Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9078 total)
138 online now:
Dredge, nwr, PaulK, Phat, Tanypteryx (5 members, 133 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,274 Year: 6,386/6,534 Month: 579/650 Week: 117/232 Day: 2/54 Hour: 0/2

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Intelligent Design just a question for evolutionists
Member (Idle past 1424 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005

Message 144 of 146 (796886)
01-06-2017 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
10-06-2016 6:04 PM

teleological argument for god...or aliens designing aliens designing aliens des....
Obviously evolutionists generally believe the ID movement is creationism

Correct. The ID movement is fundamentally based upon a teleological argument for the special intervention (almost universally) of a deity in the origin of the species constructed so as to appear to be a mere philosophical argument so as to 'wedge' Christian talking points into science classroom discussion.

can you appreciate that there is the classic argument of ID, since Paley

Meh, the Bible beat him to it. Aquinas after that. The Greeks beat all of them.

which didn't really refer to creation or Christianity

Well Paley did say during his Watchmaker and Eye analogy:

If any thing can abate our admiration of the smallness of the visual tablet compared with the extent of vision, it is a reflection, which the view of nature leads us, every hour, to make, viz. that, in the hands of the Creator, great and little are nothing.

So yeah, Paley was using a teleological argument to defend the position of Creationism.

Or can you recognise it is possible to form a syllogism which contains no premise pertaining to God or creationism, within it?

Teleology certainly could - but the ID movement, Aquinas, Paley, The Bible and the Greeks? Not usually, they are usually driving towards the notion that the designer is the Creator.

Can you recognise this?

While I acknowledge that you might not accept the present form of ID as anything other than a watered down form of creationism, can you accept that if a syllogism contains no premises that mention creation or God, then strictly speaking, technically, the syllogism itself is not creationist?


The reason I ask this is my own intelligent design argument was never intended to be similar to an ID movement, it is just a syllogism that takes us to the conclusion that life is intelligently designed.

That would be rare, but not unheard of.

I am not asking anyone to agree with my argument, all I am requesting is that you can acknowledge that strictly speaking, if I only argue one ID argument, and it really isn't part of any creationist movement to get ID in a classroom, but really is just my own ID argument, then can't that ID argument be regarded as having little to do with creationism, if there is no words or premises in the argument that refer to or depend on creationism, and the argument still stands even if creationism is false?


The syllogism I have used for ID, was never meant to be used as a creationist argument, but only as a way to ASCERTAIN if an object or thing, is designed;

If something has the elements of design it is designed. (X is X, Law of identity)
Life has the elements of design
Therefore life is designed.

I agree with your syllogism. However, you didn't include intelligence in this, so I can hardly say you presented an intelligent design argument here.

Now I am not arguing this argument here and now, I know you don't accept it, but can you accept the conclusion only says whether something is designed?


It is not meant to say who or what the designer is, and has nothing to do with who or what the designer is.

Exactly. It could be a God, aliens or evolution by natural selection. Your argument is neutral to all these possibilities.

I just fail to see how it isn't a generalisation, to say that my argument would be creationism because of the modern ID movement, the conclusion, "it is intelligently designed" also makes no mention of by who or what, just that there is a recognition that the object FEATURES hallmarks of intelligence.

Except for the part about it not actually concluding 'it is intelligently designed'. Which seems to me like a rather important issue.

That said, it is not really much use as far as arguments go. Like basically all syllogisms, it isn't very useful at all except in so far as to explain some basic part of your position. If you are hiding the premise 'if something is designed, it is by intelligent agency', which you seem to be based on your extra-syllogistic discussion then you are making a logical error. But if we assume this additional premise, the syllogism can be entirely valid. I don't see any reason to suppose it is true, but valid? Sure.

I just fail to see how it isn't a generalisation, to say that my argument would be creationism because of the modern ID movement, the conclusion, "it is intelligently designed" also makes no mention of by who or what, just that there is a recognition that the object FEATURES hallmarks of intelligence.

I'll let you have it all if you will acknowledge that a thing that designs other things strongly implies 'the elements of design', and if that is so, it must also be designed...thus rendering it somewhat useless or at least trivial. To be saying anything of interest, you'd need to start discussing the course of the regression.

Materialists tend towards explaining things in ever more simple with the argument that wherever the regression ultimately leads, it could hardly be called 'intelligent'.

If you are proposing an ever increasing series of intelligent designers {interplanetary alien scientists, interstellar alien scientists, intergalactic alien scientists, pan-universal alien scientists} you'd have to keep a tight leash to avoid the tempting offer to cut things off before you started describing typically divine properties (transcending time and space, eternal, an intelligent unmoved mover etc).

I think the more classical ID argument is much more BASIC than creationism

Agreed. All believers in some kind of Creator deity or deities for thousands of years have used 'the argument from design' to support their particular worldview.

It seems to me, if I mention ID, I am tarred with the brush of the modern ID movement, and people will say, "ID is religion.

Yeah, that's because ID is a specific thing. If you don't want to be tarred with that, avoid the term 'ID'. Go with teleology. At least you'd be signalling to the educated that you aren't necessarily arguing for a Creator - although those that know you will probably perceive a man furiously working behind a curtain you'd like us to pay no attention to.

