Distinguishing "designs"

Parsimony has the ability to makes us think of the mundane. Perhaps the fact that something is parsimonious speaks of a much order that we take for granted.What inferences can be drawn by looking at the laws of nature? If chaos were the unthinking thing we associate with it, would we expect a design or an inimitable law to come out of it by mere happenstance?I've made cursory glances at the chaos theory, but there is something that seems so implausible about uniformity deriving from chaos. Indeed, I have made a similar argument. But at the same time, if one wants to assert that the universe, and all contained therein, was intelligently designed, they will no doubt point to systems that apparently obviate those characteristics.In this way, proponents of the design inference have to say that design is obvious. But what of the seemingly arbitrary? What of the so-called 'poor designs?' It would be easy to simply say that we don't know the mind of the Designer, and therefore can't make assumptions about what those Designers intents were.But by the same rationale, how can we also then say that design is simple to see? The way I see it, is that there is room for both intent and chance. I will try and touch on this point in more depth as the dialogue goes on. I see no way that evolution in the beginning stages, or life in general for that matter, can be deduced when nothing literally means, no thing. If there was no thing, not matter, not time, not space, not energy, what deductions can we actually make? Why only the appearance though? If we look at something like the sexual organs of males and females, what kinds of inferences can we make? Given that the ToE categorically states that life began to proliferate via asexuality, what kinds of odds are we talking about for both a female and a male of the same specie, evolving at nearly simultaneous moments, with completely compatible sex organs, down to the sperm and the egg?Sex organs make great arguments for design, but more specifically, of irreducible complexity. This is because the sex organs could not have derived slowly, with slight, successive gradations because they never could have procreated without all of the components in their right place, at the right time. If God is the Great Artificer, as I believe Him to be, can this description be reconciled for a deist-- given that deism claims that God created, then stepped back? If God did not intend for anything, then we can't very well refer to Him as an artist, since art is an intentional endeavor, with intended results. Which is why that one famous atheist said that evolution has made it possible to be a satisfied atheist. Well, then I hope I was not also being verbose.

---

​

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt

quote:

---

Parsimony has the ability to makes us think of the mundane

---

Well, I was meaning that if parsimony exists, and chaos exists, why would chaos be anything but chaotic-- not ever lending itself to pattern?Wouldn't parsimony more highly represent intent? And if it does represent intent, isn't that indicative of a cognizant mind acting upon that intent?Very simply, isn't the fact that parsimony exists a better indication of some sort of higher intelligence?

quote:

---

Which is why that one famous atheist said that evolution has made it possible to be a satisfied atheist.

---

Only if that is the hope through self-manipulation. In other words, if its true, then no it couldn't be called bad. But if it were not true-- that people invent for themselves satisfying reasons not to believe, then any abjuring of the truth would be bad. Well, it would never work. And who would want to anyhow? Forcing someone to love God is no love at all, but rather, some mechanized approach that masquerades as love.

---

​

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt

I saw a snowflake and something that looked like a Rorschach inkblot test. I don't know what I am supposed to make of it. Can you give me a little more detail? Then where does deterministic law come in to play, since physical laws, by their very nature, are deterministic?

quote:

---

I see no way that evolution in the beginning stages, or life in general for that matter, can be deduced when nothing literally means, no thing. If there was no thing, not matter, not time, not space, not energy, what deductions can we actually make?

---

Well, that seems awfully convenient. Cosmic evolution ---> chemical evolution ---> biological evolution. Is that not a very condensed version of the supposed events? Aside from sexual proliferation being far more costly than asexual proliferation, I wonder why nature would have selected such a reproductive method when mitosis seems far simpler.The stepwise gradation you've supplied, though it is anecdotal, seems plausible enough to begin to at least theoretically entertain the idea. But I wonder how difficult it would have been to have had both sexes with fully operational sex organs that were compatible with one another simultaneously.One could see, theoretically, how the two sexes became distinct, but I scarcely see how they would just so happen to fully functional and compatible. If proliferation is the stated or unstated goal of life, then mass reproduction seems like a winning ticket-- which bacteria and viruses are phenomenal at, and obviously vastly better than organisms that propagate through means of meiosis.What advantages did sexual reproduction have over asexual reproduction that ensured sexual reproductions survival alongside the asexual method?

---

​

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt