|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What IS evidence of design? (CLOSING STATEMENTS ONLY) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
fearandloathing Member (Idle past 4145 days) Posts: 990 From: Burlington, NC, USA Joined: |
nwr writes: jar writes:
I don't have a problem saying that those are designed. But it depends on what is meant by "design." I would consider them ad hoc designs. That is, they are built up, and adjusted as needed, but there is explicit prior plan or blueprint.So consider honeycombs, a termite mound and a birds nest. This in my mind seems to be the true question...what is the accepted definition of design to be used in this discusion?? And your last sentence is confusing...seems a "no" should be added after "is"...?? LOL although confusing me is no great feat.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
Well i think you too should be focusing more on this
honeycombs and beaver dams are relatively simple in design, tough this is a very complex piece of engineering. Called magnetic termite mounds. 1 thing flat pointed directly east west to minimise the flat surface on witch the sun can land 2 thing these "buildings" have internal cooling systems so the mound stays at a comftorable 30 C almost all the time 3. it has a graveyard up on top, "royal chambers" on the bottom and lots of other rooms for diferent purposes
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
I'm fairly sure that your ad hoc design includes the absolute majority of objects we'd consider designed through history.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Mr Jack writes: I'm fairly sure that your ad hoc design includes the absolute majority of objects we'd consider designed through history. So how do we distinguish a designed object from one that is not designed? Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
Given that I've already given an explicit set of criteria, I'm confused by your question?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
fearandloathing Member (Idle past 4145 days) Posts: 990 From: Burlington, NC, USA Joined: |
frako writes: Well i think you too should be focusing more on this
honeycombs and beaver dams are relatively simple in design, tough this is a very complex piece of engineering. Called magnetic termite mounds. 1 thing flat pointed directly east west to minimise the flat surface on witch the sun can land 2 thing these "buildings" have internal cooling systems so the mound stays at a comftorable 30 C almost all the time 3. it has a graveyard up on top, "royal chambers" on the bottom and lots of other rooms for diferent purposes
Ah...yes...well I am glad you posted...Very good. I have taught many people who are competent plumbers, but never really understood why they had to do things a certain way. They know what the code says but don't understand the reason for it. Couldn't it be said that animals build structures based on what works with no understanding of why it works??
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
Couldn't it be said that animals build structures based on what works with no understanding of why it works?? No question that a termite does not understand why that structure works, and i can easely see the structure part of the evolution of those termites. - the termites that dug their "city" died more often then those that built it upwards- the termites that made flat cities facing the right way died less often then those that built it differently - the termites that made holes at the bottom and top to alowe for hot air to escape up top thus sucking cool air from the bootom died less then the termites that had no holes or holes at the wrong places just a few millenia of trial and error and success encoded in their DNA. tough still their structures are designed, the only diference is that their trials and errors are "writen down" <-- .....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
fearandloathing Member (Idle past 4145 days) Posts: 990 From: Burlington, NC, USA Joined: |
frako writes: Couldn't it be said that animals build structures based on what works with no understanding of why it works?? No question that a termite does not understand why that structure works, and i can easely see the structure part of the evolution of those termites. - the termites that dug their "city" died more often then those that built it upwards- the termites that made flat cities facing the right way died less often then those that built it differently - the termites that made holes at the bottom and top to alowe for hot air to escape up top thus sucking cool air from the bootom died less then the termites that had no holes or holes at the wrong places just a few millenia of trial and error and success encoded in their DNA. tough still their structures are designed, the only diference is that their trials and errors are "writen down" <-- With my current line of thought then it could be said that these structures are a product of evolution and natural selection?? I think it does??
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Mr Jack writes:
An artefact can be identified as designed if: 1. It can be identified as having a purpose or function to a third party I'm not sure I understand your criteria. What are the three parties are involved in the design of a pointy spear made by humans?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
The stabber, the stabbee and the spear maker. Obviously, in many cases two of these parties will be synonymous.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
fearandloathing writes:
Yes, I agree. There's a tendency to treat it as a black or white issue, as in "it either is designed or it isn't designed." But I think it is a bit more complex than that.
This in my mind seems to be the true question...what is the accepted definition of design to be used in this discusion?? fearandloathing writes:
Sorry, that was a typo. I have fixed it.And your last sentence is confusing... Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Dr Jack writes:
The extent of planning and of ad hoc changes probably varies a lot. The religious claims are about planning by an external agent, so "design" is perhaps a misleading term.I'm fairly sure that your ad hoc design includes the absolute majority of objects we'd consider designed through history. Personally, I don't have a problem with the idea that biological organisms are designed. The development phase seems to me to be a system for self-design. But that's not the issue that concerns ID proponents. Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Mr Jack writes: The stabber, the stabbee and the spear maker. Obviously, in many cases two of these parties will be synonymous. Your criteria seem ... problematic based on the roles you assign to the parties. In your critieria, the second party (stabbee) plays absolutely no role at all, and by your own admission the first and third parties can be identical. Revisiting your dung example, why do you introduce the dung beetle if we really don't need a distinct third party. Why not consider the dung maker and the dung dropper as two of the parties? Might not dung have a shape or a consistency convenient for the dung dropper? Who would the three parties be for a painting? Surely a painting is designed, yet there is only a single party involved. Arguably, a painting is not functional. Finally how useful would your criteria be for identifying designed living things which is where ID proponents really want to apply it? It does not seem intuitive to me how it would be applied.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
NoNukes writes: Your criteria seem ... problematic based on the roles you assign to the parties. In your critieria, the second party (stabbee) plays absolutely no role at all, and by your own admission the first and third parties can be identical. Look, if it makes you happy just substitute designer or whatever. I only put "third party" to account for those cases where the designer is not the one who benefits.
Arguably, a painting is not functional. I said 'function or purpose'
Finally how useful would your criteria be for identifying designed living things which is where ID proponents really want to apply it? It does not seem intuitive to me how it would be applied. Well, in order to claim that an animal is designed you would need to identify a purpose or function they fulfil for a designer, identify that designer, show that the designer created - or suitably modified - the form of the animal to fulfil that purpose or function and show that this creation was intentional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Mr. Jack writes: Look, if it makes you happy just substitute designer or whatever. I only put "third party" to account for those cases where the designer is not the one who benefits. Don't blame me. Using third party made your definition useless because by varying selection of the third party, we also varied the outcome determined by use of the criteria. By substituting designer as you suggest, then we have a useless tautology. Something made by a designer to fulfill a purpose or a function is designed? This is news?
Mr. Jack writes: Well, in order to claim that an animal is designed you would need to identify a purpose or function they fulfil for a designer, identify that designer, show that the designer created - or suitably modified - the form of the animal to fulfil that purpose or function and show that this creation was intentional. If I could show that a designer intentionally modified an animal to fulfill a purpose/function, then I could show that the animal is designed? Wow.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024