How do you detect "design"?

[Subduction Zone]

So allyou have is what TagliatelliMonster calls "mere ignorant negative "evidence" against some different idea",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, from the post you are quoting

• #1,091

And with that you want people to believe that order is a natural state, as opposed to chaos.....................that a thousand monkeys bashing away at typewriters are likely to produce a masterpiece given enough time, or more monkeys. But no, not even that that this order existed at the start and did not need any input to produce.

Why can't creationists ever consider the effects of both natural selection and variation working at the same time? They constantly are doing that in nature. Your example is based only upon variation. Do you know what happens when you add selection? Shakespeare appears.

 

[Valjean]

I certainly don't know 'everything.' But logic tells me that seeds did not come about by themselves, I.e., without an intelligent designer. They're more fantastic than a cabin. Now do I know anything beyond that now? No.

What does logic have to do with it?
What step in the evolution or growth of a seed do you find inexplicable? Isn't the whole process known to biology?
Why do you find magic a viable alternative? It has no supporting evidence. Is it all just personal incredulity or appeal to church authority?

 

[Valjean]

Let's say scientists haven't been investigating these things for a long time, I.e., according to you, I suppose you figure history and writing about science and evolution or creation hasn't been around THAT long, right? So I figure you figure that maybe humans have been thinking about these things for a few thousand years. What do you think?

"Humans thinking about things" was a comedy of errors for thousands of years. It mostly involved simply making things up, telling stories, and simplistic, childish thinking. Just look at all the fantastic and varied mythology and tall tales man came up with over the centuries.

It wasn't till we invented a formal investigative methodology that the actual mechanisms behind phenomena became understood and agreed upon.

 

[Valjean]

So do you think that physical means by nature and evolution and not by an intelligent designer has packed all that information into a little seed?

Yes, and we understand how.
Religion does not, and struggles desperately not to learn how.
Education would threaten the personal incredulity their mythological narrative relies on.

 

[Valjean]

I don't know. But you claim logic so you show that other than just claiming it.

I take her usage of "logic" to mean familiarity and superficial commonsense.

 

[Valjean]

Of course that's what my mind says now. I say now because I did not always think about these things but now I do. And it does not seem logical to me that there is no creator or master designer even though I surely do not know how God did it, but I think there is a greater intelligent force than what "meets the eye."

Thinking involves critical analysis of objective facts and observations. I doubt this is the source of your theology.
Real critical thinking and factual analysis more usually lead to skepticism.

 

[Valjean]

Well, that was not by point. By point is that these here are not parts of the universe according to you:

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

Yes. This has been posted before, but these are not questions science is being used to, or is even trying to answer.
The problem is that religion that won't stay in its lane. It makes claims about physical reality it cannot back up; claims that are squarely within the domain of science.

Even within its own sphere, religion cannot demonstrate or even support its claims and doctrines. It defends them not with reason or facts, but with attempts to undermine the reason and facts of science.

 

[Valjean]

It is true that science cannot study spirits. Yet people who should know better, think that science should be able to do this, and if it cannot, it is not the fault of science, but is because spirits do not exist. That is called scientism imo, and it is not an insult, just a fact.

No. That is not the reasoning behind our skepticism.
Noöne thinks science should be able to study unevidenced things. We doubt spirits because there is no evidence underlying the claim. We're not appealing to science, only to reason. It's only the spirit- believers who sometimes try to apply science to bolster their claims.

Science has not shown that the world works automatically without intelligent supervision.

It shows that natural mechanism is sufficient to explain the phenomena in question, and, inasmuch as there are no contending, evidenced claims, nor contradictory evidence; natural mechanism is the prevailing explanatory claim.

The evidence for God as engineer is exactly equal to the evidence for elves. Their truth-values are equal. Only their popularity and familiarity differ.

The question about a creator is never irrelevant. All irrelevance would show is that the person is using an argument from ignorance,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, and it is not because there is a lack of evidence, it is because the person refuses to see the evidence because of previously held belief that empiricism is the only way to knowledge.

