|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is there a legitimate argument for design? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
taiji2 Member (Idle past 3489 days) Posts: 124 From: Georgia, USA Joined: |
Re: front end loading -- all the way back to the beginning
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.
RAZD writes: In other words, the universe was designed so that abiogenesis and evolution would occur, and that they are the means by which the diversity of life as we know it has occurred taiji2 writes: This conforms to the evidence so I would conclude this was the design yes. RAZD writes:
Or to be more explicit: what is designed is the set of "natural laws" that govern how thinks work, how gravity works, how fusion and fission work, how chemistry works, etc etc etc and once set in motion, no further activity by god/s is necessary.taiji2 writes: yes yes and yes. However, I do not argue against intervention. It would certainly be possible within my posit, however I have seen no credible evidence to conclude that it has occurred. Further activity by god/s if you want to call it that is not necessary, but then again it is not impossible either. RAZD,Something about this has been bumping around in my head...... what I could have said but didn't think of at the time. You asked if the natural laws, everything that makes the universe work, etc. are in the original design. I responded yes, but didn't anchor it in the belief system. It could be construed as "that is just the way he looks at it' I wish to clarify. The Taoist idea is in the beginning, there was only the Tao and the Tao was an "awareness" This awareness was alone in Wu Chi, nothingness The Tao created from the Wu Chi (nothingness).....the Tai Chi (somethingness, a simple duality.......... positive, negative.....etc. From the Tai Chi was created all else Now, if the supposition is that creation began from nothingness, then all of creation, natural laws, the relationships which can be expressed mathematically.... everything is part of that creation. The all-inclusiveness of this is not just allowed in the belief, it is demanded. Whatever is outside of nothingness was brought about in creation.......design. To me, that explains why the natural laws and the math and other science associated with them are so beautiful. There is nothing out of chaos there. The natural laws upon which science is built is the design. The natural laws are the evidence of the design. Natural laws were not something that was hanging around outside of nothingness for creation to fall into and start using. Edited by taiji2, : added some stuff
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
taiji2 Member (Idle past 3489 days) Posts: 124 From: Georgia, USA Joined: |
I wish to clarify. The Taoist idea is in the beginning, there was only the Tao and the Tao was an "awareness" This awareness was alone in Wu Chi, nothingness The Tao created from the Wu Chi (nothingness) Dr. Absolute writes:
I will go looking for provenance. If it turns out I made it up then I will shift my position from the Taoist view to the TaoistMe view
Where is this in Taoist texts? Dr. Absolute writes:
Of course they do. Obvious. No debate
Humans follow the laws of EarthDr. Absolute writes:
Of course it does. Basic to the Taoist cosmological view. No debate
Earth follows the laws of HeavenDr. Absolute writes:
Of course it does. Basic to the Taoist cosmological view. No debate
Heaven follows the laws of TaoDr. Absolute writes:
Of course it does. That is how the Tao creates itself. Basic to the Taoist cosmological view. No debate
Tao follows the laws of natureDr. Absolute writes:
I will look back over my posts to find a reference I made claiming the Tao being like the creator-god of the Christians. Since you found it already, could you point me there to save time?
What I don't see is the Tao being imagined as like the creator-god of the Christians.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
taiji2 Member (Idle past 3489 days) Posts: 124 From: Georgia, USA Joined: |
I am arguing front-end design.
Taq writes:
I do not concede that I am arguing "where the results of design are indistinguishable from the results of the blind and unintelligent process of evolution". Could be, could also not be. What you are arguing for is a design argument where the results of design are indistinguishable from the results of the blind and unintelligent process of evolution. However, I could make that argument and it would not be frivolous in my cosmological view. To use an analogy, the Tao (point of "intelligence" discussion on my cosmological view) could very well have metaphorically picked up the little glass ball, shook it, and sat back to observe the curious way the snow falls on the little village inside the glass ball. The Tao must needs have somehow come across the little glass ball to do this in the first place, ergo design. Where is the argument for design being preempted by the lack of intelligent intervention in subsequent events?
Taq writes: I consider this to be a dishonest argument. You are essentially saying that the best evidence for intelligent design is the complete lack of evidence for intelligent design. I of course cannot control how you consider it. I can say it is not meant to be dishonest argument. And no, I am not saying all the rest of what you just said. Those are your words not mine.
