How do you detect "design"?

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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

No, it is not. The ID people understood that, which is why they didn't search for complexity, but rather, irreducible complexity and specified complexity. Everything with multiple parts is complex. The atmosphere is complex. The oceans are complex. A mountain is complex. And there is no evidence that any of them were designed.

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

Correct. And if somebody commits a logical fallacy and doesn't recognize it, they are not thinking well. Are you claiming that what I have called fallacies are sound logical deductions? It seems so. But you've made no argument, just a claim that you committed no fallacy, and it's demonstrably incorrect. Of course, that assumes that you know what a logical fallacy is and how to identify one. All I can do is identify and name them for you. I can't make you understand why they are fallacies if you can't see why after I've explained it.

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

Of course irreducible complexity has never been shown to exist in naturalistically evolving life forms. It seems that you don't understand what irreducible complexity is or that it has never been identified in a biological system.

They have absolutely nothing to make even an informed opinion on in this matter.

It's the ID people who claim that irreducible complexity will point to an intelligent designer that have nothing, for which reason the biologists disregard their claims about an intelligent designer.

They cannot show true scientific understanding of something if their models are not supported by the empirical evidence.

The scientific model IS supported empirically. It's the creationists who lack empirical support.

Not even an informed opinion can be made, as this requires real data to build a rational belief on something.

The absence of irreducible complexity in biological systems is justification for not accepting claims about intelligent design predicated on in its presence.

It's a fact that they are there. Those are basic observations made in science.

What is "they" here? What are you saying is there?

The ID theory builds on those observations.

There is no ID theory, just a hypothesis and an insufficiently evidenced claim.

I already named several. You've ignored that.

I still don't know to what you refer here.

 

[Eli G]

No, it is not. The ID people understood that, which is why they didn't search for complexity, but rather, irreducible complexity and specified complexity. Everything with multiple parts is complex. The atmosphere is complex. The oceans are complex. A mountain is complex. And there is no evidence that any of them were designed.

(...)

Well, that seems like a play on words to me. Nothing changes from what I said before.

Obviously there are processes that are complex and natural, just like everything that is complex and continues to work after being put together; It continues to function as it was purposely created from the beginning.

 

[shunyadragon]

Even if since evolutionists insist too much that everything that exists was produced and perfected by natural processes that follow laws that no one dictated, which makes them unable to know how to detect design, I heard a few things about how some people recognize design:

... edges that are too perfectly aligned, angles that are too right, combinations of substances impossible in nature, very complex symmetries, almost perfect circles, ... and other similar criteria.

Science does not claim anything is created perfectly. Please accurately represent science as science.

You need to support you assertions with scientific references concerning your misuse and misinformation of science. Symmetry has been well documented as a natural property of the natural world,

 

[shunyadragon]

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

No, because such a logical deduction would require the assumption that something is designed before the argument is presented. This would represent the fallacy of Circular Reasoning where your assumptions are your conclusions.

The complexity in nature is a scientific issue and not a logical one.

The Discovery Institute has tried for years to falsify Intelligent Design and irreducible complexity and failed.

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.

OK lets not bother with fallacies. lets deal with science as science, and drop the misrepresentation of science based on an ancient tribal agenda.

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

Logical deduction is not a fallacy. Your misuse and misrepresentation of science involves fallacies.

Your argument against science does not involve legitimate logical deduction.

 

[metis]

Scientism...

No such thing exists. It's like saying "Joe is a smart idiot."

IOW, "science" is not a religion.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

Aren't "scientism defender" and "evolutionist" names given to opponents? They don't seem to be offered to uplift the people they are applied to. Why does the fact of the acceptance of a position based on the expert evaluation of evidence under the scientific method require that the person doing so be constantly referred to in a way that doesn't seem to be offered as complimentary or with any relevancy to the position under debate?

And a seemingly backhanded claim that only atheists accept science also has that same feel to me given that atheists are not the only group of people that accept science, not all scientists are atheists and not all atheists accept the science.

How is claiming that many that respond to you have been selected for ignore and repeating that constantly a means to show they are uplifted in the eyes of the person proclaiming those posters have reached that status?

