|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A case for Natural Design | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
randman writes: There is no way to deny the role of physical properties that fall under chemistry and physics in the process. In other words, the physical design that pre-exists plays a strong role, even in evolution, of biological designs. Really? Consider your message to me. Do I need to know what editor you used to make up the text, or the brand of your computer, in order to determine that your message is designed to convey the meaning of what you want to say to me? Does it matter where you live, or what you had for breakfast this morning? Would it have had a significant impact on the content of your message if you were missing a toe or two? There are things that I shall not take into consideration when thinking about natural design, because I think it is an emergent phenomenon that has its origin in a high level process called evolution. The substrate on which this process takes place is inconsequential, as can be demonstrated with genetic algorithms: they yield design, yet their underlying layer of physics is quite different from that of biological evolution, and they lack chemistry altogether. This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 02-Aug-2005 08:51 AM We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Tagless writes: Snowflakes I think the fact that snowflakes have no purpose or function excludes them from the category of designed objects in the sense of the word 'design' I'm using. Snowflakes are examples of patterns, not "elaborate design". What function is served by the way a snowflake looks? It's just the laws of physics that makes them look the way they do. Also, snowflakes do not evolve, their patterns are not enhanced over time in any way. The patterns may vary depending on the circumstances, but if you could make an exhaustive list of all possible snowflake patterns, the list would not be different now from what it would have been billions of years ago. We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
"Natural design" sounds like an oxymoron to me. A design is a blueprint or plan, as when an architect says,"Here's my design for the new building."
Natural selection doesn't design anything in that sense. However, if you look at something in hindsight, you can say,"The hawk is a great design, with its flying ability and super sense of sight. Nature designed the hawk very well." The IDer looks at "design" in this sense, in hindsight. They talk about the exquisiteness of this or that evolutionary development and say, "There's no way this could happen by chance. The odds against it are phenomenal. Think of the extraordinary complicated events that had to take place for the hawk to evolve." But of course any evolutionary development is "exquisite," when looked at in hindsight. In fact, any event is exquisite. If my mother had left 5 minutes earlier at that train station, and never met my Dad, I would never have been born. What an extraordinary set of coincidences had to occur in order for them to meet just at that point in space time! Obviously, I was designed. "natural design" sounds like a sort of Life Force idea, as though nature said to itself, "I need something with hands, something that can pick things up. Let's work on that."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
A better analogy would be that you could not read the sentences on this page without knowing the words, and you cannot know the words without the letters. The lettering and individual words make up part of the sentences.
Likewise, you cannot ignore chemistry and physics because these areas play a fundamental role in the design of biological systems. Take DNA for example. Chemistry plays a critical role in the formation and development of DNA. Or matter; all biological life consists of matter which is governed by physical laws. Physics and chemistry are governing factors influencing any biological design.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taqless Member (Idle past 5913 days) Posts: 285 From: AZ Joined: |
You said your two goals were:
that there is design in nature; that design isn't necessarily a product of intelligence First of all, snowflakes definitely fit this. Secondly, hate to break it to you, but snowflakes definitely have function and purpose. However, I must concede it does not fit in with your neon green statement, in that it is not a biological system. I must then conclude that you are following the same mistake of your "opponents". You are assuming that Nature gives preference to biological systems because you perceive yourself as having a more important function and/or purpose in the role of Nature than something like a snowflake....right? If not, then I guess you got me "swingin'".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
You are assuming that Nature gives preference to biological systems because you perceive yourself as having a more important function and/or purpose in the role of Nature than something like a snowflake I don't see this. It's just a matter of what topic is being discussed. If my topic is motorcycles, and somebody starts talking about cars, and I tell them they are off-topic, it doesn't mean that I think motorcycles are more important than cars. The topic here is about "design" in the evolution of life forms. Snowflakes are not a life form.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taqless Member (Idle past 5913 days) Posts: 285 From: AZ Joined: |
see "goals" by Pars.
But as I ALREADY stated in my reply to Pars I conceded that my post did not adhere to the neon green statement. The critique was not about Pars's choice of subject .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3978 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.3 |
I've been pondering this thread for several days. It has occurred to me that we are not far from a succinct description (though not full formulation) of the theory of evolution.
I find that extraordinarily charming.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
robinrohan writes: "Natural design" sounds like an oxymoron to me. A design is a blueprint or plan, as when an architect says,"Here's my design for the new building." Not wanting to redefine the word 'design', I made it clear, I think, that with 'design' I do not mean plans or blueprints. What I mean is that when you look at something designed, say a car, you might think: "What a beautiful design! Just look at that streamline. And what a sophisticated layout of the dashboard." Et cetera, et cetera. So, with 'design' I mean the way things look designed. If you look at a rock, it doesn't look designed. If you look at a car, it does look designed. Admittedly, some rocks may look designed, when they're shaped in nice rounded forms by water or wind erosion, but there is no purpose of function to that shape. It's simply the result of some physical process. The design of a car however (meaning the way it looks designed), although it may have some purely aesthetic aspects, has a lot of functional aspects, in that the car's components are put together, or shaped in such a way, as to provide all the functionality needed in a car. We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
randman writes: A better analogy would be that you could not read the sentences on this page without knowing the words, and you cannot know the words without the letters. My reply to you wasn't an analogy. There is design in your message, and there is a physical you that wrote that message. But I do not need to take every physical aspect about you into consideration to know that there is design in your message. Likewise, I do not need to take every physical aspect about, say, the human eye into consideration to know that there is design in it. I'll repeat what I said before: natural design is an emergent phenomenon that has its origin in a high level process called evolution. The substrate on which this process takes place is inconsequential. We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Tagless writes: You said your two goals were:
that there is design in nature; that design isn't necessarily a product of intelligence I should have been more precise and stipulated that I meant living nature.
Tagless writes: snowflakes definitely have function and purpose. I'd love to know what function and purpose you think snowflakes have.
Tagless writes: You are assuming that Nature gives preference to biological systems because you perceive yourself as having a more important function and/or purpose in the role of Nature than something like a snowflake....right? Wrong. I am assuming nothing of the kind. I am not perceiving myself as having a function or purpose at all, let alone that I consider the gradation of importance of it. We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Omnivorous writes: I've been pondering this thread for several days. It has occurred to me that we are not far from a succinct description (though not full formulation) of the theory of evolution. I find that extraordinarily charming. Right. But it's not exactly surprising, is it? After all, I consider natural design to be a product of the process of evolution. The only 'extraneous' element in this discussion - extraneous with respect to the orthodox definition of evolution - is the notion of natural design itself. Not that I'm claiming the idea as my own, though. Daniel Dennett has already written about the occurrence of real design in living nature. But calling it 'natural design' might be novel, I don't know. We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
So, with 'design' I mean the way things look designed. Is that different from what I said earlier? :"However, if you look at something in hindsight, you can say,'The hawk is a great design, with its flying ability and super sense of sight. Nature designed the hawk very well.'" If it's not different, I think I am beginning to dimly understand what you mean.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
robinrohan writes: 'The hawk is a great design [...]' Yes, Robin, that's exactly what I mean. Sorry I didn't pick that up. We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Yes, but I said, "Nature designed the hawk very well." It's a sort of value system. Are you hinting at a value system? Design is good, nature designs, nature is good. After all, your own philosopher Dennet said at the end of his book, "The world is sacred." There's a value system. Something along the lines of nature-worship.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024