You're projecting.
The "evidence" proposed by the religious is often terrible, based on all sorts of falsehoods and faulty reasoning. We point this out, but it's they who cannot or will not see the errors and bad reasoning. errors.
You claim an alternate path to knowledge, but you've been using this path for thousands of years and I see neither an increase in knowledge, consensus, or productivity.
Quite the opposite with regards to science.

You no doubt speak as a representative of science and empiricism and should write as such and qualify what you say with the admission that it applies to science and the work of science only and has no impact on the reality in the real world where people are claiming that God has an impact on their lives every day, and that impacts the world big time.

But it does have that real world impact, and noöne's claiming religion has no impact on the lives of believers and their impact on the world. I'm claiming their ontological narrative and attribution is empirically and objectively unsupported.

Empiricists are free to disagree but are just using faith in their worldview to say that my faith is not true and that my experiences are imagination.

Inasmuch as our 'worldview' is based on reason and objective evidence, where's the "faith?"
Your faith, on the other hand, really is faith, inasmuch as it's unsupported by objective evidence. Even if it be true, it's invalid.
Imagination? If your experiences are not generally accessible and open to examination, then they are imagination.

So why do atheists want theists to demonstrate what is impossible?

??? -- not following.
Atheists seem to be asking theists simply to support their claims with tangible, reasonable evidence.

And how do you know that the laws of nature act automatically?

Where's your evidence of the hand of God guiding them? Couldn't you make the same claim of færies, or elves? Equal evidence, equal truth-value.
The laws of physics are what they are, and show no evidence of any intention or guidance. We assume automaticity, pending contrary evidence.

 

[Valjean]

It's not a matter of hide and seek when God has shown Himself in history for those who can see and believe it.

There is little or no evidence of this.
The claims are hearsay, by unknown witnesses. Many are fantastical. Many are demonstrably false. There is much evidence of later editing. Included and rejected scriptures were voted on or chosen by small groups promoting their own doctrines. There are many contending claims, witnesses and doctrines, from all over the world.
I have little faith in such "evidence."

It is a matter of whether physical sciences should be able to detect something that is not physical, by scientific means.
It sounds reasonable that science would not be able to do that and that science would not even know when and how God would act to be able to detect God's actions in the universe.

So why would anyone believe in the unevidenced, undetected, undetectable?

 

[Valjean]

Dr James Tour says that such demonstrations are not as close as are being said. However why would being able to do that demonstrate chemistry alone as being responsible for life?

Why would including an unnecessary, unevidenced, extraneous factor be reasonable? You could just as reasonably claim elves did it.
Best to accept the more parsimonious claim till evidence or need of extra factors is demonstrated.

 

[Brian2]

Do you have something else that is not merely wishful thinking?

Well ignoring what science cannot study would be ignoring that life is more than just a pile of chemicals.
In a situation like that all science can do, and does, is to say that those things are byproducts of the chemistry, and use phrases like "Life is more than the sum of it's parts".
So science can look like it is defining consciousness for example, but really is just avoiding the issue that consciousness is not a chemical, it is in a different category.
But I suppose that is OK as long as everyone knows that this is what is happening. Problems can happen when people get confused and actually think that science has discovered what consciousness and life is. And that can happen with everyone, but especially atheist I would say are prone to such errors.
The whole thing comes down to scientists having to work in certain parameters, and to step beyond those and actually say that life is more than chemistry invites mocking and ridicule from other scientists.
But if you actually think that science has discovered what life and consciousness is because someone has said it is a byproduct of chemistry, what can I say, all I can do is be sympathetic.
But of course this is the sort of thing that happens at the edges of science when science cannot find spirit to study but wants to push on anyway.

 

[blü 2]

A mighty oak tree is designed to have small acorns on it instead of the size of pumpkins or watermelons
There is No design for a 'watermelon tree' or a 'pumpkin tree' because it would Not be safe to sit under huge melons or pumpkins over head

OR a mighty oak tree has evolved to have acorns of a particular size because across millions of years and many environments and environmental changes those oak trees with acorns of a particular size propagated more successfully than others given their relevant time and circumstances.

You might like to read >this article< to get a better picture of what's going on. That will help you address why there are so many different kinds of trees (&c) in the plant kingdom,

A major difference between your view and this is that your view relies on imagination to explain, and the scientific view relies on evidence and constantly cross-checks itself against reality and can learn and change as new insights become available.

