A simple case for intelligent design

[leroy]

Something that is designed does not need to be complex. A pencil or an arrow or a stone hand-axe does not have many parts or units, but it is still designed. Conversely a piece of rock may be complex, in the sense of containing a large number of different minerals, or even of containing different types of rock in a single hand specimen, but that does not mean that it is designed.

Yes that is correct, which is why nobody claims that complexity by itself implies design you need both specificity and complexity

 

[leroy]

wow... OK...


Yes, and Kelly Blue Book asks people how much they would pay for automobile X, then publish how much automobile X is worth.

Again we both agree on that we need to know somethings about stuff before applying the test


What you have to do is provide an argument and show that it would be a problem

 

[leroy]

This is not a very good analogy since we have the numbers for half lives. All that you have been able to provide is rather vague hand waving. It appears that you have not been able to properly define terms so that you ideas could be tested based on their own merit.

Interesting comment, but also irelevant.

The point of my analogy was to show that a test can be valid even if you need to know some data before applying the test.

As an example I mentioned radiometric dating where one needs to know the half live of the parent element before applying the test, but that doesn't invalidates the test

So you ether agree with this particular point (and perhaps you can help me and explain this to @tas8831)

Or you provide an argument against this particular point.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Interesting comment, but also irelevant.

The point of my analogy was to show that a test can be valid even if you need to know some data before applying the test.

As an example I mentioned radiometric dating where one needs to know the half live of the parent element before applying the test, but that doesn't invalidates the test

So you ether agree with this particular point (and perhaps you can help me and explain this to @tas8831)

Or you provide an argument against this particular point.

You missed the point. Your argument is merely hand waving. You cannot even define your terms properly.

 

[leroy]

You missed the point. Your argument is merely hand waving. You cannot even define your terms properly.

Sure... But the relevant of the comment that you responded to is that a test can be valid even if you need some prior data before applying the test.


So do you agree with this point? Yes or no?.....

 

[Bear Wild]

Yes that is correct, which is why nobody claims that complexity by itself implies design you need both specificity and complexity

Help me understand how intelligent design really works. Explain how the intelligent designer actually makes the changes to explain what we know about the changes we see in the fossil record. Yes there are things yet explained by science in the evolution yet the mechanism is clear and what ever gaps exist are slowly decreasing with the increasing understanding how genetics creates variation.
If intelligent design is a clearly better explanation then those who argue this should be able to explain how intelligent design occurs and explains the record of the fossil evidence we have. If not then it is empty criticism about evolution and meaningless.

 

[Milton Platt]

People tend to complicate things, but the concept of inteligetn design (as proposed by Behe, Demski and many others) is very simple and easy to understand.

The theory of ID is based on 2 premises

1 Intelligent design is detectable: there are objective ways to detect design, this is uncontroversial; for example forensic scientists, archeologists, fire experts, detectives, cryptographers, and many other professionals detect design all the time. For example If we go to another planet and find something that looks like pyramids there would be an objective way to determine if they where design or not. And one could (in principle) conclude that these pyramids where intelligently design even if nobody knows who the designer, or where did it come from, or “who created the designer” the answer to those question could simply be “I don’t know”

2 if we apply those objective methods to living things, we would infer design: If we look at living things at apply the same methods that we already know that are reliable, to detect design, we would infer that life was designed by an intelligent designer (even if we might not know who the designer is, or were did he come from)


The objective method that Dembski and others propose is “specified complexity” something is specified and complex if:

1 it has many parts (or units)…. For example a book has many letters

2 they are organized in a pattern…..for example the letters are organized in such a way in which they produce meaningful words and sentences

3 the pattern is independent from the forces of nature: …. For example there is no a law (or principle) in nature that forces “ink” and “paper” to produce meaningful letters words and sentences.

Something requires all (1,2 and 3) in order to call it “specified complexity”


The argument is that life is specified and complex

even the simplest life forms would require many amino acids (1) organized in a very specific order and pattern (2) and nothing in nature forces the amino acids to organize themselves in such a way that they would produce functional self replicating “things”


*For simplicity lets define life as: something organic that can reproduce.


In my experience those who deny ID don’t really present an argument, and usually they don’t spot their point of disagreement, they simply troll and call ID “creationism with another name” instead of providing an actual argument.

