How do you detect "design"?

[shunyadragon]

Not being able to find a designer does not mean that science says or has shown that there is no designer. You speak as if you actually think that science tells us that there is no designer.

Methodological Naturalism cannot falsify hypotheses for the negative or positive subjective beliefs such as the existence of the designer God..

The argument by the Discovery Institute is that science can falsify hypothesis for the existence of design in nature therefore the necessity of a designer.

 

[Pogo]

Yes I also don't believe in laprechauns or the easter bunny and don't put them in the same category as belief in God.

Which leaves us with the question of why you make this distinction? What positive evidence have you found to continue your belief in gods that was missing for Easter Bunnies, or will you admit that you believe for faith reasons.

 

[Brian2]

What I wrote was, "What the skeptic says is that absent evidence of intelligent design, he doesn't believe that the universe was intelligently designed, but for the reason implied in this thread, he also doesn't assert that there was no intelligent designer. He remains agnostic on the question." That's a description of agnostic atheism, the only rational position for the skeptic, empiricist, and agnostic atheist. Did you want to try to refute that?

No

Yes, we're different that way. Absent sufficient evidence, I don't believe.

It seems to be a matter, at least partially, of what is considered to be "evidence".

Not to me or the rest of the atheists who are familiar with that science. And of course, it's an incredulity fallacy to conclude that a designer god exists because you can't imagine how nature could have generated these objects without supervision and intention.

I don't need to not be able to imagine how nature could have generated those things if science tells me how nature could have done it without supervision or intertion. I still have faith that there is a designer however.
But what science can do is offer educated opinions about how nature might have done stuff but it cannot conclude that there was no supervision or intention,,,,,,,,,, that is part of the conclusion that science cannot add.

 

[Pogo]

Methodological Naturalism cannot falsify hypotheses for the negative or positive subjective beliefs such as the existence of the designer God..

The argument by the Discovery Institute is that science can falsify hypothesis for the existence of design in nature therefore the necessity of a designer.

Not quite, The DI claims to have a method that demonstrates the need for a designer in order for certain things to exist however the validity of their methods have been questioned and shown to have false positives.
But please explain what you mean by falsify in the above sentence, you seem to be using it recently in a way that I am not familiar with.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't need to not be able to imagine how nature could have generated those things if science tells me how nature could have done it without supervision or intertion. I still have faith that there is a designer however.

Right. Which means your idea of a designer is right there in the category of leprechauns and easter bunnies, eventhough you denied that earlier. Right?

But what science can do is offer educated opinions about how nature might have done stuff but it cannot conclude that there was no supervision or intention,,,,,,,,,,

You also can't conclude that there were no undetectable pixies involved.
So what?

that is part of the conclusion that science cannot add.

Yes. And that part consists of an INFINITE number of claims that your imagination could potentially come up with.
So what is it about that one claim among an infinite set that you think makes it more credible then all the others?
'evidence' can't be your answer, because then science would be all over it....

 

[Brian2]

It's a null statement.

Take a rock that's demonstrably been shaped through erosion by water in a river.

Does science say of that rock that no undetectable pixies were involved in shaping said rock? No.
Did science show that no undetectable pixies were involved? No.

These are null statements.
Instead, science shows that the river and water erosion was involved in it.

There literally an INFINITE amount of potential things that your imagination can come up with that "might" have been involved and of which science "could" say that there's no reason to think that. Why would it bother? Why would anyone bother, unless one is somehow emotionally (or otherwise) invested in positing one of those things as being involved?

So you agree that science has not shown and does not say that there are no gods.

If you wish to say that a designer or pixie was involved: show how it was involved. If you can't... why would anyone care about your claim?

So if you cannot show how life and the universe came to be without a creator and designer, why would anyone care about your claims?

 

[shunyadragon]

They are called "weak" and "strong" atheists.
Both are atheists.

There are also "agnostics" who believe they do not know.

What all atheists have in common is that they all answer "no" to the question "do you believe a god exists?".
That doesn't mean they will all answer "yes" to the question "do you believe that NO gods exist?".

Your second guessing what atheists wil answer your question.

Many people seem to be unable to understand that these are different questions.

Careful on differentiating whether people believe and what people would know in absolute terms. From the human perspective we do not know in absolute terms whether Gods exist or not.

It is common today for atheists to believe, "there is no reasons to believe in Gods."

In the court room analogy, this is the difference between ruling someone "not guilty" instead of ruling someone to be "innocent".
Different answers; different questions.


In a court room, the question being discussed is NOT "is the defendant innocent". It is "can the defendant be shown to be guilty?"
And if the ruling is "not guilty", it doesn't mean the jury thinks he is innocent.
It merely means that they think the case hasn't sufficiently been made to demonstrate guilt.

The arguments for the subjective existence or non-existence of Gods has no parallel in court room analogies, which ar ased on evidence and law.