Taq writes: Here are the facts. If evolution is true we would expect to see a nested hierarchy for independent phylogenies. That is exactly what we observe. All of the evidence is consistent with what we would expect from evolution. So how can this be evidence for design? I am not claiming the footprint of non-intervened evolution is evidence for design. I am claiming that such evidence is equally not a solid premise for arguing against design. Nothing about evolution precludes the idea of a preexistent design.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
taiji2 Member (Idle past 3489 days) Posts: 124 From: Georgia, USA Joined: |
I will look back over my posts to find a reference I made claiming the Tao being like the creator-god of the Christians. Since you found it already, could you point me there to save time? Cat Sci writes: Intelligent Design was created by Christians to hide their creationism behind so they could teach it in public schools. Please give me a combination of two more pertinent words to discuss what I have been discussing: intelligent. and design I concede the term Intelligent Design has been hijacked and associated with the views of a narrow band of people with a narrow band of views. This is problematic for me. Discussion of intelligent design without all the socio-religious-political connotations should be possible and allowed. Do you have a solution for this?
Cat Sci writes: If you don't want to be associated with Christians, stop using their term "ID". See above. Is this your way of asking me to leave the discussion before resolving the debate? Perhaps it would be better to change the title of the topic to reference the specificity you imply as to the meaning of Intelligent Design.
Cat Sci writes: One other thing I'd like to point out, is that all ideas come from brains. Therefore, if something has an idea, then it must have a brain. When it comes to the creation of the universe, there has to be a point in time where the creations exists before brains do. And therefore, the universe could not have come about because of an idea, because there were no brains around at that time to hold any ideas. Where is the science that proves all ideas come from brains.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
taiji2 Member (Idle past 3489 days) Posts: 124 From: Georgia, USA Joined: |
I do not concede that I am arguing "where the results of design are indistinguishable from the results of the blind and unintelligent process of evolution". Could be, could also not be. Taq writes: The tell us what the distribution of shared and derived features should look like if ID is true, and why. I suppose we could forever quibble about what design is, how it should be defined, observed, measured, etc.. It seems to be a very root problem encountered over and over in this thread. I don't have a definitive answer that is likely to satisfy a scientist. I can respond with an analogy. A very educated and respected Supreme Court justice once said (in my words and to the best of my recollection) that he could not say exactly what pornography was, but he knew it when he saw it. Perhaps we have something similar here?
However, I could make that argument and it would not be frivolous in my cosmological view. To use an analogy, the Tao (point of "intelligence" discussion on my cosmological view) could very well have metaphorically picked up the little glass ball, shook it, and sat back to observe the curious way the snow falls on the little village inside the glass ball. The Tao must needs have somehow come across the little glass ball to do this in the first place, ergo design. Where is the argument for design being preempted by the lack of intelligent intervention in subsequent events? Taq writes: Then the designer is irrelevant and superfluous to the actual development of species. So much for ID. If that works for you, then I really shouldn't offer any commentary. I presume you are offering a personal conclusion and not asking for a response
I of course cannot control how you consider it. I can say it is not meant to be dishonest argument. And no, I am not saying all the rest of what you just said. Those are your words not mine. Taq writes: If that is not what you are saying, then tell us how we can differentiate ID from evolution where it concerns the distribution of shared and derived characteristics. If you can't show us how the two are different, then you have tacitly conceded the point. No, I have tacitly conceded nothing. Your ipso facto remark does not make it so. As to distribution of shared and derived characteristics, I have given you the glass ball analogy which answers you in my mind. If it does not answer you, give me a more specific question and I will give a more specific answer.