In my review of the evidence, I don't accept your claims about insults or find the application unique or persistent to any one group. In fact, the group that claims the high road of moral superiority should probably be the one setting the example and not joining in, don't you think?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

Why?

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.

It is important to the issue under consideration and fallacies are used to support some positions on the issue under consideration.

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

If someone truly has a valid logical deduction, then they should be able to address claims of fallacy and not wave them away on a claim without any established basis.

Isn't the best way to address these things one that comes from a knowledge and understanding of what is being accepted and rejected? Since fallacies and claims of fallacies exist in these debates, why aren't they important and why shouldn't they be considered? Should debate not be carried out rationally and maturely in order to correctly convey the superiority of a position or to point out flaws in the position of others? Or even to recognize flaws in ones own position?

Why should a person want to dismiss claims of fallacy and leave them standing if they are incorrect?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Evolutionists

This is a name that I can find no valid reason to see it persist.

insist too much that everything that exists was produced and perfected by natural processes that follow laws that no one dictated

There is no claim in the science that living things exist in some perfected state or that natural processes produce perfection. Where did you get this notion?

, so how are they going to be able to know how to detect design?

How do you know? What evidence can you provide to show design to all?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

@Comradio251 I agree.

For example, it has been discovered

By scientists that studied such things.

that even a single-celled organism is not simple at all

No one is claiming that single-celled organisms are not complex.

, because all its internal processes are too organized and extremely complex.

What does "too organized" mean?

The mechanisms existing in the internal processes of cells seem like super-complicated and elaborate industries

Do you mean that as a layperson unfamiliar with the subject of biology, cells and complexity, you find it all so incredible?

, to have been the result of processes without intelligent direction.

I am ignorant of many things that seem incredible to me, but that does not mean that someone else, with a greater knowledge and understanding, can't offer reasonable explanations of those things.

As a child, there were many incredible things in my world that I now recognize with greater understanding. Are you suggesting that it is better to remain as ignorant as a child and believe what others tell you than it is to learn and grow in that knowledge and find out for yourself?

I still find raising caterpillars from eggs and watching them grow and transform into beautiful butterflies to be incredible, but I also understand much of what is going on in this natural process now that I did not know as a child.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Aren't "scientism defender" and "evolutionist" names given to opponents? They don't seem to be offered to uplift the people they are applied to. Why does the fact of the acceptance of a position based on the expert evaluation of evidence under the scientific method require that the person doing so be constantly referred to in a way that doesn't seem to be offered as complimentary or with any relevancy to the position under debate?

And a seemingly backhanded claim that only atheists accept science also has that same feel to me given that atheists are not the only group of people that accept science, not all scientists are atheists and not all atheists accept the science.

How is claiming that many that respond to you have been selected for ignore and repeating that constantly a means to show they are uplifted in the eyes of the person proclaiming those posters have reached that status?

In my review of the evidence, I don't accept your claims about insults or find the application unique or persistent to any one group. In fact, the group that claims the high road of moral superiority should probably be the one setting the example and not joining in, don't you think?

I am not allowed to answer in the thread, but try looking at the defintions of scientism.

 

[Eli G]

No one, no scientist or no one at all, can perceive everything that is happening right under their noses.

Obviously, only certain things will be able to be perceived in some way; some through natural means such as the skin or the other human senses, others with mechanical instruments such as microscopes or telescopes, others with mechanical detectors of different magnitudes, etc. But other things can never be perceived until the time is right ... an auspicious moment that depends on many variables as well.

So it would be healthy if everyone were modest enough to realize that there are many things out of everyone's reach and many others that some people will know while you won't ... and that is for each and every human being without exception.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Let me do this following a pre-existing model that has become common, even if singular, in these debates.

Scientism in general is a position that science is the best and perhaps only means to discover "truth" about the world around us. I agree that it is an extant position for some. I don't agree that scientism describes that acceptance of scientific explanations for specific topics that also happen to be problems of theological controversy for some.

