How do you detect "design"?

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Does it bother you to have to accept that your reasoning is just as subjectively biased and faith-based as everyone else's?

It seems to bother you to have to accept that it isn't. He's an empiricist and critical thinker. It's other kinds of thinkers that drink from the faith cup.

Well, how do you using science measure pseudo-intellectual masturbation? What instruments do you use and what measurement unit is used.

What are the equations for motion with constant jerk?

And [scientists] don't understand irreducible complexity. The components cannot be reduced to an even simpler state to make something work unless you want to run the very great risk of destroying everything.

Why do you think scientists don't understand what irreducible complexity means? It's a simple concept and claim to articulate, albeit an intractable problem to attempt to demonstrate its existence. Their position is that is has never been demonstrated to occur or exist in biological systems.

If you take one component away, the whole system malfunctions.

Sure, take the heart away and the whole organism dies, but that doesn't mimic how the heart got there in the first place. There wasn't an organism with no heart that then added one by evolving one. One might call an organism irreducibly complex for that reason, but we know that no living thing is irreducible complex. At each stage from zygote to maturity, the organism is alive, and removing a part of it does not represent the reverse of how it formed.

I've made a strong argument for it already here with the 'DNA Polymerases-Helicase-Tau protein connection' which acts on your DNA repair process. And there are many, many more arguments underway like the the Bacterial Flagellar structure, Ribosomes, ATP Synthase Molecule and much more. Plenty of very well designed mechanisms and parts to make something work precisely.

What's your argument? That these systems are irreducibly complex? That's a claim.

it has been discovered that even a single-celled organism is not simple at all, because all its internal processes are too organized and extremely complex.

It doesn't matter that the organism is complex if it's not irreducibly complex.

The mechanisms existing in the internal processes of cells seem like super-complicated and elaborate industries, to have been the result of processes without intelligent direction.

This is the classic incredulity fallacy, which in the case of intelligent design apologetics, comes with a built in special pleading fallacy. The former occurs whenever we say the equivalent of, "It looks too complex to have occurred naturalistically, therefore it didn't." The latter occurs when one then tries to explain the existence of a cell ostensively too complex to exist undesigned, therefore let's say it was designed by something even more complex that also exists undesigned.

The trick is to be disciplined in one's thinking. Don't commit either of these fallacies. Yes, the universe might or might not have been intelligently designed, but there is no need or justification to go further and guess at one of these, and no benefit for so doing. You've done it and are no better off for it and possibly worse off for having taken that leap of faith. You've likely devoted considerable scarce resources to your religious beliefs as a result, time and money that could have been used otherwise based in that leap of faith. I did once as well but left Christianity most of four decades ago. How much less of life would I have experienced if I'd continued in that path?

I'll ask you a question that I've asked dozens of believers, and oddly enough, have never even seen an acknowledgement that the question was asked much less an answer. If you had a way of learning that no god exists, would you regret having believed and lived as you have because of that belief or be glad of it?

Personally, I don't mind that I lived within religion for much of a decade. I learned a lot about myself, about the faithful, and about belief by faith and got out while I still had most of my life ahead of me to benefit from the knowledge.

How about you?

 

[Eli G]

Scientism defenders often give names to their opponents' refutations to belittle the logical reasoning involved. It is the practice that in another topic I call "Atheists and their jargon of insults" ... Somehow they think that calling names and belittling them means refuting.

 

[Eli G]

Talking about "irreducible complexity" is trying to make a clear and simple observation about reality more complex, with the sole purpose of belittling it... The idea is not what is being discussed, reality is.

 

[shunyadragon]

Scientism defenders often give names to their opponents' refutations to belittle the logical reasoning involved. It is the practice that in another topic I call "Atheists and their jargon of insults" ... Somehow they think that calling names and belittling them means refuting.

I believe the dominant belittling and name calling come from extreme fundi Theists. A previous thread documented this, The over the top sarcasm, rejection and intentional ignorance of science has been the problem of the rejection of evolution.


Your bitter acrid attitude toward science is the real problem.

Atheism is a philosophy and not remotely associated with science. Science in reality has nothing to do with the accusation of the illusive "phantom" Scientism.

What has not been documented is that there are few if any believers in the so called 'Scientism."

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Scientism defenders often give names to their opponents' refutations to belittle the logical reasoning involved. Somehow they think that calling names and belittling them means refuting.

