Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The design inference
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 121 (7240)
03-18-2002 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Brachinus
03-18-2002 3:47 PM


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Paul:
John Paul:
You are missing my point also. ID doesn't care about the designer, only the design- how to detect it, how to understand it and what to do with it.
Perhaps if you did a little research such a concept wouldn't be so foreign to you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
brachinus:
I'm not talking about trying to figure out who designed the designer, merely to settle the question of whether the designer was designed.
John Paul:
When you have it settled be sure to let us know.
brachinus:
Shouldn't ID be able to figure that out?
John Paul:
Possibly, once we know who or what the designer is.
ID, as it stands today, only concerns itself with the apparent design we observe in living organisms. ID first wants to detect that design and then understand it.
brachinus:
And if we take a putative designer (Jehovah, Brahma, the Invisible Pink Unicorn), shouldn't we able to examine their traits to determine whether they could have arisen by law, by chance or by design?
John Paul:
I suppose, but first things first.
Evolutionists often accuse Creationists of putting the horse before the cart. Here is a classic example of two evolutionists almost forcing ID to do that.
What would be the purpose of doing this? Why would someone want ID to do something it wasn't intended to do?
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Brachinus, posted 03-18-2002 3:47 PM Brachinus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Brachinus, posted 03-18-2002 8:39 PM John Paul has not replied
 Message 90 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 03-21-2002 8:50 AM John Paul has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 78 of 121 (7244)
03-18-2002 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by John Paul
03-18-2002 10:58 AM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
[b]"OK, how about calling it the "Intelligent Designer of the Gaps" argument?"
That would be more appropriate. [/QUOTE]
schrafinator:
LOL! Do you really, truly, think that Behe and the other ID proponents are referring to any other designer than God?
John Paul:
That is irrelevant. ID is not concerned with the designer only the design.
I disagree. If you are saying that something in nature is designed, it is a natural question to wonder who did the designing.
quote:
"The important part is the fallacy that a lack of evidence for one theory constitutes positive evidence for another."
If the recognition of design is not evidence for design, then I don't know what is.
schrafinator:
Nobody has explained how to recognize the difference between an intelligently designed system and a natural one we don't understand.
John Paul:
That is why it is call it is called the design inference. Inference is how science is conducted.
No, inference hasn't been conducted. For inference to have been conducted, there would have to be an actual hypothesis proposed, positive evidence, and potential falsifications. Only analogy has been conducted, and one cannot do science with only analogies.
One cannot make positive claims about natural phenomena by pointing out the lack of an explanation by another theory of the same phenomena.
quote:
Why would infer purely natural processes when there isn’t any evidence to substantiate that claim?
There is no way to provide evidence for a negative. This is pretty basic logic. I can't provide evidence that invisible unicorns aren't flying over my apartment building right now. Does that mean they exist?
Perhaps we tend to think that naturalistic phenomena have naturalistic explanations because this is the basis for scientific inquiry. Perhaps we also have a log history of claims of "Godidit" being explained by science eventually.
quote:
Actually it is not inferred. It is dogmatically asserted.
Not true. Whaen we don't know the explanation for something, we simply say "We don't know".
quote:
Then we have this from Behe:
"Might there be an as-yet-undiscovered natural process that would explain biochemical complexity? No one would be foolish enough to categorically deny the possibility. Nontheless, we can say that if there is such a process, no one has a clue how it would work.
Perhaps Behe didn't now about the blood-clotting mechanism work that was ongoing when his book was published...
quote:
Further, it would go against all human experience, like postulating that a natural process might explain computers. Concluding that no such process exists is as scientifically sound as concluding mental telepathy is not possible, or that the Loch Ness monster doesn’t exist. In the face of the massive evidence we do have for biochemical design, ignoring that evidence in the name of a phantom process would be to play the role of the detectives who ignore an elephant.
How do you tell a designed system from a narual system that we don't understand?
quote:
Why is OK to attribute something to an alleged natural process we don’t understand and not OK to follow everything we know about design and how to detect it?
We don't know how to detect it. That's the problem.
quote:
schrafinator:
Unless thare are falsifiable criterion instead of a "I know it when I see it" kind of explanation, there is no evidence at all.
John Paul:
Been there, done that.
Well, you haven't made your case, so if you are quitting, I'll consider that you have conceded the point.
quote:
Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.
Behe has not made his case that the ordering of components couldn't have arisen naturally, as has been explained previously.
This is still just an analogy, because Behe is trying to say that because we can tell if a human-made artifact is designed, somehow this means that we can apply similar criterion to life (his use of the word "anything"). However, we have abundant evidence of designers of human artifacts, and none of the "designers" of life. Human arifacts and life are fundamentally different, so this analogy somehow becomes evidence is a huge flaw.
Because of this, Behe's work is not science, but philosophy.