 

[Valjean]

A mighty oak tree is designed to have small acorns on it instead of the size of pumpkins or watermelons
There is No design for a 'watermelon tree' or a 'pumpkin tree' because it would Not be safe to sit under huge melons or pumpkins over head

Still not following. What point are you trying to illustrate?
All I can make out is something must be designed because it exists, and it exists because other things don't exist. That doesn't seem to make any sense.

Even if God used evolution in some lower-life forms that is Not where humans are concerned
God formed or fashioned Adam from the already existing ground - Genesis 2:7
Adam went from non-life, to life, and returned back to none life - Genesis 2:17

You're preaching. Please support your assertions.

 

[Brian2]

Can you point to anything that requires a designer?

That sentence.

Feel free to explain how humans were designed. Be sure to include why defects and cancers were part of this design, especially in children and young mothers.

Oh gosh, pain and suffering and death exist and everyone goes through these things, so God does not exist.
No that very poor logic.

We reject the clain of a designer because you creationists can't show us that any exist. Nor can you show us where any designed is needed in how matter organizes itself via the natural laws.

So all you need is created matter which operates with laws that you can call natural and you can explain everything else, and then say that the supernatural does not exist and the guy who created matter and it's laws.
No that is very poor logic.

Theists have no way to counter what science reports. All creationists have is protest and demands that rational minds prove Gods don;t exist. Why can't you believers prove your God DOES exist? What's the problem?

We give you the evidence for God and you do not believe it and make fun at theists because you do not believe the evidence.
And then you talk as if atheists are following science and theists are not, and as if science has shown that there is no God.
All this is just plain weird.

Science describes the order that matter organizes itself into. Creationists can't show that any supernatural exists, or is necessary.

And this matter evolving into atoms and molecules shows what?
It certainly does not show that the supernatural is not necessary,,,,,,,,,,,,, unless you want to say "Science has seen no gods in all of this, so science has shown that Gods are not needed". But that is not science saying it, it is you going beyond science with atheist beliefs, ooops I mean, lack of beliefs.

How is your God not a fiction? Until you can show it actually exists, or even likely exists, we won't just take your word for it. Rational minds require evidence, where is it?

Again, we give evidence and you do not believe it and even say that you have seen no evidence.
That is what is known as "scientism" coming out in what you are saying. But that is not a criticism, that is just a fact.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It was No problem for Jesus. Jesus taught Scripture is religious truth - John 17:17
So, to me the correct religion would be the one Jesus taught
Problem is: just as Jesus forewarned us that MANY would come in his name but prove false - Matthew 7:21-23
That does Not mean there is No way to tell the truth but that MANY prefer the lie - 2nd Timothy 4:3

Yeah, I have a different faith.

 

[Valjean]

Even if God used evolution in some lower-life forms that is Not where humans are concerned
God formed or fashioned Adam from the already existing ground - Genesis 2:7
Adam went from non-life, to life, and returned back to none life - Genesis 2:17

You're preaching. Please support your assertions.

..... and to me the goal of the Designer (aka God) is for healthy humans to inhabit the forever Earth forever

And to me green is prettier than orange....
How is a personal opinion relevant to this debate? Do you have any evidence backing this opinion?

Sure we know there is design in seeds because if we plant corn we get corn, if we plant sunflowers we get sunflowers, etc.

How is that evidence of intentional design?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes. This has been posted before, but these are not questions science is being used to, or is even trying to answer.
The problem is that religion that won't stay in its lane. It makes claims about physical reality it cannot back up; claims that are squarely within the domain of science.

Even within its own sphere, religion cannot demonstrate or even support its claims and doctrines. It defends them not with reason or facts, but with attempts to undermine the reason and facts of science.

Yeah, that is a part of how the world works. Now you have to show with science as your method and with evidence that it is a problem.
But you can't, because that it is a problem is not science. That is in short politics.

