Is there a legitimate argument for design?

I agree ID is a philosophical issue. There are many flavors of ID. I will also look at the Is ID Properly Pursued thread. thanksI also think ID is a science issue if it can be resolved with science. I think it could be, but I'm doubtful there will ever be direct ID science. I think if it is resolve with science it will be because of DNA research and the questions that will demand answer.Just my opinion. I might be wrong. I am sensitive about talking design to a designer without being perceived as talking out of school. I will try to be careful.As to the human eye, I probably don't know all the design flaws you do, I haven't really done much reading on it. My position is that something can be sophisticated without being ideal.... even being way less than ideal.In my original post, i probably should not have used the word sophisticated. Seeing sophistication in all of nature is true for me, but use of the word opens up the need to defend it to other people who have different standards of sophistication. NO, but if you recommend it, I will look. Thanks
ps, don't understand See my sig... is this directions somewhere? I don't recall Taoist readings that teach all is illusion. If you say its there, I believe you. I may even have read it and forgot. I agree illusion would be a tough nut to crack with you guys thanks RAZD. I will check out the other thread if I manage to survive this one!!

I want to know what characteristic ideas might have that could make it impossible to judge ID. Can you make up a hypothetical quality that ideas might have that might interfere with our assessment of ID?Because if you cannot come up with anything, then it seems likely that you it is your objection that is not real.What we do know about ideas is that they can be conveyed to others, that they can be tested against reality, and that they do not morph into something else when we are not looking. We also know that some subset of those ideas can be expressed in formal language that allow others to reach the same understanding of the ideas that the originator has. Those quantities are all that we need to conduct scientific inquiries.

I don't see it relevant. Thanks Dr. Absolute, I recognized that love was an analogy. I didn't think the analogy was a great one and I truly don't mean that in a mean way. I guess using your analogy, if it was important enough to someone powerful enough, a science of love might be developed to satisfy one person's curiosity. I get how that might apply to my curiosity.I am not insane enough to believe science will actually ever spin off a branch just to prove/disprove the ID debate. My comment was that if you wanted to resolve the debate with science, then such science might be necessary.Reality is the "if" will never justify the "then'. I realize that.
Hope this is more clear. asked and answered I am a poor communicator. I tried to distinguish ideas used in the context of ID debate and ideas in daily use. Sorry, don't know what else to do. We just won't have a meeting of the minds on this one. I tried to make the case for a proposition. I tried to state what would be needed to consider the proposition. I have no illusions it is something that should ever be done. Resolving an argument just isn't worth it.It is all purely an intellectual exercise. An exercise in which I presumed to dabble in things like propositions for which i am certainly not trained. I don't take myself too seriously and I don't expect you to.

Niiice

Again, I believe that ID uses science to understand how it all works, while ID Properly Pursued is more concerned with why it works out that way. And I would say that any concept that is contradicted by objective empirical evidence is at odds with reality.Science makes the a priori assumption that objective evidence reflects reality, and thus that we can approximate reality by testing concepts against the objective evidence, and eliminating invalid concepts to improve the accuracy of the approximations (tentative theories). The converse assumption is that all is illusion and you don't know what is 'real' or that anything can be regarded as real. More Buddhist than Taoist per se. Perhaps pantheism would be a better fit than deism. A number of founding fathers were Deists. The "sig" is my signature block at the bottom of my post (you can make your own by editing your CP - see menu bar at top of page). As a designer we frequently borrow elements from other designs and combine them into new designs. This would violate the nested hierarchy that Taq mentioned in Message 375, and this would show up in genetic evidence.For example:

1. the octopus eye has a retina that faces the light sources with the nerves behind the retina traveling directly to the brain, and the eye is focused by changing the distance between the retina and the fixed lens,
2. the human eye has a retina that faces away from the light source, the photons must travel through the retina to reach the receptors, the nerves are bundled inside the eye to then pass through a hole in the retina (the blind spot), and the eye is focused by changing the shape of the lens to make the focal length match the fixed distance to the retina,
3. frogs have a transparent\translucent nictitating membrane that can be drawn across the eye to keep it moist and provide additional protection for the eye,
4. birds have up to 8 types of cones, so they see 8 primary colors, including some ultraviolet,
5. combining these features into a designed eye would take the forward facing retina to improve perception at lower light levels, a nictitating membrane to provide protection from high light levels, 8 cones for more color distinction and range, both focusing mechanisms to provide zoom lens vision, making glasses unnecessary,
6. all these features can be found in human designed camera lenses.

