How do you detect "design"?

[wellwisher]

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.

Design, in the Creation sense, to me, refers to being similar to how humans do it. Man was made in God's image so they will instinctively follow the same principles as God. If we see how humans do it, then we can infer God's way was similar.

For example, when humans build a bridge, they do not just show up to a location, with piles of materials and the bridge forms by throwing materials here and there; random model of creation like used in science. The process is more like, first the architects and design engineers plan on paper. They draw out the design, spec the materials, calculate the sizes and quantity needed, even before they prep the site. When it is show time, the process is done in a very logical and orderly manner. Image of God means God plans before he executes.

This planning is not the current model of evolution. In that model of Evolution is more like you just show up, and start throwing things around. This is modeled with casino math and science; black box hocus hocus. In a man and god parallel, the process should be more is like using Bechtel (USA) Construction Company, to run a large project, cradle to grave. In the case of universe, we will use Bechtel's 50,000 employees, so the project can be fully rational, with no surprises, on time, on budget, cradle to grave. There is no room for throwing dice and playing cards; zero fatal flaws. In the case of Creation, God Inc, has even more resources. He starts by brooding, which is sitting quietly; like a chicken on an egg, planning and making blue prints, until the egg hatches. When that stage is done, the mother chicken is busy, bringing in the on-site resources to implement and break ground; boom! Architects brood on their designs before breaking the ground.

Einstein said, "I do not believe that God chose to play dice with the universe." This meant he sensed that the universe did not form without a systematic plan. If we assume a random universe, the laws of physics should not be rational. How can random processes, lead to logical rules? Einstein's various equations are clean, and have no fuzzy dice; rational equations. How can you make that appear with fuzzy dice? A fuzzy dice approach needs too much time and will never allow rational law, like the one's we use; entropy has to increase.

Chemical Planning and God Inc.

The way I like to look at the universe, is to reverse engineer the chemistry stage of the universe, since chemistry is the material of our senses and chemistry been around since about 380,000 years after the Big Bang; first hydrogen. The Universe is 13.7 billion years old and chemistry is more than 13.699 billion years old. I will focus there to show the planning involved since this is easier to see.

We; life and humans, and the earth are composed of atoms and molecules. The universe started with hydrogen and some helium; protons, neutrons and electrons in a variety of small size combinations. This is all we will need form all the atoms. Hydrogen was designed to be very versatile, since it can be use for fusion to make higher atoms. Hydrogen is also critical to life. Life uses reduced materials for food and structures. While hydrogen bonding, holds the molecular configurations of life together. Hydrogen is also part of an intelligent design; the first stable chemical material, that will be used throughout all the stages of macro-creation; galaxies, stars and all the way to life and consciousness. It is not a random design, but a very well planned designed. Random would be more of a one shot hydrogen deal.

In the modern universe, the most common atoms are H; hydrogen, He; helium, O; oxygen and C; carbon. While the three most common molecules are H2; hydrogen gas, H20; water, and CO; carbon monoxide. These are the most common atoms in life, with water molecules accounting for 100 times as many molecules, as all the rest of the organic molecules in cells, combined. This is well planned for the bigger picture way down the road.

Water is the most common solid substance in the universe; ice. The hydrogen molecule is more common, but hydrogen is a gas down to -423.2F or -252.9C, so there is less solid hydrogen in the universe. It is mostly gas. Water freezes at 32F and 0C, which is very high for such a small molecule. This is due to the abundance of oxygen and hydrogen atoms paired, and hydrogen bonding.

Water is the most studied and most anomalous substance in science. It is also the odd ball of nature with 70 anomalies. Water is God's Swiss Army knife. Water is the standard for chemistry; acid and bases, oxidation and reduction, etc. In terms of star formation, the anomalously high melting point of water, that makes water the most common solid in the universe, allows gravity to attract water; ice, easier than hydrogen gas. This allows water to become the easy core of forming stars, to help build up the gravity, until even hydrogen gets pulled it; seeds of stars. Second generation stars can also use higher atoms. But water has a unique trick up its sleeve.