Was that in response to the comment above it wherein I identified logical fallacies in in your post? Yes, the various logical fallacies have names, and critical analysis involves evaluating arguments for validity versus fallacy.

Why do you feel belittled when you are disagreed with?

You're not alone. Many other theists have similar emotional reactions in these discussions, which I don't see coming from those disagreeing with them. For example, this is you chastising me over your perception about what my mood, attitude, and agenda are, and though you are wrong and uncharitable in your assessment, I don't care a bit. I can't imagine writing an emotional response to you here even if I were having an emotional reaction.

Talking about "irreducible complexity" is trying to make a clear and simple observation about reality more complex, with the sole purpose of belittling it.

You sure like that word belittle. And yes, I recall your thread complaining about being verbally abused in these discussions by unbelievers. I answered this complaint of yours there, which I believe you ignored: Atheists and their jargon of insults

I've wondered why so many believers have this reaction. Maybe I should wonder why virtually no critical thinkers do. Perhaps it's because so many of the latter have advanced university degrees and have been shaped by the culture of academia, where debate and discussion are generally civilized and dispassionate. Or perhaps it's related to church culture, where negative judgment and righteous indignation dominate the culture in the animated, often fundamentalist denominations. Did I just belittle you there in your estimation?

Also, speaking of ignoring, I see that you declined to address the question I asked you at the end of post 501. Maybe this is also me calling you names or belittling you in your estimation.

 

[shunyadragon]

Talking about "irreducible complexity" is trying to make a clear and simple observation about reality more complex, with the sole purpose of belittling it... The idea is not what is being discussed, reality is.

I will talk about "irreducible complexity" any time. The problem is that it has never been scientifically falcified. There is no objective evidence for the complexity found in nature is "irreducible,"

Simply pointing to the obvious complexity of cells does not address the problem of complexity. For example the organelles in cells originated as capture or merge with other cells to make a more complex cell. This process has actually been observed today. I can provide references for further discussion if you wish.

 

[Comradio251]

@It Aint Necessarily So

Why do you think scientists don't understand what irreducible complexity means? It's a simple concept and claim to articulate, albeit an intractable problem to attempt to demonstrate its existence. Their position is that is has never been demonstrated to occur or exist in biological systems.

They cannot show true scientific understanding of something if their models are not supported by the empirical evidence. Not even an informed opinion can be made, as this requires real data to build a rational belief on something. It's a fact that they are there. Those are basic observations made in science. The ID theory builds on those observations. I already named several. You've ignored that.

There wasn't an organism with no heart that then added one by evolving one. One might call an organism irreducibly complex for that reason, but we know that no living thing is irreducible complex.

What? When has embryogenesis ever decided not to develope a heart in a human embryo? If that was the case, you would have already had embryonic loss at the beginning. You're actually proving my point with that, nonetheless. You described nothing about the evolution of irreducibly complex parts whatsoever.

Your third quote totally disregards the fundamentals of science and its abilities of discovering these complex systems and the multiple functions which make them work.

 

[Eli G]

(...) This is the classic incredulity fallacy, which in the case of intelligent design apologetics, comes with a built in special pleading fallacy. The former occurs whenever we say the equivalent of, "It looks too complex to have occurred naturalistically, therefore it didn't." The latter occurs when one then tries to explain the existence of a cell ostensively too complex to exist undesigned, therefore let's say it was designed by something even more complex that also exists undesigned. (...)

Exactly like that. It is the natural conclusion... It is not any fallacy.

The criticism of that conclusion does not make any sense, so the only incomprehensible reaction (fallacious?) is that of the atheists.

 

[Brian2]

The problem is the argument for design is a religious argument to justify a designer, and not based on science,.

Yes science is neutral, because there is not any objective evidence to falsify a hypothesis for design, If some scientist believe in design they do so based religious belief.

Also if some scientist does not believe in a designer, (better a "designer" instead of "design", because it can be said that things are designed by nature) then they are doing that based on religious belief. IOW it is not science which tells people that there is no designer.

 

[McBell]

Also if some scientist does not believe in a designer, (better a "designer" instead of "design", because it can be said that things are designed by nature) then they are doing that based on religious belief.

Really?
You must have a rather interesting definition of religion.

IOW it is not science which tells people that there is no designer.

correct.
Why?
Because there is no evidence of one.
So science does not waste its time with it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Really?
You must have a rather interesting definition of religion.


correct.
Why?
Because there is no evidence of one.
So science does not waste its time with it.