I am not claiming the footprint of non-intervened evolution is evidence for design. I am claiming that such evidence is equally not a solid premise for arguing against design. Nothing about evolution precludes the idea of a preexistent design. Taq writes: Once again, you are given the chance to unmuddy the waters, and you just muddy them further. You still can't separate ID and evolution. muddy the waters is your subjective interpretation of the conversation we had. I cannot control your subjective interpretations. My points were made with the intent of giving clarity not with the intent of muddying the waters. I can absolutely and without entertaining argument tell you what my intent was. I cannot argue whether the waters were muddied for you. I can state that muddying the waters was not my intent.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
taiji2 Member (Idle past 3489 days) Posts: 124 From: Georgia, USA Joined: |
Please give me a combination of two more pertinent words to discuss what I have been discussing: intelligent. and design Cat Sci writes: Taoist religion. Front-loaded evolution. Guided evolution. Theistic evolution. Diestic evolution. Premeditated creation. Smart control (of the universe). Wise editing (of the universe). I dunno, I guess that's enough for now. All of the above hypotheses fall legitimately as subjects of discussion within the larger constraint of a discussion of intelligent design in my opinion. What are you suggesting?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
taiji2 Member (Idle past 3489 days) Posts: 124 From: Georgia, USA Joined: |
I will look back over my posts to find a reference I made claiming the Tao being like the creator-god of the Christians. Since you found it already, could you point me there to save time?
Dr. Absolute writes: Sure. in the beginning, there was only the Tao and the Tao was an "awareness" This awareness was alone in Wu Chi, nothingness The Tao created from the Wu Chi (nothingness) Dr. Absolute writes: The Christians call it God instead of the Tao and don't call the nothingness "Wu Chi", otherwise there is a marked similarity. All we need now is for the Tao to have strong views on gay marriage ...
I cannot control you drawing perceptions of marked similarities into restatements or misstatements of what I have said. I will tell you that I have not exhaustively studied the christian concept of creator-god in its many flavors. Their views are not important to my world-view. I doubt that these same christians who you say have the same view as me would agree with you. You are welcome to test that scientifically. Pass my Taoist notions by them and ask them if that is what believe. I will be very interested in reading of your observed results.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
taiji2 Member (Idle past 3489 days) Posts: 124 From: Georgia, USA Joined: |
taiji2 writes:
I just don't believe it [evolution] is all random mutation. ooh-child writes: From what I understand, it isn't all random mutation. There's also natural selection. Maybe you don't understand the scientists' position? Thanks for responding. In another message, I may have mispoken scientific precept with something else based on my lay person level of scientific knowledge. I asked for leeway when I did unless my statement violated the point being argued. I understand evolution is more than random mutation. I took a short-cut in communication which keeps getting me in trouble. Yes, I understand natural selection in the context of evolution. No, I probably do not understand everything involved in the scientists' position. If my lack of understanding violates the precepts of discussion, please correct me. I am here to learn and understand.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
taiji2 Member (Idle past 3489 days) Posts: 124 From: Georgia, USA Joined: |
Cat Sci writes: Hold on, if anything, its people like you who have done the hijacking. Who are people like me? Are you putting me in a group? If so what group?
Cat Sci writes: Intelligent Design was invented by the Discovery Institute. They are a Christian organization. They created Intelligent Design particularly and specifically because Creationism was ruled unconstitutional for teaching in public schools. I did not know this. I have heard the Discovery Institute mentioned only one time previously in life. It was mentioned in passing on another forum. I did not consider the reference important enough to pursue further. That is an honest answer.
Cat Sci writes: Haven't you heard of the book Of Pandas and People and the whole "cdesign proponentsists" debacle? I have never heard of this book. That is an honest answer.
Cat Sci writes: If not, Of Pandas and People was a Creationist science text book. They were saying Creationist this and Creationist that and then the book got ruled unconstitutional. So, they decided to replace "creationist" with "design proponent". But, they screwed up and one of the cut&pastes ended up coming out as "cdesign proponentsists", which is just "design proponent" accidentally interspersed with the word "creationist". This is very interesting. Again, this is the first time I have ever heard this. I had been made aware on another forum that intelligent design had connotations to other people, but I have never been given the history. Thank you. I do see where you could make assumptions about me coming out of the gate. My honest reply is that those assumptions are wrong.
No. I have not heard of this.