Water and star formation, uses another anomaly of water, which is water expands when it freezes and contracts when it melts. This is about a 10% change in volume. This is why ice floats on liquid water; 10% of the iceberg is above water. The value of this well planned anomaly, is as the ice ball gains mass and increases its gravity and pressure, the core pressures cause the water to heat, which then melt the core ice. This causes a collapse cascade, that I like to call a fusion hammer effect.

Picture a huge snowball of ice, suddenly shrinking 10%, starting in the center of gravity, causing the entire ball to implode/collapse; core outward; 10%. As the collapse propagates, the work and heat of the core boils the confined water, pressurizing the water into exotic water phases, until metallic water appears at about 5grams/cc. This adds to the collapse cascade, which lights the fusion hammer fire.

 

[Nakosis]

Design, in the Creation sense, to me, refers to being similar to how humans do it. Man was made in God's image so they will instinctively follow the same principles as God. If we see how humans do it, then we can infer God's way was similar.

For example, when humans build a bridge, they do not just show up to a location, with piles of materials and the bridge forms by throwing materials here and there; random model of creation like used in science. The process is more like, first the architects and design engineers plan on paper. They draw out the design, spec the materials, calculate the sizes and quantity needed, even before they prep the site. When it is show time, the process is done in a very logical and orderly manner. Image of God means God plans before he executes.

This planning is not the current model of evolution. In that model of Evolution is more like you just show up, and start throwing things around. This is modeled with casino math and science; black box hocus hocus. In a man and god parallel, the process should be more is like using Bechtel (USA) Construction Company, to run a large project, cradle to grave. In the case of universe, we will use Bechtel's 50,000 employees, so the project can be fully rational, with no surprises, on time, on budget, cradle to grave. There is no room for throwing dice and playing cards; zero fatal flaws. In the case of Creation, God Inc, has even more resources. He starts by brooding, which is sitting quietly; like a chicken on an egg, planning and making blue prints, until the egg hatches. When that stage is done, the mother chicken is busy, bringing in the on-site resources to implement and break ground; boom! Architects brood on their designs before breaking the ground.

Einstein said, "I do not believe that God chose to play dice with the universe." This meant he sensed that the universe did not form without a systematic plan. If we assume a random universe, the laws of physics should not be rational. How can random processes, lead to logical rules? Einstein's various equations are clean, and have no fuzzy dice; rational equations. How can you make that appear with fuzzy dice? A fuzzy dice approach needs too much time and will never allow rational law, like the one's we use; entropy has to increase.

Chemical Planning and God Inc.

The way I like to look at the universe, is to reverse engineer the chemistry stage of the universe, since chemistry is the material of our senses and chemistry been around since about 380,000 years after the Big Bang; first hydrogen. The Universe is 13.7 billion years old and chemistry is more than 13.699 billion years old. I will focus there to show the planning involved since this is easier to see.

We; life and humans, and the earth are composed of atoms and molecules. The universe started with hydrogen and some helium; protons, neutrons and electrons in a variety of small size combinations. This is all we will need form all the atoms. Hydrogen was designed to be very versatile, since it can be use for fusion to make higher atoms. Hydrogen is also critical to life. Life uses reduced materials for food and structures. While hydrogen bonding, holds the molecular configurations of life together. Hydrogen is also part of an intelligent design; the first stable chemical material, that will be used throughout all the stages of macro-creation; galaxies, stars and all the way to life and consciousness. It is not a random design, but a very well planned designed. Random would be more of a one shot hydrogen deal.

In the modern universe, the most common atoms are H; hydrogen, He; helium, O; oxygen and C; carbon. While the three most common molecules are H2; hydrogen gas, H20; water, and CO; carbon monoxide. These are the most common atoms in life, with water molecules accounting for 100 times as many molecules, as all the rest of the organic molecules in cells, combined. This is well planned for the bigger picture way down the road.

Water is the most common solid substance in the universe; ice. The hydrogen molecule is more common, but hydrogen is a gas down to -423.2F or -252.9C, so there is less solid hydrogen in the universe. It is mostly gas. Water freezes at 32F and 0C, which is very high for such a small molecule. This is due to the abundance of oxygen and hydrogen atoms paired, and hydrogen bonding.

