How do you detect "design"?

[Quintessence]

The problem is [their] points DO NOT address the issue of what is "Intelligent Design."

I mean, the OP didn't mention "Intelligent Design" at all, so it would be a bit weird to be addressing that which the OP didn't even contain. I couldn't care less about "Intelligent Design" - I was commenting broadly on the notion that the gods have a had in the making of things (e.g., that there is a "designer" if one wants to put it that way - I typically do not) and how that is pretty much a response to the extremely common (if not universal) feeling awe at the splendor of the universe.

 

[shunyadragon]

I mean, the OP didn't mention "Intelligent Design" at all, so it would be a bit weird to be addressing that which the OP didn't even contain. I couldn't care less about "Intelligent Design" - I was commenting broadly on the notion that the gods have a had in the making of things (e.g., that there is a "designer" if one wants to put it that way - I typically do not) and how that is pretty much a response to the extremely common (if not universal) feeling awe at the splendor of the universe.

I believe the original post used the word "design" in a thread that the above bold most definitely represents the view of many in Christianity and Islam, even some in Old Earth Creationism in Hinduism advocates "Intelligent Design" by a "designer" God.

Your thread definitely does logically lead to the discussion of "Intelligent Design" without question.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

A topic that frequently comes up in these creation debates, be it in context of evolution or the origins of the universe or alike, is our supposed ability to be able to differentiate "design" from natural occurances.

The problem, I think, one runs into is that even "natural occurances" can be defined as a design. I.e. the natural aspect of an occurance can be by design. Maybe not by the way that humans would design something, but even evolution can be considered a design since the basis of how we humans define evolution occurs is based on natural selection. This term could be construed to conclude that nature has a way of selecting something. Thus, nature could be considered the designer. It is as some point semantics but the problem could be in terminology.

If I remember correctly this was one of Darwin's problems with the termenology that he had to choose.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The problem, I think, one runs into is that even "natural occurances" can be defined as a design. I.e. the natural aspect of an occurance can be by design. Maybe not by the way that humans would design something, but even evolution can be considered a design since the basis of how we humans define evolution occurs is based on natural selection. This term could be construed to conclude that nature has a way of selecting something. Thus, nature could be considered the designer. It is as some point semantics but the problem could be in terminology.

If I remember correctly this was one of Darwin's problems with the termenology that he had to choose.

View attachment 90870

And I understand why he was reluctant about that terminology. Humans have a natural tendency to give agency to things that cannot have it. How often have go see people get mad at their cars when they won't start, yelling and cursing at them because they know better. That is just human nature and once one recognizes what one is doing the easier it is to stop.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I feel like the question is sort of missing the point of understanding the gods to have had a hand in the making of things, at least from my own perspective. Then again, arguments about origins frequently miss that point just in general so I suppose that is par for the course.

For me "detecting design" is an awkward way of putting the experience of awe at the splendor of reality. What one believes is "behind" that splendor - if anything - varies from person to person and culture to culture. Some see reality and its aspects to be divine in of itself, some see purely physicalist processes, some see idea made manifest, some see a reality shaped by an external divinity, and on and on. There is wisdom to be gleaned from all of these versions of the stories and their tellings. What I have noticed is that regardless of what ideological box some human calls themselves, the experience of awe at the splendor of reality seems fairly universal. That some call this divinity and some don't shouldn't be what matters, IMHO. Unfortunately, the existence of this subforum demonstrates otherwise.

Cool, but that is not what this thread is about. It is geared specifically to those who claim that "design" is detectable in the makeup of the universe / life / what-have-you

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I disagree because…… there are many cases (hypothetical and real) wher we can infer design even if there is no prior knowledge on ther manufacturing process of the signs that the objects have.

I'm replying as I read. I look forward to reading about your real examples. But for some reason, I'm not holding my breath.

:hypothetical: the SETI project is trying to detect Alien design through various mechanism…….. and scientists don’t seem to be concern about prior knowledge of their manufacturing process nor any of the stuff that you are claiming

Hypotheticals don't interest me.
Having said that, you are wrong. The idea of detecting signals through SETI is fully based on how we humans create signals and send them out into space while contrasting that with the known types of natural signals coming from natural objects. Sure there is some speculation involved, but it nonetheless starts with contrasting our tech to natural sources. Without such, we would have no idea what to look for nor would we have any means of recognizing it.