Is this your way of asking me to leave the discussion before resolving the debate? Cat Sci writes: No, it was me telling you that ID is associated with Christianity so if you keep on talking about ID, then you are going to be associated with Christianity. Nothing more. You asked where you mentioned the creator-god of the Christians and I was just telling you that it is implicit in Intelligent Design. This is unfortunate. In my mind, intelligent and design are two words in common usage in the english language. As for the two words being used together........ that the two words together is an invention stretches credibility. I can look for historical usageof the words in combination which predate what you mentioned above, but is that really necessary? I make the hypothesis that intelligent design are two common words used together to communicate a simple idea and that such usage predates your invention. I leave it to you to prove or disprove this. As for being thought christian if I use the two words together... as I said it is unfortunate words have been hijacked. I do not have a christian perspective when I use them thus. Perhaps there is something to worry about... for instance I could say I am gay (meaning happy) and be misunderstood. Another instance of a word being hijacked. In neither this instance or the one you mentioned do i concede honest meanings of words should be excluded from common usage just because some try to imply exclusive ownership of those words or terms. That is for another debate however.
Where is the science that proves all ideas come from brains. Cat Sci writes: Ever single idea we have ever been aware of has come from a brain. That is a strong statement. Has science been done to support it?
Cat Sci writes: From this we can scientifically induce, tentatively, that all ideas come from brains. Based on the unsupported ipso facto statement you just made.
Cat Sci writes: If you don't think so, then point to one idea that did not come from a brain. Sure....... something on the order of let there be Tai Chi.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
taiji2 Member (Idle past 3489 days) Posts: 124 From: Georgia, USA Joined: |
I suppose we could forever quibble about what design is, how it should be defined, observed, measured, etc.. It seems to be a very root problem encountered over and over in this thread. I don't have a definitive answer that is likely to satisfy a scientist. Taq writes: That answer satisfies me just fine. What you are saying is that ID is a faith based belief that doesn't make any testable predictions. ID is a religion. Wow, there is a slippery slope around here. People keep "saying what you are saying" without saying what I have said. I said none of what you said I said. Please restate
As to distribution of shared and derived characteristics, I have given you the glass ball analogy which answers you in my mind. If it does not answer you, give me a more specific question and I will give a more specific answer. Taq writes: That would be the usual bullshit answer that we get from design theoriests. hmmmmm. you sound angry. If you will point me to a place where "usual bullshit answers" are listed, I will try to avoid them in the future.The truth is the glass ball analogy was mine (in the context of discussing ID). If someone has used it previously in this context, I was not aware.
Taq writes: In the end, the theory of evolution explains the evidence extremely well. ID can't even address the evidence. I think the winner is easy to pick out. If you will modify your statement with the insertion of "In my opinion" at the front, I will take no exception with what you said.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
taiji2 Member (Idle past 3489 days) Posts: 124 From: Georgia, USA Joined: |
Percy writes: Ideas that aren't a product of brains thinking. Interesting. Is it really a novel idea? I would think most religions would have this as a basic assumption. Except for religions which presume the deity to have physical bodies, the notion of the deities' ideas coming from brains doesn't make sense. I don't mean to be prickly or disputatious.
Percy writes: Are the ideas of prickly or disputatious also independent of brains? Is that how you see me? In honesty, I do not make a deliberate attempt to be so. I am one of few debating a science community of quite a few. If I come off that way I apologize.
