Is there a legitimate argument for design?

I do not deny this. Science is a wonderful field.But I have a question, does science acknowledge logical and reasonable arguments can exist outside of what science has postulated,theorized, tested, proved, etc..?If the answer is no, then I know no way to restate and continue the conversation. Science has closed further conversation a priori.If the answer is yes, then why submit logic and reason to the same "scientific verification" requirements that you do in your corpus of science?

agreed. but agreed with the caveat that the evidence is sometimes not what it seems. I recall someone discussing that the sun seeming to move around the earth was evidence at one time that the earth was flat. Evidence or interpretation of evidence is not infallible I think. agreed. If the contrary fact is incontestibly fact. danger here. lack of evidence does not presuppose evidence is lacking. Is this really what you want to say about validity? No need to read between the lines here. I would love for science to consider the question of design. Our best minds should answer the questions. Millions and perhaps billions of people through time have incorporated the presumption of design into their worldview. It is not like the notion is frivolous or useless to mankind.Do you refute as invalid the notion of the Supreme Court justice on observing and defining pornography and deny that he saw pornography unless he could scientifically prove it?If not, why do you refute the notion of all people who see design in nature. Unless you can show scientifically that the justice did not see pornography, you should not state without science that design in nature does not exist. Ok. My proposition is that design is everywhere in nature. Like pornography, I know it when I see it. I am not alone. Millions, perhaps billions of fellow humans observe(d) evidence this way. That is a statistically large population of observers seeing evidence. If it is not evidence but something else, prove it. no problem, with the caveats given no problem, just do the science

I had composed a more lengthy response but the server went down before I posted. I will keep this more brief. You can get me off this thread forever with a yes or no answer.I interpret what you are saying is that only scientists or those with science views should be on this forum. If the answer is yes, I am in the wrong place, I am leaving, and I am sorry to have wasted your time.

Well no actually. At least not in this case. I have recognized that you are the forum moderator. As such, I pay particular attention to what you tell me regarding where I am and what I am doing on the forum. I recognize your authority. So when you remind me I am on a science forum and say there is an assumption people join threads in these (science) forums to discuss science ........ well I just assumed there was a message there. My interpretation of that message was you were telling me the forums on the website are divided between science forums and forums that are not science. My interpretation was that you were suggesting I was in the wrong place on the website. If my interpretation was right, I was indicating my willingness to move my presence to where it was appropriate. If my interpretation was wrong, I simply needed an answer that my interpretation was wrong. ok, so if your answer is that no, it is appropriate for me to stay on the thread, then we are good and I will hang around. Thanks There you go again saying I said what I didn't say. No problem, what is going on here is debate and I suppose that is proper debate tactics. I can plod past it. I won't even get prickly about it. Edited by taiji2, : correct grammar

I agree absolutely based upon what I know of science. But, how is this relevant in a response to a message of mine that makes no reference to imagined fantasies? Are you opening a new line of questioning?perhaps you meant to reference my quote previous where I asked if science believes logic and reasoning exists only within the community of science or if they acknowledge logic and reasoning might represent a larger population. Well I think I can and I think I have. My cosmological view is that the universe, along with all the natural laws upon which it operates, came from nothing into something through design.My evidence? I think I have read here that the big bang produced a huge amount of matter composed of mainly hydrogen atoms. This in a short time too, I have never heard of phyletic gradualism being referenced in discussion of the big bang. I have previously made the proposition that the atom is designed. I come to this conclusion using logic and reason and deduction.If the struture of the atom is not derived from design, then where did it derive? Random mutation? Natural selection? Show me some science that out of the big bang nature should chaotically settle on these beautiful things called atoms that (inert gases questioned) are a very slick building blocks toolkit for a lot of interesting stuff.If you are talking evolution, lets start from the big bang and apply the science from there. I stand ready to be taught, teach me. Show me the quote, otherwise don't quote what I think. Add "In my opinion'"to the front of your statement and we are good.