Real: when paleontologist find tools made by Neanderthals, they infer design, despite the fact of not having previous knowledge on the abilities , manufacturing process, or any of the stuuf tha you propose.

Completely wrong also. These artefacts bear all the hallmarks of manufacturing. Signs of carving, for example.
You seem to be confusing fully understanding manufacturing processes with signs of manufacturing.

Let's say for example that we have no clue on how the pyramids were build. And to some extent, we actually don't fully understand it.
This matters not. All those building blocks bear signs of manufacturing. Carving, stacking,... we even know where the quaries were and can identify them as such in the same way.

But there are things that nature can´t do, (or would be very unlikely) that could be done by designers. Only in this cases one would conclude design.

To know what those things are, we would have to have knowledge of what nature can do AND what designers can do.
So that again goes back to what I said: we need knowledge of manufacturing processes and be able to contrast that with knowledge of natural processes

For example if the erosion of the river has the shape of meang full words and sentences or the shape of a guitar, or the shape of the KFC logo you would infer design……………….even if you find this patter in another planet, where no prior evidence for designers exist.

I'm not quite sure what bizar point you are trying to make here.

If you don’t answer with NO I disagree, I wouldn’t conclude design if I observe the KFC logo in an other planet………..I will assume that you agree with me in this point.

I'm not even going to bother with that arrogant statement.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, science detect design all the time, archeologists, forensic scientists fire experts etc….Scientists even Aim to detect design in other planets……………..

Sure, but as I stated in the OP, this is always done by contrasting known processes of manufacturing against known natural processes.

The question that is being asked is, how could you detect design when there is NO knowledge of manufacturing processes and NO knowledge of natural processes to contrast it against.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

And I understand why he was reluctant about that terminology. Humans have a natural tendency to give agency to things that cannot have it. How often have go see people get mad at their cars when they won't start, yelling and cursing at them because they know better. That is just human nature and once one recognizes what one is doing the easier it is to stop.

Good point but also consider that cars have computers in them which have programming that was placed in them by human car designers. Thus, it could be that the person blames the car for something that at the end of the day is due to the humans who design and construct the car. Further, if we include the concept of self driving cars or even the potential for A.I. then one could be correct in giving agency to vehicle - though they would be incorrect in thinking that a car that wasn't designed to respond to their yelling and cursing will respond back with any meaningful response.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I mean, the OP didn't mention "Intelligent Design" at all, so it would be a bit weird to be addressing that which the OP didn't even contain. I couldn't care less about "Intelligent Design" - I was commenting broadly on the notion that the gods have a had in the making of things (e.g., that there is a "designer" if one wants to put it that way - I typically do not) and how that is pretty much a response to the extremely common (if not universal) feeling awe at the splendor of the universe.

The OP is quite clear in that the topic is people who claim to be able to detect design in other ways then by contrasting known manufacturing processes against known natural processes.

Your post made it clear that you are not one of them.

And while I indeed did not mention "intelligent design", it is quite obvious that the ID crowd definitely falls into the category of those claim to be able to detect design in other ways then I posited. I did not mention "intelligent design" because I didn't want to limit it to just that crowd. Eventhough I admit that the majority of those who make such claims, seem to be from that group.


In any case, the post is not about "awe" or "splender" or what-have-you.

It's about folks claiming to be able to detect design in ways other then by contrasting known design processes against known natural processes.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The problem, I think, one runs into is that even "natural occurances" can be defined as a design. I.e. the natural aspect of an occurance can be by design. Maybe not by the way that humans would design something, but even evolution can be considered a design since the basis of how we humans define evolution occurs is based on natural selection. This term could be construed to conclude that nature has a way of selecting something. Thus, nature could be considered the designer. It is as some point semantics but the problem could be in terminology.

If I remember correctly this was one of Darwin's problems with the termenology that he had to choose.

View attachment 90870

Sure, but that is not the problem I am addressing in the OP.

Off course we can talk about the "design of life" in natural terms.
But I'm talking about detecting artificial design. Design of unnatural origin. Done by humans, aliens or other designing entities, with purpose, intention, planning, agency.

TBH, the people who quotemine darwin and say "see, he used the word 'design', so he believes in a designer!" are at the other end of the irrational spectrum and extremely unsophisticated. Not to mention almost deliberatly dishonest in terms of semantics.

