A Question for Creationists

[Jose Fly]

Yes, but that is not the term's fault. And the term applies to a great many instances, still, nevertheless.

I don't recall anyone saying it was "the term's fault". Again, the point is that given creationists' history of using "design" as a means to sneak their religious beliefs into science education, scientists' wariness of the term (especially in biology) is completely understandable.

 

[leibowde84]

Actually, you're both wrong. Im no ape.

Believe it or not, humans are part of the "Great Ape" family. So, it's a fact ... humans are apes.

The Hominidae (/hɒˈmɪnɪdiː/), whose members are known as great apes[note 1] or hominids, are a taxonomic family of primates that includes eight extantspecies in four genera: Pongo, the Bornean, Sumatran and Tapanuli orangutan; Gorilla, the eastern and western gorilla; Pan, the common chimpanzee and the bonobo; and Homo, which includes modern humans and its extinct relatives (e.g., the Neanderthal), and ancestors, such as Homo erectus.[1] (Hominidae - Wikipedia)

 

[leibowde84]

I have looked into it. Abiogenesis is just about as stupid a theory as spontaneous generation was. Even if scientists managed to create some resemblance of a life form in a lab it would not prove abiogenesis. But why prove it when they can get intelligent people to believe it, anyway?

Because science, unlike religion, is not preoccupied with getting people to believe certain things. Scientists use the scientific method to support their hypotheses with verifiable evidence though repeated testing, experimentation, data, etc.

And, obviously enough, they don't have to prove abiogenesis to show that life coming from non-life is possible.

 

[leibowde84]

The universe (all existence as we know it) is the only way it could be given the limitations (possibility parameters) that have been imposed on the explosion of energy that has created it. Yes.

But, none of this points to it being a "design" or "created" by anything. So, what are you basing that conclusion on?

 

[PureX]

I don't recall anyone saying it was "the term's fault". Again, the point is that given creationists' history of using "design" as a means to sneak their religious beliefs into science education, scientists' wariness of the term (especially in biology) is completely understandable.

Scientists are not wary of creationists misusing terms, atheists are. Scientists understand that existence is "designed", and they are trying to uncover and understand that design.

Creationists are not wrong in positing that existence is an expression of "intelligent design". They are wrong to presume and propose that the mythical stories created by some ancient tribesmen are historically factual.

 

[PureX]

But, none of this points to it being a "design" or "created" by anything. So, what are you basing that conclusion on?

Of course it "points to it". Which is why you are arguing with it. All this existential design begs the question of a "designer". That's why the atheists here are trying so hard to dismiss it as being something other than what it is.

When it gets right down to it everything that exists exists as an expression of energy. And that expression is being governed, i.e., limited but a set of parameters that determine the ways in which that energy can and cannot be expressed. And those parameters are the ultimate origin of 'existential design'.

We have no idea exactly how, what, or where those limiting parameters come from, but the question posed by them is unavoidable. It 'begs' to be answered because that answer will finally reveal to us how and why we exist.

 

[Jose Fly]

Scientists are not wary of creationists misusing terms, atheists are. Scientists understand that existence is "designed", and they are trying to uncover and understand that design.

Creationists are not wrong in positing that existence is an expression of "intelligent design". They are wrong to presume and propose that the mythical stories created by some ancient tribesmen are historically factual.

What exactly do you mean when you use the term "design"? Is it a reference to something supernatural, or is it about the results of natural processes (e.g., a glacier "designing" a U-valley)?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Scientists are not wary of creationists misusing terms, atheists are. Scientists understand that existence is "designed", and they are trying to uncover and understand that design.

Creationists are not wrong in positing that existence is an expression of "intelligent design". They are wrong to presume and propose that the mythical stories created by some ancient tribesmen are historically factual.

Nope, if you were right you would have evidence that supports your claims. All you have is vague hand waving. You do not even seem to understand the nature of evidence. I can help you with that.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Where were you before you were conceived?

 

[PureX]

What exactly do you mean when you use the term "design"? Is it a reference to something supernatural, or is it about the results of natural processes (e.g., a glacier "designing" a U-valley)?

The course and behavior of a river is "designed" by the set of possibility parameters imposed on the forces involved in it's creation and maintenance: fluidity, gravity, resistance, equilibrium (containment), ... and so on. When scientists study the collected phenomena we call "a river", this is what they are studying, and this is what they are hoping to come to understand: it's "design". Just as when scientists study the collected phenomena we call "weather", or "life", or "matter", or anything else.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The course and behavior of a river is "designed" by the set of possibility parameters imposed on the forces involved in it's creation and maintenance: fluidity, gravity, resistance, equilibrium (containment), ... and so on. When scientists study the collected phenomena we call "a river", this is what they are studying, and this is what they are hoping to come to understand: it's "design". Just as when scientists study the collected phenomena we call "weather", or "life", or "matter", or anything else.

That is not "design". You appear to be making a massive equivocation error at best. Your type of "design" requires no god nor is it evidence for a god.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Another thing is people partial to creationism or ID focus on particular or selected aspects of what they think is "designed" while at the same time either not noticing, or unwilling to address the aspects of randomness and chaos that is prevalent throughout the known universe.

Making such people more likely to have the tendency to see and view things as being "designed" because we have the ability to recognize patterns and look for symmetry.

All of which btw are subject at some point to randomness and chaos, which would by nature support evolutionary theory as more likely than intelligent design.

I'd be interested in a creationist view of Randomness and Chaos as it applies to intelligent design.

 

[PureX]

That is not "design". You appear to be making a massive equivocation error at best. Your type of "design" requires no god nor is it evidence for a god.