Water is the most studied and most anomalous substance in science. It is also the odd ball of nature with 70 anomalies. Water is God's Swiss Army knife. Water is the standard for chemistry; acid and bases, oxidation and reduction, etc. In terms of star formation, the anomalously high melting point of water, that makes water the most common solid in the universe, allows gravity to attract water; ice, easier than hydrogen gas. This allows water to become the easy core of forming stars, to help build up the gravity, until even hydrogen gets pulled it; seeds of stars. Second generation stars can also use higher atoms. But water has a unique trick up its sleeve.

Water and star formation, uses another anomaly of water, which is water expands when it freezes and contracts when it melts. This is about a 10% change in volume. This is why ice floats on liquid water; 10% of the iceberg is above water. The value of this well planned anomaly, is as the ice ball gains mass and increases its gravity and pressure, the core pressures cause the water to heat, which then melt the core ice. This causes a collapse cascade, that I like to call a fusion hammer effect.

Picture a huge snowball of ice, suddenly shrinking 10%, starting in the center of gravity, causing the entire ball to implode/collapse; core outward; 10%. As the collapse propagates, the work and heat of the core boils the confined water, pressurizing the water into exotic water phases, until metallic water appears at about 5grams/cc. This adds to the collapse cascade, which lights the fusion hammer fire.

Generally by showing it could not have occurred naturally. However, since nature is the supposed design you are kind of left without a standard for comparison.

The narrative leaves itself without a means to prove or disprove it.
(Sorry meant to attach this to the OP)

 

[Revoltingest]

The titular question initially struck me as
requiring a complex answer. I finally
figured out a simple one....
When something appears ordered, possibly
resulting from design, consider the options...
1) Designed by someone, eg, a steam engine.
2) Arising naturally from physical laws, eg,
stochastics processes like evolution.

If #2 doesn't work, then investigate for
both new physical laws, and a designer.

 

[Tomef]

This meant he sensed that the universe did not form without a systematic plan.

This is the perfect example of what is wrong with the kind of thinking your post typifies. You start with what you already think is true, then throw together a few factoids and misconstrued quotes and claim that as evidence for your belief.


Why do you feel the need to do that? That's the question you should ask yourself. If you are confident in your beliefs, why all the pseudoscience and jumbling together of things you don’t understand? Who are you trying to convince? Seems like a smokescreen to cover your own doubts. If you’ve taken anything like a serious look at any relevant science, it must have registered on some level how absurd it is to just throw random notions together and call it evidence.

 

[Pogo]

Design, in the Creation sense, to me, refers to being similar to how humans do it. Man was made in God's image so they will instinctively follow the same principles as God. If we see how humans do it, then we can infer God's way was similar.

For example, when humans build a bridge, they do not just show up to a location, with piles of materials and the bridge forms by throwing materials here and there; random model of creation like used in science. The process is more like, first the architects and design engineers plan on paper. They draw out the design, spec the materials, calculate the sizes and quantity needed, even before they prep the site. When it is show time, the process is done in a very logical and orderly manner. Image of God means God plans before he executes.

This planning is not the current model of evolution. In that model of Evolution is more like you just show up, and start throwing things around. This is modeled with casino math and science; black box hocus hocus. In a man and god parallel, the process should be more is like using Bechtel (USA) Construction Company, to run a large project, cradle to grave. In the case of universe, we will use Bechtel's 50,000 employees, so the project can be fully rational, with no surprises, on time, on budget, cradle to grave. There is no room for throwing dice and playing cards; zero fatal flaws. In the case of Creation, God Inc, has even more resources. He starts by brooding, which is sitting quietly; like a chicken on an egg, planning and making blue prints, until the egg hatches. When that stage is done, the mother chicken is busy, bringing in the on-site resources to implement and break ground; boom! Architects brood on their designs before breaking the ground.

