How do you detect "design"?

[YoursTrue]

They were looking for evidence of intelligence within the universe. This is different from the ID program which was looking for an intelligent designer of the universe.

Are you saying that you've never seen a demonstration of the rebuttal to any claim of irreducible complexity apart from Behe's mousetrap claim, as when Miller manually reduced a mousetrap piece by piece and showed how it could function as a tie clip, for example?

What analogous demonstration would you expect to see for biological systems? Would you like to see parts removed from eyes or flagella and see that they still functioned as with a mousetrap? How would that work or look? They didn't come into being by adding a series of parts. There was never a human eye lacking one of the major components like a lens or a retina. The incremental increases as these structures evolved simultaneously.

Before a flagellum was a flagellum, it was something that looked like a flagellum but had a different function. What would you like to have demonstrated? The previous structure and function? All you'll get there is diagrams. Nobody is going to be able to pull a piece off of a flagellum and show it going from a propeller to a needle the way Miller did with a mousetrap (credit to McDonald for developing the demonstration Miller presented on a video).

And what would you like to see in a demonstration of the evolution of the immune system or the clotting cascade? Once again, all you'll get are diagrams, not demonstrations.

But you can find those discussions and diagrams if you are interested. Here's something on the evolution of the immune system with a reference to Behe and the Dover trial. It's quite technical in nature.

His objection was valid. You were muddying the waters using equivocation. You were using a different definition of design than most mean when they use the word.

From the Wiki link shunya provided: "Design refers to something that is or has been intentionally created by a thinking agent, though it is sometimes used to refer to the nature of something – its design. The verb to design expresses the process of developing a design."

The first sentence identifies two different meanings and uses for the word and indicates which is the more common meaning. The creationists are trying a verbal sleigh-of hand. When they say design, they mean intelligent design - the first definition. Then you come along and offer the second definition, which is not the one creationists are using.

This is a deflection from what is really claimed, namely, that human beings have monkey ancestors. Whether one calls human beings monkeys or not is irrelevant. That usage has a very narrow application limited to taxonomy and cladistics, where once a monkey, always a monkey. In any other context, monkey and humans are considered distinct types of animals. To be repeatedly pursuing this matter is to deflect from the real difference in opinion between biologists and creationists, which is not whether humans can be properly called monkeys still, but rather, whether one evolved from the other.

This is full of error. Humans DID evolve from monkey, albeit not directly. We are apes and we evolved from pre-human apes, which in turn evolved from ancient monkeys. And evolution didn't include a common ancestral ape that diverged into gorilla-chimp line and a human line. That bifurcation generated a gorilla line and a human-chimp line, the latter then bifurcating into a chimp-bonobo line and a human line, and then the chimp-bonobo line bifurcating int the chimp line and the bonobo line.

We can remove gods from this and it describes the naturalistic understanding. The universe unfolded naturalistically according to the laws of nature, which serve as that program.

Catastrophes have come and gone for millennia. Christianity has always attempted to make bank threatening humanity with annihilation, none more than your denomination, the Jehovah's Witnesses. But look how powerful it is to convince somebody of what you believe about the future. Once that happens, one develops a dependence on them to save him from impending doom. It's not fair to them, but being fair isn't their goal, is it?

Recently, I was visited by the Jehovah's Witnesses. The visit began by assuming as you do that the world was a terrible place, getting worse. They seemed to assume that I agreed with that. I did not. I explained that although many live difficult lives, the world is also a wonderful place for many, and that I was happy being in it. That was literally the end of the discussion. They said thank you and moved along, which surprised me. Why did they give up so quickly and easily? Were they unprepared for and stymied by my answer? That didn't seem possible, but what else could it be? My point is that if I didn't see the world as going to hell in a bucket, it seems that they thought they had nothing to say to me. And they were correct.

"To the philosophy of atheism belongs the credit of robbing death of its horror and its terror. It brought about the abolition of Hell." - Joseph Lewis

I don't read long posts like yours above, but I did see the last quote about hell. A rational and steady study of the Bible shows that there is no 'hell' as some religions purport. Nor is there transportation of the soul from one organism to another.