 

[Brian2]

Sure.

Although I would also add that it takes a lot more faith to believe they are real then to believe they aren't real.

Believing they aren't real is consistent with reality as it doesn't require the assumption that magic exists.
So you need less extra-ordinary assumptions to believe them to not be real then to believe them to be real.

Surely you can understand that.

I can understand that, but it is not science.

 

[Brian2]

Why not?

Both are magical (supernatural) claims.
Both are untestable.
Both require faith.

Sounds like the same category to me...

Yes I suppose anything can be in the same category as anything else if you are setting the criteria for the category.

 

[Brian2]

You don't seem aware that the ID crowd invented ID to have it replace evolution theory in science classes.

I imagine it would have been to have it replace the type of evolution that is taught in science classes, evolution without a designer. And if science in the classroom teaches "no designer" then that is not science.

 

[Brian2]

Which leaves us with the question of why you make this distinction? What positive evidence have you found to continue your belief in gods that was missing for Easter Bunnies, or will you admit that you believe for faith reasons.

Yes I believe for faith reasons and think that those who want to push faith aside in their lives are missing an important part of their humanity.
Pushing aside "reason" is also not sensible.

 

[Audie]

No



It seems to be a matter, at least partially, of what is considered to be "evidence".



I don't need to not be able to imagine how nature could have generated those things if science tells me how nature could have done it without supervision or intertion. I still have faith that there is a designer however.
But what science can do is offer educated opinions about how nature might have done stuff but it cannot conclude that there was no supervision or intention,,,,,,,,,, that is part of the conclusion that science cannot add.

Evidence comes in forms like substantive
feasible, and specious.

Faith over substantive evidence is an example
of intellectual dishonesty.

ID is possibly, vaguely, feasible.

Something like " little people" such as are
reported worldwide.

Not known to exist, zero substantive evidence.

Like Nessie.

Not worth discussing.

 

[Audie]

I imagine it would have been to have it replace the type of evolution that is taught in science classes, evolution without a designer. And if science in the classroom teaches "no designer" then that is not science.

Um you just demonstrated you've not a clue
either of what is in biology curricula , or what
science is.

 

[shunyadragon]

Not quite, The DI claims to have a method that demonstrates the need for a designer in order for certain things to exist however the validity of their methods have been questioned and shown to have false positives.
But please explain what you mean by falsify in the above sentence, you seem to be using it recently in a way that I am not familiar with.

Methods? It is better to say the Discovery has not proposed a hypothesis that can be falsify the theory of "Intelligent Design." Actually they have not proposed a consistent methodology to falsify any sort of hypothesis. They consistently argue for the negative of what science cannot demonstrate the natural causes of complexity in nature.

I use falsify as specifically used in science defined by Methodological Naturalism

 

[shunyadragon]

It seems to be a matter, at least partially, of what is considered to be "evidence".

This needs further explanation, because the definition of evidence in science is specific and clear. Science requires specific objective verifiable physical evidence that leads to conclusions that are predictive and falsifiable.

Intelligent Design hypothesis does not offer any objective verifiable evidence to support this belief. To be a falsifiable hypotheses it would be necessary to demonstrate the complexity in nature could not come about by natural processes.

 

[Brian2]

Right. Which means your idea of a designer is right there in the category of leprechauns and easter bunnies, eventhough you denied that earlier. Right?

If I accept your category boundaries then true. But I don't.

You also can't conclude that there were no undetectable pixies involved.
So what?

The way I don't believe there were undetectable pixies involved is by faith.

Yes. And that part consists of an INFINITE number of claims that your imagination could potentially come up with.
So what is it about that one claim among an infinite set that you think makes it more credible then all the others?
'evidence' can't be your answer, because then science would be all over it....

I don't expect that science should be able to find evidence for a supernatural being. Lack of evidence is not evidence that no supernatural beings exist.
But there is other sorts of evidence is human history and in the experiences of many people.
In that it is a bit like bigfoot and UFOs, many believe. But it is a more all encompassing belief in the lives of people.

 

[shunyadragon]

I imagine it would have been to have it replace the type of evolution that is taught in science classes, evolution without a designer. And if science in the classroom teaches "no designer" then that is not science.

Science in the classroom does not teach there is no designer. Science is neutral to such a claim,

 

[Brian2]

Faith over substantive evidence is an example
of intellectual dishonesty.

You need not deny evidence to have faith.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes I believe for faith reasons and think that those who want to push faith aside in their lives are missing an important part of their humanity.
Pushing aside "reason" is also not sensible.

Believers including scientists, do not "push faith aside in their lives" to support the science of evolution.

 

[shunyadragon]

You need not deny evidence to have faith.

You reject the objective verifiable evidence and 170+ years of discoveries and research in the best universities in the world,