How do you detect "design"?

[mikkel_the_dane]

Science in Denmark is the same as science in China, or Austrailia. It's a global standard, not cultural, not personal.

That's because nothing suggests there is design as creationists claim. The order we observe is explained as natural mechanisms and processes.

It is explained in basic science how order exists, and natural mechanisms are what cause it. Of course some Christians and Muslims have a problem with this because their religious dogma says otherswise, and without facts.

Correct, and professional scientists know to separate their religious belief from their expertise. Some don't, and they are outcasts.

Which is not a reliable method for true conclusions. That's why science doesn't use faith.

Design is irrelevant. What is used is facts and a rational process, whether it's logic, math, or science. Religions have no facts, so can't use logic or reason to come to valid conclusions.

What assume a design at all? Where did that guess come from?

Yeah, you are ignorant of the actual history of science and the different versions of science, that even exist today.
Your safe spot is to make it about theists and ignore texts like this:

Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Or even this one, which is from a science site:

The philosophy of science - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

 

[Mock Turtle]

There is no evolutionary explanation for the exponential increase in imagination and reasoning within the human brain as compared to all other life forms on this planet.

Apart from knowledge and the numbers that use this? Given that this seems to be the one thing we can rely on - as long as a species survives - that knowledge tends to build upon itself and is used by subsequent generations, even if there are hiccups along the way. Hence why our achievements appear to be exponential. And the fact that we have been able to communicate much of our knowledge to others - via our symbolic language - seems to be the singular aspect as to why we are the most successful species After all, what were we (as to being anything special) before we had symbolic and written language?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Apart from knowledge and the numbers that use this? Given that this seems to be the one thing we can rely on - as long as a species survives - that knowledge tends to build upon itself and is used by subsequent generations, even if there are hiccups along the way. Hence why our achievements appear to be exponential. And the fact that we have been able to communicate much of our knowledge to others - via our symbolic language - seems to be the singular aspect as to why we are the most successful species After all, what were we (as to being anything special) before we had symbolic and written language?

There are with science no successful speices. That is irrational ignorant folk belief used by some belevers and is without evidence.

 

[PureX]

Apart from knowledge and the numbers that use this? Given that this seems to be the one thing we can rely on - as long as a species survives - that knowledge tends to build upon itself and is used by subsequent generations, even if there are hiccups along the way. Hence why our achievements appear to be exponential. And the fact that we have been able to communicate much of our knowledge to others - via our symbolic language - seems to be the singular aspect as to why we are the most successful species After all, what were we (as to being anything special) before we had symbolic and written language?

Yes, I understand the mechanisms. But this does not explain the extraordinary leap in imagination, reasoning, and memory in humans as compared to all other life forms existing in the same environment and facing the same threats. Our nearest primate relative can use a stick to dig ants out of a hole in the ground. We can build machines that take us to the moon. The degree of difference is astounding even though we come from the same relatively recent evolutionary tree branch and possess the same basic biological structure and habitat.

So claiming that it's all just evolution really doesn't cut it, logically. There is another big factor and we have no idea what it is. And it appears the same goes for life from non-life. Again, another astonishing and inexplicable leap in terms of existential possibilities that we cannot explain.

 

[PureX]

Except for the bolded example of unevidenced religious teleology which negates the rationality of your arguments.

Religion has nothing at all to do with anything I'm posting. And the fact that you had to run to it to find an objection only serves to exemplify the weakness of your bias.

You see the mechanisms of existence as the blind, mindless cause of all that exists. But logically, that makes no sense. And I think you know it. I see the mechanisms of existence as a means of fulfilling a set of possibilities that were pre-programmed in even before the universe exploded into being. Such that life and consciousness were built in possibilities from the start, and are now being fulfilled. The question then being, by what? And to what end? We do not know.

 

[Pogo]

Religion has nothing at all to do with anything I'm posting. And the fact that you had to run to it to find an objection only serves to exemplify the weakness of your bias.