However, I have seen the term used in ways consistent with the pejorative to dismiss those that have made a valid effort to understand the science and without any effort to offer valid rejection of that same science by those applying the claim of scientism. In other words, it seems levied as an accusation against a person and not sufficiently levied to actually form the basis to reject the science being accepted.

So, I do not agree that accepting scientific conclusions is an instance of scientism.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No one, no scientist or no one at all, can perceive everything that is happening right under their noses.

But how is it that someone can claim that there are things happening right under the noses of others? Your claim seems to contradict itself by declaring that someone does see what you claim no one does.

Obviously, only certain things will be able to be perceived in some way; some through natural means such as the skin or the other human senses, others with mechanical instruments such as microscopes or telescopes, others with mechanical detectors of different magnitudes, etc. But other things can never be perceived until the time is right

How does one demonstrate this to show that it is a claim with validity?

... an auspicious moment that depends on many variables as well.

If it is dependent on variables, it must be something that has been seen. It cannot be known and unknown at the same time. That is a logical contradiction. An immovable object and an unstoppable force together again at last for the first time.

So it would be healthy if everyone were modest enough to realize that there are many things out of everyone's reach and many others that some people will know while you won't ... and that is for each and every human being without exception.

What does this mean? Can you explain this in some more vivid, detailed way @Eli G? An explanation that does not require incessant reference to people you claim are on ignore and that is consistent with some sort of evidence?

 

[Eli G]

Wasn't I clear in my post?
What exactly didn't you understand on my comment? Or specifically what do you disagree with?
So how do you think it should be instead of the way I put it?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No one, no scientist or no one at all, can perceive everything that is happening right under their noses.

Obviously, only certain things will be able to be perceived in some way; some through natural means such as the skin or the other human senses, others with mechanical instruments such as microscopes or telescopes, others with mechanical detectors of different magnitudes, etc. But other things can never be perceived until the time is right ... an auspicious moment that depends on many variables as well.

So it would be healthy if everyone were modest enough to realize that there are many things out of everyone's reach and many others that some people will know while you won't ... and that is for each and every human being without exception.

Modern medicine was once out of reach. Modern hygiene was once out of reach. Does being out of reach mean that a thing should not be reached for or that reaching for it is wrong? What are you trying to say? Does reaching for something establish the existence of what is reached for? Many people reach for things that do not have an evidence of existing. That does not mean those things don't exist, but I cannot imagine that reaching in itself is evidence of the existence of that which is reached for.

 

[firedragon]

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

Do you consider all scientific theories as absolute fact or some? Just curious.

 

[Eli G]

All human senses have a specific range of waves that is naturally perceptible. There is so much outside that range that cannot be perceived.

When one knows that basic information, everything else is easy to understand: humans are not gods.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Wasn't I clear in my post?

No. You were not as I comment directly to you as I would expect from any reasonable person to do the same.

What exactly didn't you understand on my comment?

I explained to you in the post I responded to yours with. You should be able to answer if you fully understand what you were saying shouldn't you?

Or specifically what do you disagree with?

My questions and comments have already been stated address those. I don't wish to join in on some game of cat and mouse that doesn't seem designed to debate or discuss.

So how do you think it should be instead of the way I put it?

I don't know. I'm asking you. Directly as I think is a reasonable, mature and assertive way to do things.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

All human senses have a specific range of waves that is naturally perceptible.

What waves? Are there tactile waves? Are their smell waves? Please explain?

There is so much outside that range that cannot be perceived.

How do you know it is "much" if it cannot be perceived? How does one put parameters around the imperceptible and the unknown?

When one knows that basic information,

Is it basic? It doesn't seem like you can explain something you claim is basic.

everything else is easy to understand: humans are not gods.

I don't see the relevance of this considering that we are talking about things that humans can actually perceive and not about claims of godhood.

Please explain your position on this and provide some evidence of what you mean.

 

[Eli G]

I don't argue for the love of arguments. My comments are simple because I am used to conversing with simple people. I don't need to take my dialogue to any kind of laboratory to be dissected; They are easy ideas to understand.

There are many things that human beings cannot perceive in any way, whether due to the type of magnitude, the dimension of that magnitude, the closeness/distance of the object, etc.

Don't I make myself understood easily?