 

[Brian2]

We can disregard the definition of an amino acid and begin with the observation that life is chemistry. I'm surprised if you disagree. Look at a living cell. All one sees are chemicals. Some form barriers, some encode instructions, some catalyze reactions, and some are metabolized. What else are you imagining is in there? A soul?

And yet there is more to life than a pile of chemicals, as you know.

Every informed person believes that.

You don't need to be very informed to look around you and see that all physical bodies are composed of chemicals.

I haven't seen that claim here. What I do see frequently is the claim that there is insufficient evidence to believe that a designer was involved morphed into what you just wrote - a positive claim that there was no designer.

I try to be honest about what I see, and I see atheists claiming that Gods do not exist and then I see atheists hiding from giving evidence that there are no gods by claiming that I am the one making the claims and so I need to prove something to them.

Correct, but so what? It also doesn't mean that there aren't vampires. Merely being possible isn't generally interesting. Being actual is. Being likely is, too.

As with a lot of stuff said about what I have said, it takes my comments out of context.

 

[Valjean]

And yet there is more to life than a pile of chemicals, as you know.

Yes, we create our own purpose.
The craving for a special, divine purpose seems to indicate a worrisome insecurity. Me, I don't feel any need for a loving God or strong-father looking over me. I've grown up and am content with my independence.

I try to be honest about what I see, and I see atheists claiming that Gods do not exist and then I see atheists hiding from giving evidence that there are no gods by claiming that I am the one making the claims and so I need to prove something to them.

The prevailing atheist position is not strong atheism, deferred belief in unevidenced claims and things is more usual.
Hiding from evidence? What evidence? Our lack of belief is based on lack of evidence for the god claim, not evidence for no gods. Non-belief isn't evidence based. It's based on lack of evidence for the god claim, leaving deferred belief the logical default.

We have no need for evidence for no god. The burden of proof is on the god claimants. If they don't meet their burden, we defer belief till they do.

Are you following my points?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

yet there is more to life than a pile of chemicals, as you know.

If you mean that literally, there doesn't seem to be more to reality than matter, energy, and force set in space and time. From these come filaments of galaxies of solar systems, life, and mind. Life is just chemistry as best we can tell -molecules (matter) rearranging under the influence of local forces and powered by the sun originally and packets of energy locally (ATP) in space and time.

I see atheists hiding from giving evidence that there are no gods by claiming that I am the one making the claims and so I need to prove something to them.

It seems that you disagree. If you want to be believed, it's your job to make the case. Nobody needs to disprove a claim they don't believe. They just walk away unconvinced.

Having said that, if a credible source tells me that my house is on fire, I'm going to try to prove or disprove that because I can and because fire is destructive. With regard to gods, I can't prove or disprove their existence and their existence or nonexistence doesn't seem to matter either way.

it takes my comments out of context.

I disagree. If you'd like to be believed, you'll need to make a compelling case for your claim. You wrote, "Your disbelief of any of that, does not mean that gods are not true," and I answered, "Correct, but so what? It also doesn't mean that there aren't vampires. Merely being possible isn't generally interesting. Being actual is. Being likely is, too." That seems very much to the point and relevant to me.

Every citation requires the removal of surrounding context. Almost every verse from scripture, for example, has words that came before it and after it. Your claim implies that there is missing context that shows that your words mean something other than what they appear to mean separated from that context.

You know the classic example. It comes from scripture: "The fool says that there is no god." If we separate the last part of that from the rest, it changes the meaning: we read in the Bible that, "there is no god." That's not what the words in the Bible mean.

To make your point, do what I did. Show your comment without the context you imply matters to understanding you, then show it with that missing context, and if it isn't obvious, explain how that restored context reveals that the snippet misrepresents your meaning absent that context. I think that you can't.

Again, we give evidence and you do not believe it and even say that you have seen no evidence. That is what is known as "scientism" coming out in what you are saying.

What you are describing is called skepticism, which is fundamental to empiricism, or the belief that nature is only understood by examining it, not by assertion, and that nothing should be believed without sufficient supporting evidence.

Scientism has a few meanings, one of which is that people place excessive reliance on science or expect it to answer all questions eventually. A related meaning is there are other paths to knowledge that are inappropriately disesteemed by empiricists and critical thinkers such as faith.