Einstein said, "I do not believe that God chose to play dice with the universe." This meant he sensed that the universe did not form without a systematic plan. If we assume a random universe, the laws of physics should not be rational. How can random processes, lead to logical rules? Einstein's various equations are clean, and have no fuzzy dice; rational equations. How can you make that appear with fuzzy dice? A fuzzy dice approach needs too much time and will never allow rational law, like the one's we use; entropy has to increase.

Chemical Planning and God Inc.

The way I like to look at the universe, is to reverse engineer the chemistry stage of the universe, since chemistry is the material of our senses and chemistry been around since about 380,000 years after the Big Bang; first hydrogen. The Universe is 13.7 billion years old and chemistry is more than 13.699 billion years old. I will focus there to show the planning involved since this is easier to see.

We; life and humans, and the earth are composed of atoms and molecules. The universe started with hydrogen and some helium; protons, neutrons and electrons in a variety of small size combinations. This is all we will need form all the atoms. Hydrogen was designed to be very versatile, since it can be use for fusion to make higher atoms. Hydrogen is also critical to life. Life uses reduced materials for food and structures. While hydrogen bonding, holds the molecular configurations of life together. Hydrogen is also part of an intelligent design; the first stable chemical material, that will be used throughout all the stages of macro-creation; galaxies, stars and all the way to life and consciousness. It is not a random design, but a very well planned designed. Random would be more of a one shot hydrogen deal.

In the modern universe, the most common atoms are H; hydrogen, He; helium, O; oxygen and C; carbon. While the three most common molecules are H2; hydrogen gas, H20; water, and CO; carbon monoxide. These are the most common atoms in life, with water molecules accounting for 100 times as many molecules, as all the rest of the organic molecules in cells, combined. This is well planned for the bigger picture way down the road.

Water is the most common solid substance in the universe; ice. The hydrogen molecule is more common, but hydrogen is a gas down to -423.2F or -252.9C, so there is less solid hydrogen in the universe. It is mostly gas. Water freezes at 32F and 0C, which is very high for such a small molecule. This is due to the abundance of oxygen and hydrogen atoms paired, and hydrogen bonding.

Water is the most studied and most anomalous substance in science. It is also the odd ball of nature with 70 anomalies. Water is God's Swiss Army knife. Water is the standard for chemistry; acid and bases, oxidation and reduction, etc. In terms of star formation, the anomalously high melting point of water, that makes water the most common solid in the universe, allows gravity to attract water; ice, easier than hydrogen gas. This allows water to become the easy core of forming stars, to help build up the gravity, until even hydrogen gets pulled it; seeds of stars. Second generation stars can also use higher atoms. But water has a unique trick up its sleeve.

Water and star formation, uses another anomaly of water, which is water expands when it freezes and contracts when it melts. This is about a 10% change in volume. This is why ice floats on liquid water; 10% of the iceberg is above water. The value of this well planned anomaly, is as the ice ball gains mass and increases its gravity and pressure, the core pressures cause the water to heat, which then melt the core ice. This causes a collapse cascade, that I like to call a fusion hammer effect.

Picture a huge snowball of ice, suddenly shrinking 10%, starting in the center of gravity, causing the entire ball to implode/collapse; core outward; 10%. As the collapse propagates, the work and heat of the core boils the confined water, pressurizing the water into exotic water phases, until metallic water appears at about 5grams/cc. This adds to the collapse cascade, which lights the fusion hammer fire.

@wellwisher, were you an engineer with Bechtel like my father?
Salem Hypothesis may explain.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Oh there is no doubt about that. I used to have a Volvo and whenever it came to changing a light bulb I would end up cussing up a storm. Not at my car. But at the engineer that designed the lighting system. If someone every introduced me to the man that did that my first action would be to kick him in the groin, and he would admit that he deserved that. One has to know who to blame at times. With a car it is not always the owner's fault when something goes wrong. Though if that is the case a person should never blame the car. But there are things that will need to be repaired no matter how carefully you drive. In fact, using your turn signals is part of driving more safely. As is having your headlights on at night time. Those will need to be replaced and the designers should remember that not everyone will be building the car from scratch.