 

[shunyadragon]

I did look up information about Quantum Nothingness (or Quantum Nothing) and find it very difficult to comprehend. On the other hand, to say that "in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth," it doesn't say anything about what was 'there' or not there in a manner of speaking. So -- whether it was created from Quantum Nothing(ness) I really do not think anyone can tell. I understand how an atheist or someone who enjoys thinking about these things might figure it, maybe. While I cannot speak with Dr. Hawking now (because he's dead), if I could have, I would imagine he'd have a problem believing in God based on his own situation, which I consider tragic anyway. But perhaps his disbelief went beyond that and figured, well, since he believed and posited on the idea that no God exists, then of course, some minds like to consider 'well, how did it happen' physically? Which is not the worst thing to think about the physics, but to then figure ok, it was Quantum Nathing is a bit mind-bending for me. But! and sorry this post is longer than usual, if you want to explain to me in a slow discourse about Quantum Nothing or Nothingness, that would be ok. Assuming my finite mind can absorb or take it in. Some things give me a slight stomach ache.

The difficulty for you to understand does not negate the explanations I gave, It is a given your understanding of science is limited, and you tend to selectively reject a lot of science.

To put it simply: There is no such thing as a true vacuum where there was absolutely nothing. Outer space out side stars solar systems and other objects outer space is not a vacuum. IT is described as Quantum nothingness with zero state energy level and Quantum gravity It has been 'objectively observed as a very dynamic Quantum World at the Quantum scale.

 

[YoursTrue]

Thank you all, guys and gals -- fini, and thank you again. For some of you insisting that humans are monkeys! Thank you.

It shows me that not all understand the science or the categories. Now if some think humans are monkeys and insist on that category, that's up to them. But yes, these types of conversations do help. Thanks again, guys and gals. Or monkey guys and gals according to those who say they are monkeys.

 

[YoursTrue]

The difficulty for you to understand does not negate the explanations I gave, It is a given your understanding of science is limited, and you tend to selectively reject a lot of science.

To put it simply: There is no such thing as a true vacuum where there was absolutely nothing. Outer space out side stars solar systems and other objects outer space is not a vacuum. IT is described as Quantum nothingness with zero state energy level and Quantum gravity It has been 'objectively observed as a very dynamic Quantum World at the Quantum scale.

I see. I was hoping for a discussion but I see you're not up to it without giving the little insults.
Be that as it may for the present -- I have gleaned from what I read about "Quantum Nothingness" that some (don't know about all) scientists say there is no such thing as a "true vacuum." Therefore if you would like to continue without the insults I might do so.

 

[PureX]

His objection was valid. You were muddying the waters using equivocation. You were using a different definition of design than most mean when they use the word.

Most people don't take the time to think about what they're saying. And then they get all offended and indignant when someone points out that what they are saying is illogical and is intended to support their ignorance and their bias. In this case it's the silly proposition that 'design' has to have conscious intent. It's doesn't. Evolutionary process has no conscious intent, and yet it is very clearly the physical embodiment of life form 'design'. Only an idiot would deny this.

From the Wiki link shunya provided: "Design refers to something that is or has been intentionally created by a thinking agent, though it is sometimes used to refer to the nature of something – its design. The verb to design expresses the process of developing a design."

Yes, most people use the term when they are referring to intended design. And that's fine since the term can refer to both intended and unintended design. The reason it can refer to both is because design is design, and intent is intent. They are two DIFFERENT phenomena that may or may not relate to each other. They are not one phenomena. And we know this because we have these two completely different words that are intended to be use to refer to two completely different conceptual experiences: design, and intent. These different phenomena are often associated with each other. And are often inter-related. But they don't HAVE TO BE.

The first sentence identifies two different meanings and uses for the word and indicates which is the more common meaning.

It also shows us that these are TWO DIFFERENT CONCEPTS. Each having it's OWN word-label: design, and intent. And although they are often oncepts considered in conjunction with each other, they are not the same concept.

The creationists are trying a verbal sleigh-of hand. When they say design, they mean intelligent design - the first definition. Then you come along and offer the second definition, which is not the one creationists are using.

