|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What IS evidence of design? (CLOSING STATEMENTS ONLY) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
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. Wrong. If you pick a party that didn't design it, then you get an irrelevant conclusion. Gosh, what a thing.
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? No, it's a definition. Look substitute in "bob" if it makes you happy. It's completely irrelevant.
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? Yes, that is, indeed what you need to do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Mr Jack writes:
Wrong. If you pick a party that didn't design it, then you get an irrelevant conclusion. Gosh, what a thing. Well, I was just following your own example.
quote: So, your own example is wrong. Instead of concluding that elephant poo is not designed, we should instead note that your own conclusion regarding design was irrelevant. Or perhaps we can conclude that poo was not designed by dung beetles, but still might be designed.
Mr. Jack writes: No, it's a definition. Look substitute in "bob" if it makes you happy. It's completely irrelevant. If we substitute bob for third party, we will conclude that essentially nothing is designed. bob is almost always irrelevant as he has not designed much of anything.
Mr. Jack writes: Isaac writes: 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? Yes, that is, indeed what you need to do. I disagree. If your criteria are merely a definition, then conceivably there could be other methods of identifying designed objects.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10077 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
How about this: designed artefacts are identifiable because they have been shaped to assist a known third part with identifiable influence on the artefact.
This is something that Darwin put forward as a potential falsification of evolution. "If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection."--Chapter 6, "Origin of Species", Charles Darwin.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
NoNukes writes: So, your own example is wrong. Instead of concluding that elephant poo is not designed, we should instead note that your own conclusion regarding design was irrelevant. Or perhaps we can conclude that poo was not designed by dung beetles, but still might be designed. Indeed, but to show it was designed you'd need to show it.
I disagree. If your criteria are merely a definition, then conceivably there could be other methods of identifying designed objects. Go on, then, tell us how. Edited by Mr Jack, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Mr Jack writes: Indeed, but to show it was designed you'd need to show it. My point is only that you failed to show that elephant poo was not designed despite your assertion that you had done so. Then you attributed your own failure to me when I attempted to follow your own methods. Perhaps now you can state your definition in a form that has no errors.
Mr Jack writes:
I disagree. If your criteria are merely a definition, then conceivably there could be other methods of identifying designed objects. Go on, then, tell us how. I cannot describe a universal method for identifying design. But I do know that we don't go through the exercise you've described in order to reach to conclude that objects we encounter everyday have been designed by humans. For example, we understand that carbon rods are not naturally found inside of wooden cylinders and we conclude that a pencil is a designed object. We don't need to read Eberhard Faber on the pencil to reach our conclusion. We really don't even need to know the purpose of a pencil to reach that conclusion. I don't believe that our methods for identifying design can be extended to identifying features of living things. But I'm not trying to show that by merely asserting it to be true. That's really all you have done here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
I don't believe it is possible to show something was not designed. Only to show that it is designed. Tracy Emin's bed is a fine example of why.
The elephant poo example is illustrating why the criteria are necessary, not demonstrating proof of non-design.
For example, we understand that carbon rods are not naturally found inside of wooden cylinders and we conclude that a pencil is a designed object. We don't need to read Eberhard Faber on the pencil to reach our conclusion. We really don't even need to know the purpose of a pencil to reach that conclusion. Finally! We get somewhere. It's a good point. Pencils aren't the best example, because they're too familiar to us. How about one of these:
I suspect you and I would recognise that as designed. But we don't know it's purpose or function. How did we do that? Well, it's form is recognisable to us, we know that natural processes don't produce objects that look like that and we know that its possible to turn natural raw materials into objects like that. So... can we identify a criteria for design based on materials and methods?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Mr Jack writes: I suspect you and I would recognise that as designed. But we don't know it's purpose or function. How did we do that? Well, it's form is recognisable to us We've seen very similar objects that we know are sculpted or manufactured. I'm not sure the materials used are all that important. If we could discern tool marks on the object, that might help confirm our conclusion. But accidents do happen. Sometimes our guesses are wrong. If instead the object depicted something I had never seen before, I'd likely find it more difficult to decide whether the object was designed.