You see the mechanisms of existence as the blind, mindless cause of all that exists. But logically, that makes no sense. And I think you know it. I see the mechanisms of existence as a means of fulfilling a set of possibilities that were pre-programmed in even before the universe exploded into being. Such that life and consciousness were built in possibilities from the start, and are now being fulfilled. The question then being, by what? And to what end? We do not know.

Religious in that you take it on faith without evidence.

 

[PureX]

Religious in that you take it on faith without evidence.

When everything is evidence we have to trust in our ability to apply reason to that evidence. The fact that you can't see the evidence means that you need to open your mind.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Religious in that you take it on faith without evidence.

Well, evidence could be consider a form of non-standard religious faith.
But that is my faith.

 

[shunyadragon]

Is there any argument for no design in nature which is a scientific argument?

The problem is scientific hypothesis cannot falsify a negative. At present the outcome of cause and effect events and the nature of our physical existence is explained by Natural Laws and processes,

What is lacking is a positive hypothesis that may be falsified to support design.

Again the 'belief in design in nature' is a religious claim for the existence of a 'designer.' Science can only falsify hypothesis for the physical nature of our physical existence, and not religious claims.

Parallel argument would be science cannot falsify that a 'designer' God does not exist.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Yes, I understand the mechanisms. But this does not explain the extraordinary leap in imagination, reasoning, and memory in humans as compared to all other life forms existing in the same environment and facing the same threats. Our nearest primate relative can use a stick to dig ants out of a hole in the ground. We can build machines that take us to the moon. The degree of difference is astounding even though we come from the same relatively recent evolutionary tree branch and possess the same basic biological structure and habitat.

So claiming that it's all just evolution really doesn't cut it, logically. There is another big factor and we have no idea what it is. And it appears the same goes for life from non-life. Again, another astonishing and inexplicable leap in terms of existential possibilities that we cannot explain.

No logic necessary in my view, just that some perceive a necessary answer for what just is. Much like why things are round or spherical or that gravity exists.

 

[Mock Turtle]

There are with science no successful speices. That is irrational ignorant folk belief used by some belevers and is without evidence.

Well we might not be as successful as we probably see ourselves, especially if we do go extinct, and where so many species will be laughing for ages no doubt, but ours is the only species that has the potential for leaving Earth and colonising other planets, even if I don't believe this will happen. So we are at least rather different.

And all species are successful in their own way - but many go extinct with little memory remaining - unless perhaps a more advanced species is around to look and find, as we do.

 

[PureX]

No logic necessary in my view, just that some perceive a necessary answer for what just is. Much like why things are round or spherical or that gravity exists.

Ignoring legitimate questions in favor of an unfounded bias isn't a path I'd feel comfortable taking.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Ignoring legitimate questions in favor of an unfounded bias isn't a path I'd feel comfortable taking.

Who is showing the bias?

 

[shunyadragon]

When everything is evidence we have to trust in our ability to apply reason to that evidence. The fact that you can't see the evidence means that you need to open your mind.

Everything 'physical' would be objective factual evidence. If you go beyond this you are in the nebulous zone of 'subjective evidence' of philosophy/theology' where there is wide spread disagreement without 'objective evidence.' The concept of the belief for "design in nature" falls into this nebulous zone.

 

[PureX]

Everything 'physical' would be objective factual evidence. If you go beyond this you are in the nebulous zone of 'subjective evidence' of philosophy/theology' where there is wide spread disagreement without 'objective evidence.' The concept of the belief for "design in nature" falls into this nebulous zone.

Evidence is just information. It can be obtained objectively or subjectively, and is meaningless by itself. We have to apply logic, and reason, and value to that information for it to become meaningful to us. And that is an act of faith ... faith in our ability to apply logic, reason, and value effectively and appropriately. And this us a "subjective" activity since we are the subjects engaged in it and only we can decide how well we're doing it.

So this weird worship of the fantasy of "objective evidence = truth" is just egocentric nonsense thrown around by people who are obsessed with playing the kangaroo judge of everyone else's idea of reality and truth.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't really detect design, I just believe that the natural world was designed, it is a matter of faith.

Ok. You "just believe" it. noted.

Do you say that nature is not designed through the same method, faith, or have you got another method of showing that the natural world was not designed?