I understand, but it's not just the creationists here INSISTING on ignoring the fact that design does not logically require conscious intent. Their atheist antagonists are fighting hard to maintain this delusion, as well. Why? Because they NEED it to keep the creationists in the wrong. If the creationists were to suddenly admit that "natural design" (like evolution) does not absolutely require any "God consciousness" to produce the results that it does then what are the atheists going to fight with them about? How are they going to maintain their presumption of intellectual superiority?

 

[shunyadragon]

Most people don't take the time to think about what they're saying. And then they get all offended and indignant when someone points out that what they are saying is illogical and is intended to support their ignorance and their bias. In this case it's the silly proposition that 'design' has to have conscious intent. It's doesn't. Evolutionary process has no conscious intent, and yet it is very clearly the physical embodiment of life form 'design'. Only an idiot would deny this.

Yes, most people use the term when they are referring to intended design. And that's fine since the term can refer to both intended and unintended design. The reason it can refer to both is because design is design, and intent is intent. They are two DIFFERENT phenomena that may or may not relate to each other. They are not one phenomena. And we know this because we have these two completely different words that are intended to be use to refer to two completely different conceptual experiences: design, and intent. These different phenomena are often associated with each other. And are often inter-related. But they don't HAVE TO BE.

It also shows us that these are TWO DIFFERENT CONCEPTS. Each having it's OWN word-label: design, and intent. And although they are often oncepts considered in conjunction with each other, they are not the same concept.

I understand, but it's not just the creationists here INSISTING on ignoring the fact that design does not logically require conscious intent. Their atheist antagonists are fighting hard to maintain this delusion, as well. Why? Because they NEED it to keep the creationists in the wrong. If the creationists were to suddenly admit that "natural design" (like evolution) does not absolutely require any "God consciousness" to produce the results that it does then what are the atheists going to fight with them about? How are they going to maintain their presumption of intellectual superiority?

I believe @It Aint Necessarily So confirmed my objections to your line of reasoning concerning 'Design.' In this issue the atheists are not deluded at all. There is no reasonable option of using "design" as a possibility of "conscious intent;"

The use of design in natural causes of nature is an oxymoron, and a misuse of the definition of 'design' in all sources..

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

design is design, and intent is intent. They are two DIFFERENT phenomena that may or may not relate to each other. They are not one phenomena. And we know this because we have these two completely different words that are intended to be use to refer to two completely different conceptual experiences

When a creationist refers to design, he means intended design. He means designed by an intelligent designer.

Their atheist antagonists are fighting hard to maintain this delusion, as well. Why? Because they NEED it to keep the creationists in the wrong. If the creationists were to suddenly admit that "natural design" (like evolution) does not absolutely require any "God consciousness" to produce the results that it does then what are the atheists going to fight with them about?

So you see the critical thinkers a goading the creationists into making their error without which goading the creationists might agree with them that design doesn't require a designer? And you think that if creationists agreed that some designs are not designed, that that would be a setback for them or for the critical thinkers, who would then no longer be wrong?

You generally impute the basest of motives to atheists, but it's actually you that is playing word games in order to provoke others and make them wrong. You try so hard to make critical thinkers look corrupt and malicious.

How are they going to maintain their presumption of intellectual superiority?

That's an interesting comment. I haven't seen a single critical thinker make that claim explicitly. The intellectually superior don't need to say that about themselves, just as honest or loyal people don't need to tell others that about themselves. They let their words and actions speak for themselves.

And yes, critical thinkers consider critical thought superior to faith and sound argument superior to bare assertion. If they didn't, they would embrace faith. Faith-based thinkers also consider their ways superior, or they would respect the opinions of critical thinkers.

 

[YoursTrue]

When a creationist refers to design, he means intended design. He means designed by an intelligent designer.

As there are various thinkers about God in religion and they are not all the same, so it is among those who believe in creation.

 

[Pogo]

As there are various thinkers about God in religion and they are not all the same, so it is among those who believe in creation.

More accurately stated, I am unwilling to actually apply any intellectual capacity such as I might have and prefer to deflect.