Mr. Jack writes: So... can we identify a criteria for design based on materials and methods? Well that's the question for this thread. I have experience recognizing human design. We all do. But I'm skeptical that anyone can recognize design in any other context. Edited by NoNukes, : add
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1371 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Mr Jack writes: How about one of these:
I suspect you and I would recognise that as designed. hang on a sec. here's a picture of phil plait's shower curtain:
i suspect that we would recognize this as a much better likeness of a human being, specifically vladimir lenin, than your example. yet, no design or intention is present. what you're looking at is pareidolia, the "psychological phenomenon involving a vague and random stimulus ... being perceived as significant." this makes detecting design very difficult through just what we human beings would "recognize". our brains are rather specifically tuned for facial and bodily recognition.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Briterican Member (Idle past 3976 days) Posts: 340 Joined: |
Taq writes: "If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection."--Chapter 6, "Origin of Species", Charles Darwin. I'm curious about this one. I have no doubt that this is an accurate quote, but my first thought was "what about symbiosis?" - so I googled the quote... and guess what... I came across numerous creationist sites using this very idea (symbiosis vs this quote) as evidence of the defeat of Darwinism. As I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer, I wonder if any of you could explain to me how this is NOT related to symbiosis, OR, why Darwin would revise said quote were he alive today? And... to stay on topic... Having seen this argument come up sooooo many times, I question the very use of the word "designed" as an adjective. All the definitions are inadequate to answer this debate. It's like we need to split the word into two versions, one meaning "designed by an intelligent agent" and the other "ordered and structured".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3265 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
Having seen this argument come up sooooo many times, I question the very use of the word "designed" as an adjective. All the definitions are inadequate to answer this debate. It's like we need to split the word into two versions, one meaning "designed by an intelligent agent" and the other "ordered and structured". Unfortunately, many IDists see this as one and the same, "If it's ordered and structured, then it must have been desiogned." and they'll use the arguments like "You won't get a 747 from a tornado in a junkyard." They see science throwing around the words "random" and "chance" and they think that means the universe is a chaotic, swirling thing that takes order and blows it apart unless something is there to keep it orderly, or at least make it orderly to begin with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1371 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Taq writes: "If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection."--Chapter 6, "Origin of Species", Charles Darwin. Briterican writes: I'm curious about this one. I have no doubt that this is an accurate quote, but my first thought was "what about symbiosis?" - so I googled the quote... and guess what... I came across numerous creationist sites using this very idea (symbiosis vs this quote) as evidence of the defeat of Darwinism. As I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer, I wonder if any of you could explain to me how this is NOT related to symbiosis, OR, why Darwin would revise said quote were he alive today? symbiosis is a mutually beneficial.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Briterican writes: Taq writes: "If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection."--Chapter 6, "Origin of Species", Charles Darwin. I'm curious about this one. I have no doubt that this is an accurate quote, but my first thought was "what about symbiosis?" Doesn't symbiosis benefit both organisms?. Does that not mean that the 'exclusive good' portion of Darwin's statement is not met? Or looked at another way, is it truly impossible to explain symbiosis using the theory of evolution? If not, then either Darwin is being misinterpreted or Darwin was simply wrong. Edited by NoNukes, : Fix tags
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Briterican Member (Idle past 3976 days) Posts: 340 Joined: |
NoNukes writes: Or looked at another way, is it truly impossible to explain symbiosis using the theory of evolution? If not, then either Darwin is being misinterpreted or Darwin was simply wrong. This is perhaps worthy of new topic status. I'd be curious to see the responses from those very knowledgeable participants that excel at answering these sorts of questions. Unfortunately to pursue it to any great extent here would be to take us off topic. Having reviewed the thread again, despite numerous valuable points, and a couple of examples of what might constitute evidence of intelligent design, I don't think anyone has actually answered the primary question from the OP...
jar writes: So what exactly is this "Evidence of Design" that Creationists and Intelligent Design marketeers assert is there? The only one that comes to mind for me is the idea of "irreducible complexity", which has been completely and utterly demolished. I think the fact that nobody on the creationist side has directly answered this simply query is evidence that the ID marketeers are falling down on the job.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ZenMonkey Member (Idle past 4538 days) Posts: 428 From: Portland, OR USA Joined: |
Mr Jack writes: I suspect you and I would recognise that as designed. But we don't know it's purpose or function. How did we do that? Well, it's form is recognisable to us, we know that natural processes don't produce objects that look like that and we know that its possible to turn natural raw materials into objects like that. So... can we identify a criteria for design based on materials and methods? Maybe going back to look at Aristotle's Four Causes might help:
quote: Or to take another example: Michelangelo's David has a materal cause (marble), a formal cause (the likeness of a particular human being), an efficient cause (Michelangelo himself), and a final cause (the intention to create a great work of art). The whole question we're debating here is how to identify something's efficient cause; in this case, life on this planet. As Mr Jack suggests, part of the of your criteria for deciding whether or not something shows evidence of being intelligently designed is going to have to be that you can't account for its formal cause in terms of natural processes. Therein lies the rub, of course, because if you assert that God works by means of natural processes, then the how question becomes meaningless. If saying Goddidit explains everything, then it explains nothing. Sometimes identifying something's efficient cause is easy. If you're looking at a human artifact, you can identify its efficient cause with greater or lesser precesion because you have have prior knowledge of how something like it was made. The specifics might be lacking - for example, I don't know the names of the factory workers in China who put together my D-Link router (which is only working half the time these days, piece of crap), nor do I know anything at all about how it was put together or how it works, but I do know enough about how other things like it are made that I can say pretty confidently that its efficient cause is human and not natural, unguided processes. But in the case of ID, the whole point is that the efficient cause isn't so identifiable. So what does looking at the other causes do for us? Obviously, indentifying a thing's material or formal cause won't do much to tell you whether it was designed or not. But in this context, maybe you could say something shows evidence of being designed intelligently if its final cause is not something intrinsic to itself. A tree growing in the forest has an intrinsic final cause - producing seeds to make more trees. However, a row of trees planted at even intervals along a sidewalk have an identifiable final cause that is NOT intrinsic to themselves - the landscaper's desire to make a pleasant thoroughfare. So. What's the evidence that living things on this planet have final causes that are not intrinsic to themselves? I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die. -John Lydon What's the difference between a conspiracy theorist and a new puppy? The puppy eventually grows up and quits whining.-Steven Dutch I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it. - John Stuart Mill
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22499 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Which of these is designed:
Is this paint splatter or modern art:
More to the point, we're not actually talking about design. We're talking about telling the difference between something people did versus something people didn't do. "Something people did" is not the definition of design. I'm convinced that recognizing design has to be mathematical. Obviously Dembski thinks so, too, but he also thinks he already has a mathematical method for recognizing design. Anyone who agrees with Dembski is welcome to demonstrate the technique on these images. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024