 

[Tomef]

Oh there is no doubt about that. I used to have a Volvo and whenever it came to changing a light bulb I would end up cussing up a storm. Not at my car. But at the engineer that designed the lighting system. If someone every introduced me to the man that did that my first action would be to kick him in the groin, and he would admit that he deserved that. One has to know who to blame at times. With a car it is not always the owner's fault when something goes wrong. Though if that is the case a person should never blame the car. But there are things that will need to be repaired no matter how carefully you drive. In fact, using your turn signals is part of driving more safely. As is having your headlights on at night time. Those will need to be replaced and the designers should remember that not everyone will be building the car from scratch.

I wonder if there is one of those long German words for acknowledging a righteous kick in the nuts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I wonder if there is one of those long German words for acknowledging a righteous kick in the nuts.

Farfegnugen? Volvos are Swedish, though mine may have been from when it was a Ford. That would go a long way in explaining that problem. Now Volvo is a Chinese owned company. I have no idea what that has done to the brand.

 

[sun rise]

View attachment 90879

Sigh. That "creationist method" ignores that in science, conjectures are made all the time and then experiments designed to prove or disprove the conjecture. (Einstein for example) The test is whether or not the theory is falsifiable or not. Creationism relies on the "God of the gaps" and the gaps grow smaller all the time as we learn more. Creationism also relies on magic "I don't understand it so it must have been created by magic "a miracle" which is a logical fallacy.

 

[shunyadragon]

Oh there is no doubt about that. I used to have a Volvo and whenever it came to changing a light bulb I would end up cussing up a storm. Not at my car. But at the engineer that designed the lighting system. If someone every introduced me to the man that did that my first action would be to kick him in the groin, and he would admit that he deserved that. One has to know who to blame at times. With a car it is not always the owner's fault when something goes wrong. Though if that is the case a person should never blame the car. But there are things that will need to be repaired no matter how carefully you drive. In fact, using your turn signals is part of driving more safely. As is having your headlights on at night time. Those will need to be replaced and the designers should remember that not everyone will be building the car from scratch.

There is some consolation you did not own a Fiat or a Yugo

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is some consolation you did not own a Fiat or a Yugo

Did you mean a Yugo? The car that used to come with optional hand warmers on the back window?

EDIT: LOL! I see that you did mean Yugo. Right now I can both see your original post and the edited correction in my quote:

"There is some consolation you did not own a Fiat or a Yudo"

 

[shunyadragon]

Design, in the Creation sense, to me, refers to being similar to how humans do it. Man was made in God's image so they will instinctively follow the same principles as God. If we see how humans do it, then we can infer God's way was similar.

This is an unfortunate ancient anthropomorphic God who would be an incompetent engineer that had to take radical measures to correct His mistakes with the Fall of Adam and Eve, and wipe the slate clean with a flood,

This planning is not the current model of evolution. In that model of Evolution is more like you just show up, and start throwing things around. This is modeled with casino math and science; black box hocus hocus. In a man and god parallel, the process should be more is like using Bechtel (USA) Construction Company, to run a large project, cradle to grave. In the case of universe, we will use Bechtel's 50,000 employees, so the project can be fully rational, with no surprises, on time, on budget, cradle to grave. There is no room for throwing dice and playing cards; zero fatal flaws. In the case of Creation, God Inc, has even more resources. He starts by brooding, which is sitting quietly; like a chicken on an egg, planning and making blue prints, until the egg hatches. When that stage is done, the mother chicken is busy, bringing in the on-site resources to implement and break ground; boom! Architects brood on their designs before breaking the ground.

This is not a competent view of evolution based on the actual science, In fact it is terrible based on intentional ignorance of the sciences of evolution,

Einstein said, "I do not believe that God chose to play dice with the universe." This meant he sensed that the universe did not form without a systematic plan. If we assume a random universe, the laws of physics should not be rational. How can random processes, lead to logical rules? Einstein's various equations are clean, and have no fuzzy dice; rational equations. How can you make that appear with fuzzy dice? A fuzzy dice approach needs too much time and will never allow rational law, like the one's we use; entropy has to increase.