No organism has yet been found to have a single borrowed feature. This argues against organisms being designed objects themselves, rather that inhabitants of a universe designed for the development of life via designed 'rules' of abiogenesis and evolution, resulting in the nested hierarchy that is observed across the biological spectrum of life as we know it.I think of god/s more as artists than engineers ...EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : end

So you can pick them up like a six-pack.Jokes don't have to make sense; they just have to be funny. That's why ID is more of a joke than a sensible argument.

RAZD, I will respond to your note in pieces. What you say takes my mind to so many places that trying to respond in a single note would be rather lengthy.Found the signature block..... the proverbial snake that could have bit me I am aware some of the founding fathers were Deists. Way back when I read it I recall saying to myself, yep that's what I am too. I even have a vague recollection one of the founding fathers wrote on it... Jefferson maybe?I have not pursued finding a corpus of writing that defines what a deist is and fleshes out the entirety of the thinking. Do you have a recommendation on where to start?

Actually, after mentioning it, I remember that the joke went more on the lines of asking how we know God was not an architect. Answer - He put the sewer beside the playground.I like the six-pack idea too. Funny for us folks with twisted minds.And no, jokes don't have to make sense....... well maybe ... hmmmmAnd jokes provoke an emotional response. Sometimes intended, sometimes not.

Jefferson is considered a Deist by many, but the one you are thinking of is the "other" Thomas ... Paine. There isn't one asfaik, and it kind of goes against to core concepts of no dogma and no revealed 'truth' and that understanding comes from understanding nature. Take your time and don't worry about specifics. One of the mistakes of newbies here is thinking they have to hurry up and answer everyone asap ... that'll kill ya. I often like to read a post and then think about it before compiling a reply (in a text document that I can save and complete in stages).Enjoy

Sage advice RAZD.... thanks. The last few days have taken their toll... but pretty much in a good way.

I am not clear what you mean here. Are you saying ID uses science to understand how ID works?perhaps, perhaps not. I will get over to that thread eventually. Gets into whether the why is relegated to intellectual musings or whether the why has something to do with the how. This is where I have trouble with the smugness of the science community.Science limits science to that which they can observe, measure, test, etc. ( I will say DoScience hereinafter). They then make the A Priori statement that anything that can be contradicted within that framework is at odds with reality.I don't know how to post a visual, but don't think I need it.Draw a large circle. The large circle is the population for:.....don't know the best way to describe it .........lets just call it the the no-bullshit, not illusion or imagination, REAL family of all that actually IS.Within the circle of that large family, I will call it TotalReality for convenience in this conversation, draw a smaller circle.Within this smaller circle, place all the things that man CAN observe, measure, test and validate, DoScience on, .Within that smaller circle, draw another smaller circle. In this circle place all the things science HAS observed, measured, tested and validated, DoneScience on.I don't believe that scientist would find objectionable the idea that one can move from the smallest circle to the next larger circle. That is everyday science... going from what has been done to what can be done within sciences' self-imposed constraints.I do see scientists objecting to the idea of DoScience on things that are admittedly real and possibly CanDoScience. I saw that right here on this thread when I mentioned ideas.... something admittedly real.Not being a scientist, I cannot make the judgement whether science CAN be done on ideas. I have no answers on how you might observe, measure, test, replicate, etc. ideas.Ideas may be CanDoScience or they may be CannotDoScience. I hope, if attempted, it turns out they are CannotDoScience. That would prove there is TotalReality beyond the box of CanDoScience. Given that final and absolute admission, scientists should be required to cease claiming that what they can't prove using their rules contradicts reality. My point exactly. See above. Look up the definition of A Priori and tell me that is scientific. asked and answered I think nothing has been eliminated except within the self-imposed restrictions of science. I propose there is reality that cannot be measured tested and replicated in the laboratory.The scientific claim is valid only if you accept reductionist materialism as the only candidate for REAL I don't support illusions unless I want to read fiction.

RAZD,
Sorry your prior post got jammed up. That is what happened when I put quotes around it.I don't want to argue good design v bad design nor do I want to argue whether bad design negates intelligent design.I do want to address the notion of "something borrowed" as a precept to design.It may well be that design in the sense of "man-made design" can be argued this way, I just don't want to go there.I am arguing front-end design. I don't want to argue where that design came from other than to make the assumption that design is an idea derived from intelligence.Since the idea (design) involved in my notion is primal, it cannot by definition have anything to borrow from. All arguments requiring borrowing are therefore moot.If design is not, therefore, a good word to use, please give me a better one.

Please see my comments in Message 416 as to the relevance of ideas. If that does not answer your questions let me know and I will come back to this post.

Of course there is reality that cannot be studied in the laboratory. Many scientific fields study reality outside the laboratory. Geology and cosmology are examples.Wouldn't it be impossible to verify the contention that there are parts of reality that are undetectable?--Percy

I believe I answer this in Message 404. If not, let me know and I will come back to your objections.