Complexity may infer design, it does not demonstrate design. We determine design by knowing before hand that the ting was made (a watch, a car). At what point does something become complex enough to be designed?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Sure... But the relevant of the comment that you responded to is that a test can be valid even if you need some prior data before applying the test.


So do you agree with this point? Yes or no?.....

No.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Again we both agree on that we need to know somethings about stuff before applying the test


What you have to do is provide an argument and show that it would be a problem

No. You have to provide a convincing argument in support of your claim. Do you know any other games?

 

[Bear Wild]

No.

Have you seen any explanation of how intelligent design would actually work and explain the fossil record? All I have seen is the silly arguments that science has not yet explained everything. I tried to find something by ID people that would explain exactly how this is occurring. Any explanation from previous posts that you know?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Complexity may infer design, it does not demonstrate design. We determine design by knowing before hand that the ting was made (a watch, a car). At what point does something become complex enough to be designed?

Some things can be designed and be very simple.

 

[Milton Platt]

Some things can be designed and be very simple.

Absolutely. So how do you actually determine "intelligent design"? Is a sub atomic particle "designed"?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Absolutely. So how do you actually determine "intelligent design"? Is a sub atomic particle "designed"?

There has been no determination of design found in nature that cannot be explained by natural processes. All that has been done are attempts to find a way to test for it, but so far nothing works.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Have you seen any explanation of how intelligent design would actually work and explain the fossil record? All I have seen is the silly arguments that science has not yet explained everything. I tried to find something by ID people that would explain exactly how this is occurring. Any explanation from previous posts that you know?

No. Nothing I know of. Most of the effort seems to be poorly designed straw man attempts or attempts at undermining scientific explanations rather than serious scholarship. Since science is not absolute and there is always some uncertainty, creationists have tried desperately to make something big in that tiny gap. So far, nothing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. Nothing I know of. Most of the effort seems to be poorly designed straw man attempts or attempts at undermining scientific explanations rather than serious scholarship. Since science is not absolute and there is always some uncertainty, creationists have tried desperately to make something big in that tiny gap. So far, nothing.

Creationists, even the more sophisticated once such as Dembski and Behe are not looking for an answer. They are looking for an excuse to believe. As a result refuting their beliefs is the last things that they want to do. This is shown by their inability to find a proper test for their beliefs. And also it explains their reactions when people do develop a test for their ideas. How often have you heard the refutations of Behe called "strawman arguments" when they were based upon Behe's original criteria?

 

[leroy]

Help me understand how intelligent design really works. Explain how the intelligent designer actually makes the changes to explain what we know about the changes we see in the fossil record. Yes there are things yet explained by science in the evolution yet the mechanism is clear and what ever gaps exist are slowly decreasing with the increasing understanding how genetics creates variation.
If intelligent design is a clearly better explanation then those who argue this should be able to explain how intelligent design occurs and explains the record of the fossil evidence we have. If not then it is empty criticism about evolution and meaningless.

Different ID theorist would suggest different design mechanisms. In the same way different evolutionist would suggest different mechanisms

But one can conclude design even if you don't know how the designer did it. For example you don't need to know how the pyramids where created to conclude that ID is the best explanation for them


I would also challenge your assertion that gaps are decreasing, care to justify that asertion? Care to explain exactly what you mean?

 

[leroy]

Complexity may infer design, it does not demonstrate design. We determine design by knowing before hand that the ting was made (a watch, a car). At what point does something become complex enough to be designed?

Take for example a forencic scientist. He can detect design (murder) without knowing before hand that the victim was murdered.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Take for example a forencic scientist. He can detect design (murder) without knowing before hand that the victim was murdered.

And he can be very precise in his description of the evidence and why he knows that it was murder. Why can't IDists do the same?

 

[Milton Platt]

Take for example a forencic scientist. He can detect design (murder) without knowing before hand that the victim was murdered.

Murder is an act, not a physical object. Try again.
We can tell if someone is dead by comparing them to someone who is not dead. Do you have an undesigned object to compare against?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Different ID theorist would suggest different design mechanisms. In the same way different evolutionist would suggest different mechanisms

But one can conclude design even if you don't know how the designer did it. For example you don't need to know how the pyramids where created to conclude that ID is the best explanation for them


I would also challenge your assertion that gaps are decreasing, care to justify that asertion? Care to explain exactly what you mean?

It is always amusing to read your posts.

Your examples are always human designs. You demand arguments from others while never providing your own. You remind me of every Law and Order suspect. There is always a story, but never any substance to it.