Are we adopting a relaxed, friendly, conversational tone here? Great, that works better for me. Therefore bro: I respect your opinion if you will state it as such. You can even state it as a proposition. Your statement that I am making a fool of my self as fact seems to beg the scientific approach. I am listening. I am listening. That is a reference to a previous conversation with Dr. Adequate wherein inert gases were questioned by Dr. Adequate as suitable "building blocks" in the periodic table of elements. It means nothing unless you chose to read my old posts and the responses to those posts. My comment here was included to communicate to Dr. Adequate the acknowledgement that the inert gases issue was not resolved with debate. I don't assume it has any meaning to anyone who has not followed the conversation. You should address your views to Dr. Adequate. I need no convincing. Well thank you. If you read all my posts, which you obviously haven't, you may even see that I have done so. The courage to admit it will be up to you. Please limit comments to opinion, hypothesis or statement of fact that is supported as fact. How do you presume to speak for everyone? Now we are getting somewhere. As I said, I am here to learn. I have a lay understanding of quarks, electrons and energy level. I will be interested to read where science has proven how atoms were formed. I will be looking for the proof that design was not necessary. I will even be interested to read how evolution has formed new, mutated atoms through time An ipso facto statement. It is not true just because you say it is true. And yes I liked that answer, it was a great foundation for more discussion. And no, I don't recall even considering it in that way, but I am entirely opening to doing so. Your ideas are interesting so far. That seems a very brief view. I presume you have scientific proofs of what you say. And, cutting to the chase, assuming you have fact rather than assumption to support what you say, where did the natural laws upon which quarks, electrons, and low energy react come from? My hypothesis is that the natural laws ARE the design. If your position is that the natural laws....... well, just ARE, show me the science.

What we had here was a failure to communicate to use a line from Cool Hand Luke. If you don't disagree, I will stay here and continue the discussion.

Very interesting. This conforms to what I remember from my high school physics class (perhaps chemistry, I really don't recall which). You failed to mention the negative charge of the lepton, but that is ok, I got it. You might be interested to know that this conforms very neatly to the Taoist idea of initial duality........ look up readings on the taijitu if you are interested. I throw this out because we are on a forum whose site banner says "Creation versus Evolution", therefore I make the presumption creation ideas are appropriate in the discussion. I agree. Although I admit that I would probably not be able to read that one line of college ruled paper with any great understanding, I do not dispute its profundity. In fact, I think the mathematics man has derived to express behavior of the natural laws is perhaps the greatest evidence of design. There is no mutation. There is no randomness. There is no natural selection. Mathematics reveals the inviolable aspects of the design. It is, in my opinion, the prime language of creation. Perhaps, perhaps not, I will leave that to greater minds. I will, however ask HOW protons, leptons and energy for that matter came to be. But, even assuming you can answer that question, RAZD has asked the very pertinent question of WHY which I will hijack for this discussion. Why protons, leptons and energy? Why natural laws upon which these components could react? You never responded to my question of whether you believe the natural laws "just are". I really would like an answer. How can that be? Why would it be so? Details please. Of course I would like more details. First, your details are interesting and educational. Second, I would like to compare your details to my cosmological model to decide if anything fails. Failure of my cosmological model is what is necessary (to me) for abandoning my position. Please insert opinion, hypothesis or fact where appropriate. (In my opinion) the way you communicate is not clear and precise. Thank you. I had the sneaking suspicion all along that nucleii did not evolve (hence creation rather than evolution). It was very kind of you to confirm this. Agreed, but that reasoning does not invalidate the idea of creation. It is just a logical extension of the idea that the design works. When I turn the key on my car, the engine starts. It does not take intelligence to keep the motor running. The car was designed to do this without intervention. Well, perhaps the why of the explosion if you really think you have the how nailed down. I think we are returning to concepts already discussed. In the interest of avoiding circularity I will not respond unless you tell me it is necessary to the discussion. No, I want to make the natural laws is design argument. After that, complexity argues for itself.Is arguing at the level of atoms and simple molecules uncomfortable for you? My cosmological view assumes everything that is comes from nothing through design. That very clearly includes atoms and simple molecules. Are you saying we should confine the debate of creation versus evolution only to the debate of life? sorry, i don't feel a need to respond to this

Stile,
That was superbly stated. Your ideas and statements absolutely do strike a chord with me. I will not parse and question anything in it except to say that the sort of concessions to the possibility of creation that you make are not evident elsewhere in the posts I have seen on this forum. I see instead flat statements to the effect that anything outside of science is fanciful imagination. That is ignorant in my view.I respect logic, reason, and the power of deduction. I reject the notions of many positing the science position that anything outside of science is illogical, unreasonable, and lacking deductive reasoning in arriving at a conclusion.I respect the last line of your statement. If your personal conclusion is that there is no legitimate argument for design, then that is your conclusion. That conclusion simply doesn't work for me.Thank you for your insightful post.