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-18-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by John Paul, posted 03-18-2002 10:58 AM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by John Paul, posted 03-18-2002 7:37 PM nator has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 121 (7264)
03-18-2002 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by nator
03-18-2002 5:52 PM


quote:
John Paul:
That is irrelevant. ID is not concerned with the designer only the design.
schrafinator:
I disagree. If you are saying that something in nature is designed, it is a natural question to wonder who did the designing.
John Paul:
Being a natural question is of little relevance as to the focus of ID. Heck, I'm curious about that too. But I realize first things first. Do you read the last chapter of a mystery novel first and try to figure out how it all came together? Or do you read it one chapter at a time, in sequence, try to figure it out and then read the last chapter to see if you got it right?
quote:
John Paul:
That is why it is call it is called the design inference. Inference is how science is conducted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schrafinator:
No, inference hasn't been conducted.
John Paul:
Yes it has.
schraf:
For inference to have been conducted, there would have to be an actual hypothesis proposed, positive evidence, and potential falsifications.
John Paul:
Potential falsifications have been provided and we use the knowledge available to do the rest.
schraf:
Only analogy has been conducted, and one cannot do science with only analogies.
John Paul:
More than that. Biochemical systems are no longer being compared to machines, they are machines:
quote:
"With parts that resemble pistons and a drive shaft, the enzyme F1- ATPase looks suspiciously like a tiny engine. Indeed, a new study demonstrates that's exactly what it is. A movie of a single enzyme molecule in action shows that it spins like a motor to crank out ATP, the ubiquitous molecule that provides energy for biochemical processes in cells.......[The investigators] anchored molecules of F1-ATPase to a glass slide and - like putting a flag on top of a pole - attached a long, fluorescent filament of actin to the end of the drive shaft. By bathing the enzyme in ATP, the researchers made F1-ATPase break down the energy molecule and watched as it whirled the fluorescent filament around like a propeller. The enzyme puts out a very large torque, considering that the actin filament is more than 100 times the length of the enzyme itself, Yoshida [one of the investigators] says. "Can a man rotate a 150-meter rod?" The enzyme can spin such a long filament because it ratchets down the rotation rate when it carries a heavy load, he explains, suggesting that F1-ATPase can change gears - as a good motor should."
Noji et al., 1997, Nature 386,p. 299- 302 (summarized in Science News).