Percy writes: Concerning the topic, if you have a legitimate argument for design I haven't heard it yet. Not to be prickly, but I doubt you ever will say you do. After all, you are free to define legitimate argument as you wish. In the end we will all come down to opinions, but the journey is interesting! --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
taiji2 Member (Idle past 3489 days) Posts: 124 From: Georgia, USA Joined: |
I wish to clarify. The Taoist idea is in the beginning, there was only the Tao and the Tao was an "awareness" This awareness was alone in Wu Chi, nothingness The Tao created from the Wu Chi (nothingness) Dr. Absolute writes: Where is this in Taoist texts? Only I read for example the Tao Te Ching Since you have the Tao Te Ching, consult chapter 40 where the most inclusive reference is. There are other comments throughout the Tao Te Ching that are pertinent, for instance references of the Tao returning to nothingness (implication that is from where it came}. There are other sources of course, but you might consider them somewhat rabbinical and I don't think you really need look past the Tao Te Ching. I am not giving quotes from the Tao Te Ching as there are many translations and that could prove problematic. Also, do some reading on the taijitu - the symbol of Taoism - the yin/yang white black thing that most people are familiar with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
taiji2 Member (Idle past 3489 days) Posts: 124 From: Georgia, USA Joined: |
taiji2 writes: Not to be prickly, but I doubt you ever will say you do. After all, you are free to define legitimate argument as you wish. In the end we will all come down to opinions, but the journey is interesting! Thank you Percy,You have helped me achieve clarity. You seem to be saying that the only legitimate argument for design is a scientific argument for design. If this is not a correct interpretation of what you said, please tell me what is wrong with it, I do not wish to put words in your mouth. If a scientific argument is a precept for legitimate argument you may be eliminating the possibility of an argument based on logic and reason which is what I have been trying to do. Again, I suggest that perhaps the name of the thread could have been made a bit more clear.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
taiji2 Member (Idle past 3489 days) Posts: 124 From: Georgia, USA Joined: |
Wow, there is a slippery slope around here. People keep "saying what you are saying" without saying what I have said. I said none of what you said I said. Please restate. . . hmmmmm. you sound angry. If you will point me to a place where "usual bullshit answers" are listed, I will try to avoid them in the future.The truth is the glass ball analogy was mine (in the context of discussing ID). If someone has used it previously in this context, I was not aware. . . If you will modify your statement with the insertion of "In my opinion" at the front, I will take no exception with what you said. Taq writes: Notice that you were once again unable to produce testable hypotheses using ID as it relates to the distribution of characteristics among species. Evolution is able to make these predictions. That is why evolution is accepted as science and why ID is considered to be a faith based belief. If you still do not understand what I have said then it must be because I have not said it well. I will try again. My logical argument allows that evolution could have happened exactly as science has said. It is not necessarily my belief that it did, but my argument allows it. If I concede that my model allows evolution exactly as you describe, what would I have to argue with you about? I will use my glass ball analogy again even though you don't seem to like it. I will not completely restate the analogy in the interest of brevity, but can come back to it if you request. Briefly, the glass ball analogy allows everything science has done re evolution and everything science can do re evolution happening within the metaphorical glass ball. You must be willing to imagine yourself within the glass ball for my analogy to work. The glass ball analogy allows science within the glass ball with no constraints other than those it imposes on itself. Conclusions drawn by thinkers within the glass ball are allowed of course, even conclusions drawn by thinkers that there is no glass ball at all. If you don't like the glass ball, read Flatland (a novel), the point is somewhat the same I think. I cannot prove ID using science with the constraints science has imposed. That is a rigged game. I can make a logical argument that science should not claim the monopolistic right to define reality and non-reality based on those constraints.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
taiji2 Member (Idle past 3489 days) Posts: 124 From: Georgia, USA Joined: |
taiji2 writes:
Who are people like me? Are you putting me in a group? If so what group?ringo writes:
yes, I am in the group so far
We get a lot of people here who "have doubts about evolution" ringo writes:
nope, out of the group. I know a little about evolution as science views it even though I admit my scientific knowledge on the subject is limited.
(without knowing the first thing about it). ringo writes:
I have not been to creationist websites (that I recall). I do not any longer pursue christian beliefs. I stated earlier that I was raised as a Baptist, so I am making no claim I am ignorant of the christian view of creation. Hmmmm, to prevent you later calling me a liar, I have made the statement, when asked if I had ever heard of certain creationist dogma, that I had heard that dogma mentioned on another forum. This is true. If that superficial contact with your "creationist rhetoric" poisons the well, then so be it. They have never been to a creationist website (yet they know all of the creationist rhetoric verbatim). If my arguments based on my Taoist view are verbatim what the christians say, then perhaps I should revisit their think tank and save myself a lot of time in introspection. At any rate, what is the point, are christians excluded from your discussions?
ringo writes: They are not religious (though they believe in a miraculous origin of the univere rather than a scientific one). I have stated my belief system as Taoist. It is open to debate whether Taoism is a religion or a philosophy. Depending on the determination of that debate I am comfortable being called religious or not religious. The distinction is important to people in that debate but not to me. My wife is catholic. I think she would disagree with anyone that I fit the mold of the "good christian'.
ringo writes:
Well yes, my opinion is that I am. But again, we are back to opinions and everyone has one.
Are you really different from "the group"?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024