To throw a bone to people like @leroy , they are above such. I don't think he would say a "designer" "designed" every single individual snowflake simply because we can talk about the "design of a snowflake". People who do not even understand, or acknowledge, the difference between natural design and artificial design, or on a whole other level of stupid, tbh...

 

[leroy]

I disagree because…… there are many cases (hypothetical and real) wher we can infer design even if there is no prior knowledge on ther manufacturing process of the signs that the objects have.

:hypothetical: the SETI project is trying to detect Alien design through various mechanism…….. and scientists don’t seem to be concern about prior knowledge of their manufacturing process nor any of the stuff that you are claiming

Real: when paleontologist find tools made by Neanderthals, they infer design, despite the fact of not having previous knowledge on the abilities , manufacturing process, or any of the stuuf tha you propose.


But there are things that nature can´t do, (or would be very unlikely) that could be done by designers. Only in this cases one would conclude design.

For example if the erosion of the river has the shape of meang full words and sentences or the shape of a guitar, or the shape of the KFC logo you would infer design……………….even if you find this patter in another planet, where no prior evidence for designers exist.

If you don’t answer with NO I disagree, I wouldn’t conclude design if I observe the KFC logo in an other planet………..I will assume that you agree with me in this point.

Lets start all over again

What exactly do you mean by signs of manufacture?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Lets start all over again

What exactly do you mean by signs of manufacture?

In simplistic terms: evidence of manipulation.

Like how we can distinguish a carved rock from an eroded rock.
Erosion leaves a specific type of trace on a rock.
So does carving.

And we can tell the difference, because we understand the difference.

This is how we can tell the difference between a rock that was manipulated to look like a human face or a rock that has been eroded and which happens to look like a human face. Even if the eroded rock looks more like a human face then the manipulated rock (perhaps the artist did a really bad job or it's more of an abstract art piece or something). We could still tell the difference.

And we do it by identifying the "signs of manufacturing" in the carved one, while those aren't present in the eroded one.
While the "signs of natural erosion" are present on the eroded one.

 

[blü 2]

I disagree because…… there are many cases (hypothetical and real) wher we can infer design even if there is no prior knowledge on ther manufacturing process of the signs that the objects have.

But isn't the point that design implies a Designer who has made the designed thing by providing (a) intention (b) planning (c) and consequent execution of the thing?

And that the number of examples from reality supporting the creo "intelligent design" argument is zero?

So that all known examples of design (even loosely, such that we might regard nests built by birds, webs made by spiders, hives made by bees, &c as 'designed' in some loose sense) are the work of biologically alive critters including us, or more recently as the result of artificial intelligence?

And that the only manner God is / supernatural beings are known to exist is as concepts, notions, things imagined in individual brains and therefore no more capable of independent intention or action than Mickey Mouse is?

 

[Tomef]

A topic that frequently comes up in these creation debates, be it in context of evolution or the origins of the universe or alike, is our supposed ability to be able to differentiate "design" from natural occurances.

Yet whenever creationist or "design proponents" bring this up, it seems to me that they are either very vague about it or their methodology of "detecting design" seems to be no more then fallacious argumentst from ignorance ("I don't know how it can be natural, so therefor it isn't"), arguments from incredulity ("I don't believe it's natural, therefor it isn't") or various species or combinations thereof.

I would say that in a nutshell, we detect design by demonstrating signs of manufacturing or use of artificial materials.
This implies that we have to understand manufacturing processes and what signs / traces they tend to leave.
It also implies that we have to understand the difference between naturally occuring materials and artificial materials.

This in turn means that we could not detect or conclude design when it concerns things of unknown manufactoring and natural processes or of unknown materials.

This also means that if a designer sets out to mimic natural processes and materials while doing a perfect job, we would not be able to tell the artificial object from the natural object.

For example, if someone would take a rough stone and smooth it out by perfectly mimicing water erosion as what would happen in say a river, we would not be able to tell that this was done by a person instead of by a river.


So, having said that, when somebody *Mod edit* then states that one can "detect design" in the universe based on for example of the values of the physical constants, I wonder what the methodology is that is being used.

So in this thread, I invite people who disagree with my methodology of detecting design to explain their methodology of doing so and demonstrate how it achieves better results.

