please, no replies to this message. Take problems with discussion to the Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0 thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
I'll repost my post:
That's a good answer!
Could we go further and test the design hypothesis? What obsevations of design are apparent, what predictions can we propose and which experimental designs can we use to test them? All the best, Larni
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024