 

[YoursTrue]

More accurately stated, I am unwilling to actually apply any intellectual capacity such as I might have and prefer to deflect.

That's fine for you.

 

[Pogo]

That's fine for you.

No, it is an observation of you which currently stands un-rebutted.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, it is an observation of you which currently stands un-rebutted.

You have your viewpoints and others may not agree with you, and even though this is a debate forum, there is no need as far as I am concerned to debate you. Have a good day, bye for now...

 

[Pogo]

You have your viewpoints and others may not agree with you, and even though this is a debate forum, there is no need as far as I am concerned to debate you. Have a good day, bye for now...

So you are unwilling or unable to defend your position.
Nuff said.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

A quick google will yield you a wide range of explanations…

“Explanations” are not “demonstrations”, are they?

My response was concerning the statement that “all the examples of irreducible complexity proposed by the Discovery Institute have been demonstrate[d] by science to be as a result of natural processes.”

Where are these so-called “demonstrations”?

….of how the flagellum can evolve step by step.

“Can” evolve, doesn’t mean “did”. Does it?

Of course, i understand you’ll accept the weakest and unlikeliest explanations to support your bias, over the strongest explanations for ID.

(Again we’re back to explanations. I wanted demonstrations…. I guess I was right: there are no credible ones.

"never", followed by an example of the opposite.

I said “except”, didn’t I?

Take your own advice…

Context matters. Ignoring context, like you are doing, is dishonest at worst and ignorant at best

So rhetorically speaking, which are you being with me here? “Ignorant” or “dishonest”?

 

[YoursTrue]

So you are unwilling or unable to defend your position.
Nuff said.

Unwilling is an accurate description insofar as explaining my position any further to you. (Have a nice day. Take care.)

 

[YoursTrue]

True.

So would you say that humans are chimpanzees and gorillas? Or that the article I quoted says that humans share a common ancestor along with gorillas and chimpanzees? How do you understand that statement? That gorillas are chimpanzees and humans, or that they are said to "share" a common ancestor?

 

[YoursTrue]

How do you consider my view dishonest?

I did not say your answer was dishonest.

 

[Pogo]

So you are unwilling or unable to defend your position.
Nuff said. pogo

Unwilling is an accurate description insofar as explaining my position any further to you. (Have a nice day. Take care.)

Well if you agree that unwilling is inappropriate, can I accept unable as to why?

 

[PureX]

When a creationist refers to design, he means intended design. He means designed by an intelligent designer.

And he has every right and reason to think so. But that doesn’t mean that it IS so. And I am simply pointing that out, and why.

So why is it the atheists that are fighting with me? Could it be that they are so invested in the idea of their being right based on the creationists being wrong that they just can’t consider any other possibility? Because that’s sure what it looks like.

So you see the critical thinkers a goading the creationists into making their error without which goading the creationists might agree with them that design doesn't require a designer? And you think that if creationists agreed that some designs are not designed, that that would be a setback for them or for the critical thinkers, who would then no longer be wrong?

”Critical thinkers” my …..!

You generally impute the basest of motives to atheists,

Because they think like idiots and pretend they’re such wise “critical thinkers”. Yet when anyone offers them any actual criticism they whine and spew insults like petulant children. They can’t grasp even the most basic logical reasoning because all they can think to do is defend their ignorance by any means they can muster.

That's an interesting comment. I haven't seen a single critical thinker make that claim explicitly. The intellectually superior don't need to say that about themselves, just as honest or loyal people don't need to tell others that about themselves. They let their words and actions speak for themselves.

And yes, critical thinkers consider critical thought superior to faith and sound argument superior to bare assertion. If they didn't, they would embrace faith. Faith-based thinkers also consider their ways superior, or they would respect the opinions of critical thinkers.

And then you went right ahead and exemplified what I just posted.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Please stop with this silly shennanigans.
Everybody here but you, it seems, understands what is being meant by the word "design" and how it doesn't mean "natural design" like "the design of a snowflake".

Please stop with muddying the waters with this semantic drivel.

It seems to me that if a person purposefully argues or declares a definition so inclusive, broad and outside the scope and context of the discussion, you pretty much destroy the value of the word and any utility it has.