I think it’s just as basic as ‘it looks like someone made it all’. It doesn’t get any deeper than that, all of the so-called explanations are just fluff.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I mean, the OP didn't mention "Intelligent Design" at all, so it would be a bit weird to be addressing that which the OP didn't even contain. I couldn't care less about "Intelligent Design" - I was commenting broadly on the notion that the gods have a had in the making of things (e.g., that there is a "designer" if one wants to put it that way - I typically do not) and how that is pretty much a response to the extremely common (if not universal) feeling awe at the splendor of the universe.

The OP did mention "creation debates" and this thread is in the Evolution vs. Creationism forum. I think it's reasonable to infer that the thread is about Intelligent Design.

That aside, "design" implies intent, IMO. The OP also talked about inferring design from things that exist, which implies we're talking about designers who can formulate a deliberate plan and then implement it according to their design.

I think that we can feel awe for things without necessarily believing that they were designed... i.e. that their form was determined by an intentional process.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think it’s just as basic as ‘it looks like someone made it all’. It doesn’t get any deeper than that, all of the so-called explanations are just fluff.

I think even that is being overly generous.

"Intelligent Design" isn't about any actual inference from nature. It's just iteration #3 of Christians trying to get as much of their religion as they can into American public school science classrooms.

They started with creationism; it failed a legal challenge.

... so they stripped away the aspects of creationism that they thought caused it to lose its challenge, rebranded it as "creation science" and tried again. But it also failed a legal challenge.

... so they stripped away the aspects of creation science that they thought caused it to lose its challenge, rebranded it as "intelligent design" and tried again.

Intelligent design is a creation of lawyers, not people doing honest inquiry about the natural world... not even an honest but mistaken inquiry.

 

[Tomef]

"Intelligent Design" isn't about any actual inference from nature.

Maybe not, but I think it does represent a wish to go back to what ID-ers think of as an inference made by someone, i.e. real or imagined persons who thought some thousands of years ago ‘where did all this stuff come from? - I know, god made it”. Moving past that idea would imply having to think seriously about whether or not god exists, and the reality is that a pretty large number of people just don’t want to give that any serious thought. So there’s a kind of mental fudging involved, whereby it makes sense to say ‘all of this is just obviously designed’. From there the grabbing onto factoids and unresolved questions as ‘proof’ that design is the inevitable conclusion.

 

[Astrophile]

Yes, science detect design all the time, archeologists, forensic scientists fire experts etc….Scientists even Aim to detect design in other planets……………..

There are several examples (I can quote some if you like) where scientists have thought that they detected artificial structures and other evidence of design on the Moon and the planets. More detailed observations have shown that these phenomena are of non-biological origin, or that they were entirely illusory.

 

[Pogo]

Maybe not, but I think it does represent a wish to go back to what ID-ers think of as an inference made by someone, i.e. real or imagined persons who thought some thousands of years ago ‘where did all this stuff come from? - I know, god made it”. Moving past that idea would imply having to think seriously about whether or not god exists, and the reality is that a pretty large number of people just don’t want to give that any serious thought. So there’s a kind of mental fudging involved, whereby it makes sense to say ‘all of this is just obviously designed’. From there the grabbing onto factoids and unresolved questions as ‘proof’ that design is the inevitable conclusion.

 

[shunyadragon]

The problem, I think, one runs into is that even "natural occurances" can be defined as a design. I.e. the natural aspect of an occurance can be by design. Maybe not by the way that humans would design something, but even evolution can be considered a design since the basis of how we humans define evolution occurs is based on natural selection. This term could be construed to conclude that nature has a way of selecting something. Thus, nature could be considered the designer. It is as some point semantics but the problem could be in terminology.

If I remember correctly this was one of Darwin's problems with the terminology that he had to choose.

First, referring to heavily on Charles Darwin is problematic considering the sciences of evolution have move far beyond his original Theory of Evolution. Also a terribly misused and denigrated phrase. Darwin was not even the first to propose a theory concerning evolution. Darwin correctly noted a number of problems with his proposed theory.

The phrase 'natural selection' is okay of properly used in context of evolution. The sciences of evolution today has no problem using the phrase in proper context. Trying to manipulate terminology does not change anything.What other phrase would you propose to use?

I believe above you misrepresent the term design in terms of evolution and other sciences, It appies best to applied sciences where humans do indeed design things. Use of this term implies a 'Designer' and opens the can of worms of "Intelligent Design." It is a matter of fact the academic science DOES NOT use this term.