According to Einstein the order in the universe was due to Natural Laws in an orderly manner. Science today believes as Einstein stated and does not consider the nature of the outcomes of cause and effect in Nature as random except for the timing of individual outcomes.No fuzzy dice involved,

 

[shunyadragon]

Did you mean a Yugo? The car that used to come with optional hand warmers on the back window?

EDIT: LOL! I see that you did mean Yugo. Right now I can both see your original post and the edited correction in my quote:

"There is some consolation you did not own a Fiat or a Yudo"

I edited the post, You are quick! It might as well been a Yudo.

 

[leroy]

(Please if possible do not answer as you read, please first read the whole post and then answer,) ...............(only if possible)

In simplistic terms: evidence of manipulation.

That sounds like a tautology; obviously “evidence for manipulation” would be evidence for design. These are synonyms,

The question is, if you observe an object, what objective method could you use to determine if there is evidence for manipulation (design)?

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.

You seem to be saying that we have our experience as the tool to detect design.

you are saying (it seems to me) that: We know that designers (artists) draw realistic and abstract humans , we know that nature can create mountains rocks or clouds that *moreless* look like humans)

Therefore if we observe the first we would conclude design, if we observe the former we would conclude “nature”

Is this a correct representation of you argument?



so under your view, if previously blind person, who recovered his sight yesterday, (or an alien) observes the drawign of a human created by an artist, he would have no way to tell if it was design or not, unless he ask us?................is this correct?..............

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.

Well take for example the first “Neanderthal made spear” that was ever found by archeologists. Since it was the first ever found there were no other samples to compare them with , but still scientists where capable of concluding design.

In other words, we do not need prior knowledge for how neatherthals made their spears, in order to conclude design

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 scientists for the SETI project are looking for “Dyson Spheres” in other stars, because such an object would be evidence for design and evidence for a super advanced civilization of aliens.

These objects , if they exists would be detectable and scientists would conclude “design” despite not having any other samples to compare with, nor prior knowledge of the aliens that live near that star.

So by your view……… scientists would be mistaken in claiming “desing” is such an object is found?..........do you think that the whole premise of the proyect is wrong?



Now before you start changing the topic and claiming that God is evil and that the bible has contradictions and all other irrelevant stuff please note that my only point tis that you are wonrg in this particular point..........................we dont kneed knowledge of the manufacturing procesess in order to conclude design.........................(if I am misrepresenting your view , then please correct me and I apologize in advance for the strwman)

so please ether agree or refute this point

 

[shunyadragon]

(Please if possible do not answer as you read, please first read the whole post and then answer,) ...............(only if possible)

That sounds like a tautology; obviously “evidence for manipulation” would be evidence for design. These are synonyms,

Not exactly the same,but humans design and manipulate things in nature. Detection of (Intelligent) design maybe evidence of manipulation that cannot be explained by Natural Laws and processes, as in the claim of irreducible complexity.

The question is, if you observe an object, what objective method could you use to determine if there is evidence for manipulation (design)?

Science is the best tool.

You seem to be saying that we have our experience as the tool to detect design.

Yes, we have the tools (science) and experience to detect design.

you are saying (it seems to me) that: We know that designers (artists) draw realistic and abstract humans , we know that nature can create mountains rocks or clouds that *moreless* look like humans)

Therefore if we observe the first we would conclude design, if we observe the former we would conclude “nature”

Is this a correct representation of you argument?

I would conclude yes, whether engineering or creative works these would be designed by humans.

The Natural Laws and processes that result in mountains, seas and rivers would not be design.

so under your view, if previously blind person, who recovered his sight yesterday, (or an alien) observes the drawing of a human created by an artist, he would have no way to tell if it was design or not, unless he ask us?................is this correct?..............

The previous blind person would be capable of determining what is designed by science,.Actually a blind person can be taught science and determine what is designed and what is natural. An alien is we are able to contact very likely is advanced in civilization and technology designs things and creates art.

Well take for example the first “Neanderthal made spear” that was ever found by archeologists. Since it was the first ever found there were no other samples to compare them with , but still scientists where capable of concluding design.

In other words, we do not need prior knowledge for how neatherthals made their spears, in order to conclude design.