schraf:
One cannot make positive claims about natural phenomena by pointing out the lack of an explanation by another theory of the same phenomena.
John Paul:
What natural phenomenon? You can't call something a natural phenomenon without anything to substantiate that claim. To you everything is a result of a natural process until proven otherwise.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would infer purely natural processes when there isn’t any evidence to substantiate that claim?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schraf:
There is no way to provide evidence for a negative.
John Paul:
I didn't ask you to. I want you to provide the positive evidence to support your claim that purely natural processes can give rise to life from non-life.
schraf:
This is pretty basic logic. I can't provide evidence that invisible unicorns aren't flying over my apartment building right now. Does that mean they exist?
John Paul:
So I take there isn't any positive evidence that life can arise from non-life via purely natural processes. IOW your extreme bias is all that is required for you to infer that it did. Thanks.
schraf:
Perhaps we tend to think that naturalistic phenomena have naturalistic explanations because this is the basis for scientific inquiry.
John Paul:
So you are saying life is just a result of a natural phenomenon. That bias works every time. Doesn't make for good science though.
schraf:
Perhaps we also have a log history of claims of "Godidit" being explained by science eventually.
John Paul:
That could be true or it could just be hearsay. This isn't a game where we keep score. There are still many things science cannot explain.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually it is not inferred. It is dogmatically asserted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schraf:
Not true.
John Paul:
True.
schraf:
When we don't know the explanation for something, we simply say "We don't know".
John Paul:
Not true.
schraf:
Perhaps Behe didn't now about the blood-clotting mechanism work that was ongoing when his book was published...
John Paul:
Did you even read the book? It was a challenge, not a refutation.
schraf:
How do you tell a designed system from a narual system that we don't understand?
John Paul:
How can you call it a natural system if we don't understand it?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why is OK to attribute something to an alleged natural process we don’t understand and not OK to follow everything we know about design and how to detect it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schraf:
We don't know how to detect it. That's the problem.
John Paul:
We have a very, very good idea. Ther is a better case for design in living organisms than there is for life arising from non-life via purely natural processes.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schrafinator:
Unless thare are falsifiable criterion instead of a "I know it when I see it" kind of explanation, there is no evidence at all.
John Paul:
Been there, done that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schraf:
Well, you haven't made your case, so if you are quitting, I'll consider that you have conceded the point.
John Paul:
But you have made no point at all. To you everything that can't yet be explained is attributed to some phantom natural process. Sad part is you don't even see the double-standard you are applying.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schraf:
Behe has not made his case that the ordering of components couldn't have arisen naturally, as has been explained previously.
John Paul:
Hello? No one has made a case that they could. As has been explained to death. And yes, mind correalation is a part of detecting design.
Behe isn't the only IDist who has a say in this. Perhaps you should read how CSI is being defined and refined.
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by nator, posted 03-18-2002 5:52 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by joz, posted 03-19-2002 11:24 AM John Paul has not replied
 Message 86 by Peter, posted 03-20-2002 11:36 AM John Paul has not replied

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 80 of 121 (7268)
03-18-2002 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by nator
03-18-2002 9:02 AM


"LOL! Do you really, truly, think that Behe and the other ID proponents are referring to any other designer than God?"
John Paul has REPEATEDLY pointed out to you that the Intelligent Designer is not the priority of the study of ID. However, it seems to me that this statement is nothing other than religous discrimination. You should not be able to use Behe's religion to undermine his theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by nator, posted 03-18-2002 9:02 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by joz, posted 03-19-2002 11:30 AM Cobra_snake has replied

  
Brachinus
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 121 (7270)
03-18-2002 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by John Paul
03-18-2002 4:58 PM


brachinus:
I'm not talking about trying to figure out who designed the designer, merely to settle the question of whether the designer was designed.
John Paul:
When you have it settled be sure to let us know.
Brachinus:
I'm not the one who claims to have a tool capable of settling the issue of whether a given life form was designed. You're the one who claims to be able to do that.
brachinus:
Shouldn't ID be able to figure that out?
John Paul:
Possibly, once we know who or what the designer is.
Brachinus:
But didn't you say earlier that ID isn't concerned with who the designer is?
JP:
ID, as it stands today, only concerns itself with the apparent design we observe in living organisms. ID first wants to detect that design and then understand it.
Brachinus:
But isn't the designer a living organism?
brachinus:
And if we take a putative designer (Jehovah, Brahma, the Invisible Pink Unicorn), shouldn't we able to examine their traits to determine whether they could have arisen by law, by chance or by design?
John Paul:
I suppose, but first things first.
Evolutionists often accuse Creationists of putting the horse before the cart. Here is a classic example of two evolutionists almost forcing ID to do that.
Brachinus:
I would never accuse creationists of putting the horse before the cart -- it's been my experience that they tend to do the opposite. ;-)
JP:
What would be the purpose of doing this? Why would someone want ID to do something it wasn't intended to do?
Brachinus:
Um, because searching for knowledge is good?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by John Paul, posted 03-18-2002 4:58 PM John Paul has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 121 (7302)
03-19-2002 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by John Paul
03-18-2002 7:37 PM