You don't get to define "design" for all humanity. And neither does the dictionary. If you disagree with my understanding of the term, then please explain why your understanding of it is superior, rather than throwing around groundless accusations of my misunderstanding.

 

[Jose Fly]

The course and behavior of a river is "designed" by the set of possibility parameters imposed on the forces involved in it's creation and maintenance: fluidity, gravity, resistance, equilibrium (containment), ... and so on.

And who or what do you believe does the imposing and creating?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You don't get to define "design" for all humanity. And neither does the dictionary. If you disagree with my understanding of the term, then please explain why your understanding of it is superior, rather than throwing around groundless accusations of my misunderstanding.

LOL!! You have that so backwards. I am not attempting to defined design for others. If anything you are guilty of making up your own definitions, that is not allowed. My understanding of the term is far superior to yours because it is consistent. You want to claim an intelligence and claim that "design" is why we know there is one. Then you go so far as to make your definition of "design" so broad as to include events that need no intelligence. That by the way is your equivocation error. Those exist because there are multiple definitions of a word.

Let me help you out. An equivocation error is when you use two different definitions of a word. In this case you try to claim that designed things, such as watches, have to have a designer. That is fine if you mean that "design" is something that was purposefully created by somebody or thing. Then you broaden the definition so far as to include meanders in streams. Meanders in streams are not made by an intelligence they are merely a result of gravity, momentum, and fluid flow. By calling meanders "designed" you have now changed your definition. And by using two different definitions you have made a logical fallacy.

 

[DavidFirth]

Believe it or not, humans are part of the "Great Ape" family. So, it's a fact ... humans are apes.

The Hominidae (/hɒˈmɪnɪdiː/), whose members are known as great apes[note 1] or hominids, are a taxonomic family of primates that includes eight extantspecies in four genera: Pongo, the Bornean, Sumatran and Tapanuli orangutan; Gorilla, the eastern and western gorilla; Pan, the common chimpanzee and the bonobo; and Homo, which includes modern humans and its extinct relatives (e.g., the Neanderthal), and ancestors, such as Homo erectus.[1] (Hominidae - Wikipedia)

That's just classification preference and it proves nothing but scientists' willing ignorance of the obvious.

 

[DavidFirth]

Because science, unlike religion, is not preoccupied with getting people to believe certain things. Scientists use the scientific method to support their hypotheses with verifiable evidence though repeated testing, experimentation, data, etc.

And, obviously enough, they don't have to prove abiogenesis to show that life coming from non-life is possible.

Scientists are the problem, not science itself. How one interprets evidence has everything to do with their own personal bias and preferences.

Scientists cannot prove abiogenesis, big bang theory, macro-evolution or any of the many, many assumptions used in the "truth" of such theories that deny the obvious, that the Creator created.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You don't get to define "design" for all humanity. And neither does the dictionary. If you disagree with my understanding of the term, then please explain why your understanding of it is superior, rather than throwing around groundless accusations of my misunderstanding.

If your definition of the word design doesn't imply intent, then that is fine once you have stated as much. The patterns in the universe can be called designs.

If your definition does imply intent, as with these definitions, then no. There is insufficient evidence that the universe was designed to declare it as such:

Spoiler: design (dictionary)

1. a plan or drawing produced to show the look and function or workings of a building, garment, or other object before it is built or made.
   "he has just unveiled his design for the new museum"
   synonyms: plan, blueprint, drawing, sketch, outline, map, plot, diagram, draft, representation, scheme, model
   "a design for the offices"
   • the art or action of conceiving of and producing a plan or drawing.
     "good design can help the reader understand complicated information"
   • an arrangement of lines or shapes created to form a pattern or decoration.
     "pottery with a lovely blue and white design"
     synonyms: pattern, motif, device; More
     style, composition, makeup, layout, construction, shape, form
     "tableware with a gold design"
2. 
   purpose, planning, or intention that exists or is thought to exist behind an action, fact, or material object.
   "the appearance of design in the universe"
   synonyms: intention, aim, purpose, plan, intent, objective, object, goal, end, target; More
   hope, desire, wish, dream, aspiration, ambition
   "his design of reaching the top"

verb
verb: design; 3rd person present: designs; past tense: designed; past participle: designed; gerund or present participle: designing
1.
decide upon the look and functioning of (a building, garment, or other object), typically by making a detailed drawing of it.

How about switching to "pattern"? That word doesn't carry the baggage that "design" does.

Or maybe you like that baggage. Maybe that's the purpose in using that word.

 

[PureX]

And who or what do you believe does the imposing and creating?

We have no idea. However, because existence is an expression of design, there is the implication that there would be a "designer" of some sort. It is this implication that atheists are working SO HARD at trying to deny and dispel, even though the implication does not rise to the level of proof.

 

[PureX]

If your definition of the word design doesn't imply intent, then that is fine once you have stated as much. The patterns in the universe can be called designs.

All design implies intent, as design is the organized control (through limitation) of the possible outcomes of a process. The outcome, then, becoming the "intent" of the design's control.

If your definition does imply intent, as with these definitions, then no. There is insufficient evidence that the universe was designed to declare it as such:

2. Purpose, planning, or intention that exists or is thought to exist (within) an action ( or process), fact, or material object. As in:

1. "the appearance of design in the universe"

How about switching to "pattern"? That word doesn't carry the baggage that "design" does.

"Design" doesn't carry any baggage, for me. Design is just design, it does not automatically mean there has to be a "designer". It only carries baggage for atheists who can't allow for the implication of intention within the expression of existential design, because it begs the question of a "designer". A question that they apparently can't abide.