We have the knowledge of science for hundreds of years no problem. I am pretty sure the Neanderthal can tell the difference between the carved and flecked spear head and a natural rock he found.

For example scientists for the SETI project are looking for “Dyson Spheres” in other stars, because such an object would be evidence for design and evidence for a super advanced civilization of aliens.

Dyson spheres are very very hypothetical mostly a bit of science fiction, and no at present scientists are not looking specifically for Dyson spheres for evidence of aliens,

These objects , if they exists would be detectable and scientists would conclude “design” despite not having any other samples to compare with, nor prior knowledge of the aliens that live near that star.

Yes they would, but they are far to hypothetical to be of any value looking for aliens. If we found something that looks like a Dyson sphere it would be millions if not tens of hundreds of millions of years away. tT likely would be insufficient evidence of aliens in and of itself, because of insufficient information. It would be difficult to confirm what we are seeing as a Dyson sphere,

So by your view……… scientists would be mistaken in claiming “desing” is such an object is found?..........do you think that the whole premise of the proyect is wrong?

Far too hypothetical to be meaningful in any discussion of looking for "design."

It remains that this line of reasoning for looking for intelligent life that is capable of design has nothing to do with the hypothetical imaginary search for Intelligent Design trying to demonstrate the 'Source'ofDesign outside our physical existence.

Now before you start changing the topic and claiming that God is evil and that the bible has contradictions and all other irrelevant stuff please note that my only point tis that you are wonrg in this particular point..........................we dont kneed knowledge of the manufacturing procesess in order to conclude design.........................(if I am misrepresenting your view , then please correct me and I apologize in advance for the strwman)

Yes we have to not change the topic.
None of the above has anything to do with the question of "Intelligent Design, or the existence of a Designer,"

so please ether agree or refute this point

Tr the point is the problem of detecting "design," At the basic level of recognizing spear points, buildings, writing, and other forms of technology and art it is not difficult in the history of humanity. Many ancient cultures can differentiate the natural from man made, iedesigned.

In more sophisticated problems of advanced technology that is not obvious science is the standard today. For example: When the Intelligent Design advocates challenged science on the questions irreducible complexity explained as caused by Natural Laws and natural processes it takes science to refute this,

 

[Pogo]

(Please if possible do not answer as you read, please first read the whole post and then answer,) ...............(only if possible)

That sounds like a tautology; obviously “evidence for manipulation” would be evidence for design. These are synonyms,

The question is, if you observe an object, what objective method could you use to determine if there is evidence for manipulation (design)?

We look for evidence of known methods of manipulation for starters, this is things we know how to do and what they look like when applie

You seem to be saying that we have our experience as the tool to detect design.

Yup pretty much, if we don't know then that is the answer.

you are saying (it seems to me) that: We know that designers (artists) draw realistic and abstract humans , we know that nature can create mountains rocks or clouds that *moreless* look like humans)

Therefore if we observe the first we would conclude design, if we observe the former we would conclude “nature”

Is this a correct representation of you argument?

This doesn't even make sense, superficial resemblance is an example of pareidoilia which you are often guilty of

so under your view, if previously blind person, who recovered his sight yesterday, (or an alien) observes the drawign of a human created by an artist, he would have no way to tell if it was design or not, unless he ask us?................is this correct?...............

Silly hypothetical not even worth contemplation.

Well take for example the first “Neanderthal made spear” that was ever found by archeologists. Since it was the first ever found there were no other samples to compare them with , but still scientists where capable of concluding design.

In other words, we do not need prior knowledge for how neatherthals made their spears, in order to conclude design

Wrong again, we have numerous examples of more recent spear tips to show us the manipulation of the raw material to compare to.

For example scientists for the SETI project are looking for “Dyson Spheres” in other stars, because such an object would be evidence for design and evidence for a super advanced civilization of aliens.

These objects , if they exists would be detectable and scientists would conclude “design” despite not having any other samples to compare with, nor prior knowledge of the aliens that live near that star.

So by your view……… scientists would be mistaken in claiming “desing” is such an object is found?..........do you think that the whole premise of the proyect is wrong?