Ringo,
Thanks for the response. It gives me the opportunity to clarify what I may not have said clearly before. I do not doubt evolution. That said, I do not concede that the current model of evolution of life for instance is infallible.Evolution sits quite comfortably within my belief system, even blind evolution if that is what evolution turns out to be. In my belief system, however, accepting evolution does not reject creation. It is the notion that evolution explains all and everything else is fanciful imagination that I object to. I have offered more explicit ideas on this notion in other messages. If you want to pick one and have me clarify, I would be happy to.By the way, thank you for encouraging me to stay on the forum at an early stage. Your comment is what kept me here. I believe I have answered this above. If not I say again, nothing about evolution of life causes me serious doubts. I accept evolution within my model.

Ok, I will take your word. I am pretty sure I have seen statements here that violate that, but I will accept what you say is true and that others might have misspoke. Would the discovery that DNA is frontloaded and the 92% of unused human DNA represents potential as well as evolution be considered relatively small? If the percentage is wrong, correct me and I will use the corrected number.caveat before you jump with both feet. This is a pet theory, not a real theory. I am satisfied with it as that for me. Perhaps science will prove or disprove the notion in the future.But, just for arguments sake, assume it might be true. Would that be considered relatively insignificant? I think the analogy is weak, but that is just my opinion. Why does everyone say "woo-woo" or some other equally derogatory term when mentioning design? If design is there it is simply design. If design is not there it is simply not there.I would never make the proposition that god said "let there be France" I have consulted Merriam-Webster and did not see evidence mentioned. Where should I look.

Actually I have brought it up. I've brought it up several times in one context or another. I see you haven't read my prior posts. Admittedly, I have not written anything that qualifies as a position paper on it. I think even if I had, you would want for it to have been published before you consider it. So I choose not to make an argument again that I have already made. If you want, you can actually read my prior posts and ask for clarification on anything I have said. If you do not want, then that is ok too. No, absolutely not necessary. I just found it curious you didn't. You found it important to mention the positive charge of the proton. And perhaps we just don't know. Doesn't mean it isn't important. You have a very valid point though, RAZD is much more qualified to discuss the question of why with you. It was his idea after all. I shall defer to RAZD your further observations as to why. Nor am I trying to prove to you the counter. We are having a conversation. I recognize coming to those proofs is beyond my capability. That is not to say I believe it impossible to come closer to the truth through logic and reasonable deduction and, yes science. It just hasn't been done. Well yes one can infer that. Millions and billions of people have and have (do) make that inference. That is a large population of observers gathering evidence. The rub seems to be around pinning down what is design and what is evidence for design. That would be a good place to start if science ever chooses to discuss a way to properly pursue ID. Put "My opinion is" in front of that and we are good.

I have no problem with what ringo said. I did observe other comments on the thread that were not what ringo said. I do not claim all other comments on the thread were not what ringo said. It is really a non-ussue with me for further remarks though, doesn't move the conversation forward. I could ask what would that mean to the theory, but that would take us to another conversation which is not what I care to do at this time. So, my question is asked and answered. Thank you. I was not aware of this accepted view. I just learned and you taught me. Do you have a revision to the old 92% junk number that floats around for us common folk? I have many questions, but presume you don't want to teach on this forum. If you have any references to reading though, I do have a keen interest. No lack of seriousness intended, truly. The word evidence has special meaning for science, correct? ringo made a flat statement that any idea that is not supported by evidence is fanciful by definition, The word she referenced for definition was fanciful. I looked fanciful up in Merriam-Webster and found no reference to evidence in any of the accepted definitions. My suggestion is perhaps she should find a better word.

No sweat on the pointy stuff. It has been good for my skin actually .
I have been referred to as prickly and disputatious here. Though I don't intend that, I see how I might be interpreted that way. Perhaps. I have found it interesting reading though

You made a point which made me stop, think and retract my comment as stated. i did not make my original comment dishonestly. I had not thought as deeply as you.On further reflection I do not believe billions of people make unguided inference of design from chance observation. In my opinion, the closer truth is the vast majority of people are too intellectually lazy to make an inference on their own.I find it more likely, as you suggest, that the large population is guided to an opinion more often than not. People as a group often seem comfortable receiving their logic from others.All that said, I am not sure it negates my conclusion of a large population of observers gathering evidence.Even if guided by some other's logic to consider design in a maple leaf or an ant hill, is it illogical to assume that the observer, once guided to observe, would not make their own judgement of the evidence or lack?Does being guided to consider presume being guided to a conclusion? I concur that the observer will probably have been influenced by the cues of the guide. The cues probably come as guide conclusions. I will have to think more on this. thanks