You know JP you still haven`t answered this from post 5 in any substantive fashion.....
quote:
Originally posted by Quetzal:
1. a phenomenon or object matches some pre-defined meaningful pattern ("specificity")
2. the phenomenon or object has a low probability of occuring through purely natural mechanisms without intelligent intervention ("complexity")

Its this definition of SC that seems, to me, to cause fatal problems to the EF, after all from 2 above an object or event is complex if it has alow probability of occuring through purely natural mechanisms without intelligent intervention. Note low not no is the word preceeding probability. Its origin, natural or designed, presumeably is independant of its specifity, therefore following these definitions a natural object can be CS....
We then look at what the EF has to say:
quote:
......If No we ask does E have a Small Probability of occurring AND is it specified? If Yes we attribute it to Design. if No we attribute it to chance.
Where did the possible natural CS go? somewhere between the original definitions and the filter it seems to have gone MIA.....
Also if it was included the filter would have to include a line that evaluated the probability of a possible designer exsisting i.e:
...... goto 3)
3)Does E have a Small Probability of occurring AND is it specified?
If No we attribute it to chance,if yes is there reason to attribute E to a designer?
If yes E could be the result of design OR nature, if no then E can be attributed to nature.
Untill the EF contains the possibility of natural CSI it is spurious and circular as a means of discerning design from nature.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by John Paul, posted 03-18-2002 7:37 PM John Paul has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Quetzal, posted 03-20-2002 4:39 AM joz has replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 121 (7303)
03-19-2002 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Cobra_snake
03-18-2002 8:21 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
John Paul has REPEATEDLY pointed out to you that the Intelligent Designer is not the priority of the study of ID. However, it seems to me that this statement is nothing other than religous discrimination. You should not be able to use Behe's religion to undermine his theory.
JP has REPEATEDLY tried to evade the question given that Behe considers bacteria to be IC its a pretty fair bet that a naturally occuring IDer is not a viable solution to the ID of the IDer as it were....
So that leaves us with..... Goddidit...
I agree that under normal circumstances a persons religion should not be used against their theories, however in this case his theory is based solely on religious conviction...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Cobra_snake, posted 03-18-2002 8:21 PM Cobra_snake has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Cobra_snake, posted 03-20-2002 6:15 PM joz has replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5873 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 84 of 121 (7381)
03-20-2002 4:39 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by joz
03-19-2002 11:24 AM


Joz: This is the whole problem with Dembski's filter: specified complexity can only come from intelligent design, because any specified complexity known not to have an intelligent origin is not really specified complexity (i.e., it is "apparent" complexity). This of course means that anything examined by the filter where the origin of it is not known defaults to "intelligently designed".
Basically, design must be determined a priori because to use the filter you have to assign a meaningful pattern to some phenomenon or object before you can determine the probability of it occurring (since CSI theory doesn't take into consideration orgins or causation). As a low probability of natural occurrance is a requirement for design, anything with a low probability of natural occurance AND which contains some observer-assigned "meaning" by definition exhibits specified complexity and hence is designed.
Can you say "circular reasoning"?
This is, of course, why allegedly IC systems or structures are ALWAYS detected by the EF as containing CSI - they were determined IN ADVANCE to be designed because they are defined as irreducible.
I wonder if JP, whose vast knowledge of this subject is humbling, could possibly explain whether the EF can be used to detect other design in nature? Specifically, whether design is apparent in higher order systems such as a tropical rainforest biome? I think this would be a wonderful example of CSI. Here we have a highly complex system exhibiting emergent properties that are much more specified than would be evident from a mere summing of the components. Do CAS exhibit design?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by joz, posted 03-19-2002 11:24 AM joz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by joz, posted 03-20-2002 11:05 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 121 (7404)
03-20-2002 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Quetzal
03-20-2002 4:39 AM