Another silly hypothetical, we will worry about when we see something that looks like it might be, but it will remain unknown until we understand how to build something that accounts for the observation, until then, it is still unknown, not design.
BTW, there are natural structures that create focused radiation beams we already know of like gamma ray bursts.

Now before you start changing the topic and claiming that God is evil and that the bible has contradictions and all other irrelevant stuff please note that my only point tis that you are wonrg in this particular point..........................we dont kneed knowledge of the manufacturing procesess in order to conclude design.........................(if I am misrepresenting your view , then please correct me and I apologize in advance for the strwman)

so please ether agree or refute this point

you still don't understand the concept of we don't know yet.
Rational people do not substitute imaginary solutions to unknown situations, that is the realm of religion.

 

[Madsaac]

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.

This whole 'design' idea is just the next step for some religious/god believers.

Before science came along, god was relevant to help understand the unexplainable, now we know god isn't needed because we can explain everything. Therefore god believers need to come up with something else to make god relevant, that being 'design'

At least the 'unexplainable' had some merit but this is bordering on ridiculous.

 

[shunyadragon]

This planning is not the current model of evolution. In that model of Evolution is more like you just show up, and start throwing things around. This is modeled with casino math and science; black box hocus hocus.

I thought this remark concerning what you call casino math, The Casino owners use sophisticated computer models based on the predictable fractal nature of gambling based on the Chaos Theory to guarantee that they win and you lose most of the time. Gambling is not a random. process. Hopes for "Luck" on the long term fails to win.

Actually the professional gamblers with extraordinary memories base their betting methods on the same predictable nature in gambling to make money. They sometimes get banned from Casinos.

All outcomes of cause and effect events are fractal within a predictable range of outcomes.

The "fuzzy dice" are loaded.

 

[LuisDantas]

May I just recommend the books of Victor J. Stenger here?

 

[wellwisher]

Generally by showing it could not have occurred naturally. However, since nature is the supposed design you are kind of left without a standard for comparison.

The narrative leaves itself without a means to prove or disprove it.
(Sorry meant to attach this to the OP)

The idea of man created in God's image, is classically assumed to mean a visual likeness. In computer lingo, there is what is called a disk image. This has to do more with the coding on the disk, instead of the superficial facade of the disk; bootleg DVD. Disk images often are not even stored on disks, but can be in the cloud or on your hard drive, since it is the coding.

Man in God's image is not about looking the same as God, but about behaving the same; disk image or software coding. All humans have human nature, since we are all from the same species. However, this one species comes in many different skin colors. The classic superficial image approach, based on skin color; white God, does not include all humans. Human nature; disk image, on the other hand, includes all humans; the whole species. That disk image is stored in the brain, and is more about software, than hardware; firmware.

If we look at how humans, of all skin colors, approach practical building problems; engineering, the approach is rational and systematic. The rational approach has to do with the different needs of pure and applied science. You can get away with dice and cards assumptions when discussing theory, since nobody dies or gets sued if the theory is wrong. But if you have to build something, in reality, you cannot depend on odds that the tower will stand. That is fine for theory. But construction has liability issues and law suits will happen if the bridge collapses. In applied science, you need to plan and make sure it is perfect, even before you start; building codes. Building the universe was applied science, and not just done in theory. It had to be rational and not dice and cards.

In Genesis, before even breaking ground, God broods over the deep. He is the architect of the universe, who is deep in thought, planning, and drawing the blueprints, since this is not just a universe, in theory, but an actual universe with future liability insurance. Engineers need to be the most rational scientists, while theoreticians can be habitual gamblers; paid to take a gamble.

In our universe, the appearance of hydrogen is when matter stops becoming fuzzy dice. The quarks reach their steady state positions, for the protons, electrons and neutrons, on which chemistry and permanency, appears. The hydrogen goal went from the fuzzy sub particle states to solid permanency; theoretical to the practical. We now have a foundation, onto which we can build the rest. We got a rebate on our liability insurance. The footings and corner stones are set, and we are ready to pour the concrete foundation.