I shared what my method is in the OP

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

All design is natural until we get to it's original source. Then, by definition, it becomes 'supernatural'.

Even human design is 'natural' unless we presume that conscious intent is unnatural. Are you claiming that conscious intent is unnatural, or 'supernatural'?

And the muddying of the waters just continues.

I suggest you go play elsewhere if you are only interested in derailment.

 

[PureX]

And the muddying of the waters just continues.

I suggest you go play elsewhere if you are only interested in derailment.

Yeah, we wouldn't want having to clarify the reasoning behind our position to muddy up the bias, now would we.

 

[Soandso]

"Dark energy" and "dark matter" and the fact that we have no idea what they are or how they relate to the universe as we know it. The fact that cosmologists estimate that we know only about 7% of what there is to be known about the universe. A percentage so small that it could be overwhelmed by the degree of error it inhabits.

Eh... I don't see how not knowing stuff points to a special realm that gives consciousness shape or gives things life. What it shows is that we don't know stuff

The fact that there are numerous unexplained examples of cognitive information being transferred between life forms via a medium that we have never been able to detect.

Oh! This is my first time hearing of such a thing. Could you please post this evidence for me?

By the fact that the more we learn the more we realize we don't know.

Again, this just shows we don't know some stuff. Feels like an argument from ignorance to me

The functional mechanisms are just functional mechanisms. They do not tell us why they are functional when none other is.

I mean, they kind of do if the forces of nature make it happen naturally. It is what it is

They do not tell us what is driving existence to fulfill those functional possibilities.

The forces of nature are self perpetuating

Why are there any "laws" at all? Such parameters of possibility "design" their results when enacted. And this implies some sort of intelligence and purpose.

No it doesn't. "Laws of nature" is a colloquialism and doesn't mean actual laws that were made. I could interchange it with "forces of nature" or anything else. It's just a way that we describe the limiting factors of reality. Just because reality has limits doesn't mean those limiting factors had to be "created" by anything. They just are

There is no evolutionary explanation for the exponential increase in imagination and reasoning within the human brain as compared to all other life forms on this planet.

You mean the expression of imagination that has happened over the past few thousand years? You're right that evolution has little to do with that right now - that is entirely to do with the way humans have figured out how to more effectively retain and transfer knowledge and had more time and freedom to explore and experiment without struggling to survive as hunter gatherers with the invention of agriculture

Other animals can transfer knowledge similar to us, but we are uniquely equipped to do it given all the evolutionary advantages we have to do so. Crows don't have thumbs

f we combine some number of objects in just the right way, we get a bicycle. The bicycle did not exist until we combined the right set of objects in the right way, but the possibility of them being combined as such was always there. Even when we were completely oblivious to it.

Bicycles cannot exist without being created by humans. There is no other way for a bicycle to be

The possibility of life has always been, even from before the universe exploded into being, ... waiting and wanting to be fulfilled. Life happened because it could. Evolution was just the mechanism that gave it it's physical form. Consciousness was always a possibility waiting to be fulfilled as well. And so it was. The brain is just a mechanism enabling it to happen within the physical realm.

Your example is faulty, though. You've compared something that we only have evidence of existing through creation on a very, very small scale and compared it to something that is self sustaining and perpetuating - all of reality. We have many examples of bicycles we can look at to show how they were made by a person. We don't have other realities we can study to compare with our own to show how they were made, and the evidence we have collected about reality don't really show a need for there to be any kind of intervention at all

 

[SkepticThinker]

I suppose it is a bit subtle or maybe I am just bad at explaining. Let's try again.
Science is neutral in regards the existence of a designer, science does not say "This is a natural system, so it was not designed".
Soooo the scientific method does not tell us whether something is designed or not.
Some scientists believe in a designer and some do not.
Those that believe use faith to arrive at their conclusion.
Those that do not believe use what, if not faith, to arrive at their conclusion that nature was not designed?
Natural laws do not tell us that nature and the natural laws are not designed. What does?

Can you explain how you think that not believing in something is an example of a faith-based belief?
Why do you think it takes faith to not believe in something for which you've not seen convincing evidence? Where does the faith come in?