I can say circular....
I`d also throw in the EF is spurious and simply an assertion that CSI=Design with meaningless mathematical garnish.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Quetzal, posted 03-20-2002 4:39 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1480 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 86 of 121 (7406)
03-20-2002 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by John Paul
03-18-2002 7:37 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
schraf:
We don't know how to detect it. That's the problem.
John Paul:
We have a very, very good idea. There is a better case for design in living organisms than there is for life arising from non-life via purely natural processes.

Perhaps you could summarise this 'better case' in bullet points ?
Also, please explain how we have a very, very good idea about how to detect design, and perhaps you could pass that on the the
marine archeaologists and geologists who are agruing about the
man-made or natural formation of undersea structures off the coast
of India (I believe).
How CAN you be sure that a 100 X 100 grid of trees was planted ?
What would be the tolerance acceptable on that alignment before
you would conclude lack of design ?
Step 1:: Does E have a high probability of ocurring ?
This is the whole stumbling block of Dembski's design filter for
me. In whose opinion is this probability formed ? If we do not
understand the mechanisms by which life WAS formed (and life has
arisen somehow) how can we assign probabilites to it ?
If E is natural emergence of life on earth, I assign that a high
probablity based upon various readings about thermal vents, and
such like ... so I assign the emergence to regularity.
I've even seen statistical probablitities against abiogenesis, which,
if the assumptions upon which they are based are challenged,
reduce the odds to mathematically acceptable without pointing out
that statistical probability doesn't really mean anything (especially
ater the event).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by John Paul, posted 03-18-2002 7:37 PM John Paul has not replied

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 121 (7429)
03-20-2002 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by joz
03-19-2002 11:30 AM


"JP has REPEATEDLY tried to evade the question given that Behe considers bacteria to be IC its a pretty fair bet that a naturally occuring IDer is not a viable solution to the ID of the IDer as it were...."
Yeah, well on a different planet, anything is possible.
"So that leaves us with..... Goddidit..."
Nope. That leaves us with: Intelligentdesignerdidit.
"I agree that under normal circumstances a persons religion should not be used against their theories, however in this case his theory is based solely on religious conviction..."
Really? Actually, Behe claims that he was perfectly fine with the idea of a God that used evolution... but then he looked into it. In fact, many God-fearing men are perfectly fine with the idea of evolution. It seems to me that it is the atheists that are driven mostly by religous conviction. But you don't see me going around saying "Evilution is only for atheist non-believing scum!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by joz, posted 03-19-2002 11:30 AM joz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by joz, posted 03-20-2002 8:22 PM Cobra_snake has replied

  
Dr_Tazimus_maximus
Member (Idle past 3217 days)
Posts: 402
From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Joined: 03-19-2002


Message 88 of 121 (7436)
03-20-2002 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by John Paul
03-12-2002 4:53 PM


John Paul, while I am new to this board I am not to the debate. I have one question for you before entering this fray. Do you think that a key biological/biochemical component of the ID concept is Irreducible complexity as espoused by Dr. M. Behe of LeHigh University?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by John Paul, posted 03-12-2002 4:53 PM John Paul has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 121 (7437)
03-20-2002 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Cobra_snake
03-20-2002 6:15 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
1)Yeah, well on a different planet, anything is possible.
2)Nope. That leaves us with: Intelligentdesignerdidit.
3)a)Really? Actually, Behe claims that he was perfectly fine with the idea of a God that used evolution... but then he looked into it.
b)In fact, many God-fearing men are perfectly fine with the idea of evolution.
c)It seems to me that it is the atheists that are driven mostly by religous conviction. But you don't see me going around saying "Evilution is only for atheist non-believing scum!"