I made this post without having actually read any of the replies, so apologies for repeat points. I thought it might be interesting to get my blind response.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 10-06-2016 6:04 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Member (Idle past 1424 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005

Message 145 of 146 (796887)
01-06-2017 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by mike the wiz
10-07-2016 6:05 AM

You are muddying-the-water. When we examine whether something is intelligently designed, we can 100% know the features of design because we can examine things we already know to be designed. That's the first step.

Secondly, we can also tangibly examine the object-in-question to see if it has those features.


Well the 'we know this feature is designed, so this suggests this similar feature is also designed' idea is in fact a theory. A theory is what you apply to data (the object and its features) in your case for making an argument that this is evidence for you theory that similar features were intelligently designed.

According to the law-of-the-excluded-middle, either the object in question qualifies as having the features of intelligent design, or it does not. Because we can DIRECTLY examine it, why would indirect conjecture of a theory, have any weight?

You explain, I suppose, the eye as having been intelligently designed based on the theory that it has (for instance) lots of clever parts interacting in a specific way so as to allow vision. And intelligent agents can in fact arrange parts cleverly in a specific way for optical purposes. Your theory then is that the data you find in the eye suggests the explanation for the existence of the eye lies in some kind intelligent designer having deliberately designed it much like, for instance, a camera.

So it would be foolish of you to throw out the concept of using theory when analysing data because then you would have no evidence to support your conclusions.

Think about it properly

Right back at you.

If someone came up to you and placed a football at your foot, and said, "please tell me is this a football" and you went to examine it and they clicked their fingers and said, "oh hang on a minute, we have a theory this isn't a football, it's brilliant and most people accept the theory by neurotic agreement so forget the examination"

Would that be an intelligent way to proceed, when you have the football in front of you and can simply test whether it is one?

I'd say 'what is the theory?' and 'what data do you have, that in light of this theory serves as evidence for it?'

In the same way, I don't need the speculation of evolution-theory to tell me if a rabbit has the features of design, I simply examine it's make-up and see that it does;

- specified complexity
- information
- contingency planning
- correct materials (not metal or enamel for a stomach)
- aesthetics and symmetry
- goals and subgoals
- congruency/integration of systems in union of the overall goal. (eyes, ears used for balance, don't get in each others way, etc..car wheels don't get in the way of the carburetor, etc..it is all a union of corresponding integration).
- information storage density
- directed energy

Which, according your theory, all indicates an intelligent designer - right?

Likewise I could list a number of features that suggest unintelligent design, and even more - a specific kind of unintelligent design by recourse to a different theory.

So it comes down to 'how do we assess different theories?', 'Are there methods for determining which theory is the stronger, or better, in some way or my some measure?'

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by mike the wiz, posted 10-07-2016 6:05 AM mike the wiz has not replied

Member (Idle past 1424 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005

Message 146 of 146 (796889)
01-06-2017 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Genomicus
10-07-2016 11:08 AM

Re: Life Looks Engineered
When we say that cells have molecular machines, we actually mean that they have machines.

Sure, but they are messy stochastic machines that operating by bumping into each other with bias. If my car drove 2 miles forwards and then 1.5 miles backwards I'd hardly regard it as intelligently designed. Likewise if it proceeded down the road by bumping into the wall on one side, bouncing off, hitting on coming traffic and spinning around, driving the wrong way and being turned around again and then stopped working altogether and used gravity to direct itself for twenty minutes, then started up again at a normal angle to my destination, drove off a bridge, got carried half a mile off down a river where it hit a rock that knocked it back on course and away I went....that'd hardly be the hallmark of intelligence.

This isn't metaphorical language -- and the same is true for genetic codes.

ddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddf ffffffffffffffffffffe adfdst grfflflkflfl l fgg If It turnddddddddddddddddddddlldldldled o

uuuuuuuutttttttt {see the eighth word in my reply} dddddsosslslsa I dlfdfa spppppppppppp0000k3333ereeeerere lkjklklkljlike ssssthis wwrwwwoooooooodwoooodwoodwoodwoodwouldwouldworldwoodwould uuuuuuuyooooooyou thththtink IIIII wassawas intelilililigentigentigent?

If the genetic code is to be thought of as a code, it is not passing on its messages in a way that any intelligent agent ever has. Optimised? Maybe. Messy, ugly, referential, double meaningly, ambiguously and contingent on very specific conditions to be read? Sure.

But this isn't so for life. When we look at life under increasingly higher resolutions, the deeper the engineering analogy becomes.

Nope, the more messy and stochastic and chaotic and disorganized it becomes.

There are actual machines with discrete, modular parts.

That behave in a way that no intelligent person would design something to work if they wanted to keep their job as an engineer.

At a core, basal level, there are systems that smack of rational design -- systems and machines that are not reflective of hodge-podge, jury-rigged Neo-Darwinian co-option mechanisms.

Only if you look at simplified representations of them for the purposes of understanding stochastic tendencies without showing those stochastic tendencies because they typically confuse the crap out of people who are trying to learn what's going on in general.

We can then take that as a working hypothesis, further refine it, and see where the hypothesis' predictions and explanatory powers takes us.

They've taken us no further than the ancient Greeks managed to get. Did Paley advance the argument in some compelling way? There is no explanation present.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Genomicus, posted 10-07-2016 11:08 AM Genomicus has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022