Well, I would like to answer you about the different ways of understanding religion, but I have promised not to derail this thread. May I tag you in a new thread?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It is not any fallacy.

But it is. You commit two fallacies when you claim that t seems to you that a cell (for example) is too complex to have formed naturalistically [incredulity], therefore a god [special pleading].

The criticism of that conclusion does not make any sense

Sorry. Perhaps a course in reasoning or critical thought could help you there. Still, I don't know how you can miss the error in, "I don't see how something could have happened, therefore it didn't."

if some scientist does not believe in a designer, (better a "designer" instead of "design", because it can be said that things are designed by nature) then they are doing that based on religious belief. IOW it is not science which tells people that there is no designer.

First, not believing in a designer is not the same as asserting that no designer was involved, and second, it is done not because science says to do so, but for philosophical reasons if one is a skeptic. The skeptic reserves judgment until he has grounds to say that something is or isn't the case.

That first point seems to elude many believers. Perhaps an analogy. You've just met a man about whom you know very little. Do you trust him? You shouldn't. Does that mean that he is untrustworthy? No, it doesn't. He may be trustworthy, but you just don't know that yet and are reserving judgment. If he is trustworthy, you might learn that in time and begin to trust him successfully.

 

[Pogo]

Well, I would like to answer you about the different ways of understanding religion, but I have promised not to derail this thread. May I tag you in a new thread?

You can tag me, I have just come out of the backwoods and discovered Quantum Conscious this morning. It apparently was founded just about the time I left Berkeley.

 

[shunyadragon]

Also if some scientist does not believe in a designer, (better a "designer" instead of "design", because it can be said that things are designed by nature) then they are doing that based on religious belief. IOW it is not science which tells people that there is no designer.

I believe I have covered this issue previously. The belief in design or a designer are religious beliefs, and not falsifiable by science. "It cannot be said" that things can be designed or the existence of a design based on objective evidence.

Scientist (very few) like those in the Discovery Institute believe in design and a designer God, and promote research in "irreducible Complexity" for many years, but they have failed to come up with a falsifiable hypothesis to support Design or the existence of a Designer.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Evolutionists insist too much that everything that exists was produced and perfected by natural processes that follow laws that no one dictated, so how are they going to be able to know how to detect design?

The answer to your question is written in the OP. Did you read it?

 

[shunyadragon]

Exactly like that. It is the natural conclusion... It is not any fallacy.

The criticism of that conclusion does not make any sense, so the only incomprehensible reaction (fallacious?) is that of the atheists.

This post does not make sense in response to what @It Aint Necessarily So posted.

Atheism has nothing to with science, and does not influence the conclusions of science. It is a matter of Methodological Naturalism independent of religious belief.

The Scientists (very few) like those in the Discovery Institute believe in design and a designer God, and promote research in "irreducible Complexity" for many years, but they have failed to come up with a falsifiable hypothesis to support Design or the existence of a Designer.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Irreducible complexity has never been shown to evolve through natural selection.

This is false.

And since the rest of your post is build upon that falsehood... myeah.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

@Comradio251 I agree.

For example, it has been discovered that even a single-celled organism is not simple at all, because all its internal processes are too organized and extremely complex. The mechanisms existing in the internal processes of cells seem like super-complicated and elaborate industries, to have been the result of processes without intelligent direction.

It's funny how you actually just confirmed what @Pogo said in reply to your first post.

We are not the ones claiming perfection, we are however asking you and others who claim design, how do you detect it beyond saying isn't this amazing I don't know how it could have happened so it must be designed or God or whatever.
The gist of this thread is we recognize design through knowledge of known designers and their capabilities.

Thanks for playing.

 

[shunyadragon]

I agree. But they fail in one major way. Irreducible complexity has never been shown to evolve through natural selection. There's no empirical evidence for it. I just had a debate about this elsewhere once again in the Philosophy section and another website.

Your rejection of science is based on an intentional ignorance and deliberate misrepresentation of science and an ancient tribal worldview.

What is your academic background in science that supports these outrageous conclusions? Can you provide any peer reviewed scientific research supporting "Intelligent Design?"

You follow up with an insult against Charles Darwin.

 

[Eli G]

But it is. (...)

It is logical to deduce that if something is sufficiently complex it is because it has been designed.

I am not going to get into the game of what is fallacy and what is not, because it is not the issue under consideration.

Obviously, if someone considers a logical deduction fallacious, then they are not thinking correctly.