1)Only if you assume that on another planet the natural laws we observe in the rest of the universe are completely meaningless...
2)And given that Intelligentdesigner is semanticaly equal to God that leaves us with Goddidit.....
3)a)So if its a scientific theory rather than a religious belief in a lab coat why has the dear Dr not published his work in any form other than a popular press book? Its been 6 years, if he hasn`t published yet the chances are that he has nothing that validates his claims...
With no proof it is a belief, and by dragging in an intelligent designing entity, for which there is no evidence for the existence of, it becomes a religious belief...
b)Yes the rational ones...
c)Athiests driven by religious conviction????? Que?????
And WTF is the last bit about?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Cobra_snake, posted 03-20-2002 6:15 PM Cobra_snake has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Cobra_snake, posted 03-28-2002 10:08 PM joz has replied

  
Dr_Tazimus_maximus
Member (Idle past 3217 days)
Posts: 402
From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Joined: 03-19-2002


Message 90 of 121 (7475)
03-21-2002 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by John Paul
03-18-2002 4:58 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by John Paul:
You are missing my point also. ID doesn't care about the designer, only the design- how to detect it, how to understand it and what to do with it.
Perhaps if you did a little research such a concept wouldn't be so foreign to you.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Actually John Paul, the main group of ID, namely the Discovery Institute, cares very much who the "designer" is and that it eventually be identified as the christian version of God. This has been well outlined in the Wedge concept promoted by a key founder of the movement,P. Johnson, and was at one point clearly defined in the Discovery Institute website. The file outlining the wedge strategy and the ultimate designer has recently been deleted from the site.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by John Paul, posted 03-18-2002 4:58 PM John Paul has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1707 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 91 of 121 (7499)
03-21-2002 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by John Paul
03-18-2002 4:49 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
John Paul:
I didn't know I was supposed to. The designer is irrelevant to ID. But you would have known that had you researched the issue.
edge:
Well, you have been asked a few times that I am aware of.
John Paul:
And you still don't understand?
Well, that's why I asked.
quote:
edge:
I have not heard a response other than "irrelevant". Is that still your answer? Not very revealing...
John Paul:
What am supposed to reveal? That ID concerns itself with the design and not the designer? That much would be obvious to those who have studied ID.
So you are not going to answer my question?
quote:
edge:
And the designer is irrelevant to design? Hmm, sounds like a cop out to me.
John Paul:
I would most likely agree if it was called the theory of the intelligent designer. However it is the theory of intelligent design or the intelligent design theory.
So, there isn't a designer? Only a design?
quote:
Recognizing and understanding the design are its priorities.
But don't you think that it might be important to know who the designer is and how he(?) was designed... or would that be created?
quote:
edge:
I am trying to discover if we were designed in the same way that the designer was designed.
John Paul:
So you already know how we were designed?
Well, I did say "if".
quote:
That would be the first step, right? Being a scientist and all, wouldn't you want to follow a methodical approach to resolving the issue?
I would hate to see how you would build a bridge.
Yes, I would have all kinds of questions about the designer of that bridge.
quote:
Trying to resolve two issues when the conclusion of one most likely would influence the conclusion of the other? Please, spare me.
Yes, if the designers bridges had all failed, it might influence the outcome.
quote:
edge:
In order to determine this, I must know who that ultimate designer was or is.
John Paul:
Then I wish you luck on your quest.
Oh, gee. Does that mean that you won't answer?
quote:
I'm still working on the hows, whys, whats, wheres, whens of the observed design in living organisms on Earth.
I think you're holding out on me JP. Well, remember, naturalism will welcome you back with open arms.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by John Paul, posted 03-18-2002 4:49 PM John Paul has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024