Inherent Characteristics of Design

[Etritonakin]

The problem is how would you know if it would "require" a designer? That is the pressing and inherent problem with ID.

I don't actually see a problem.

I can say I know by this or that -you can say otherwise.

It doesn't matter who is correct -that situation is not going to change until it does.

All we can do is what we can with what we have.

I think that mixing science and religion in one class is a mistake in an educational setting.

Should we teach evolution or ID?

Why not just teach the evidence and all possibilities in the science class -and leave religion to the religion class?

For example... Scientifically, we see this and that happening, know this or that happens, believe this or that happens -which may change with more evidence. If a student says "God did it" -why not just say "Perhaps, I don't know -not sure -haven't seen or met him". If the student says the earth is 6,000 years old, just say you disagree based on the evidence.
If you have an issue with some teachers teaching things which you see to be false -such as the 6,000 year thing, learn their perspective and perhaps enlighten them.
Ask them to consider whether or not they are reading what is written correctly.
They might listen. They might not -but starting out with "the bible is wrong" will not get any point across -and shows ignorance of the bible just as some religious show their ignorance of science (It is also true that the religious can have incorrect beliefs about the bible, and scientists can have incorrect beloefs about evolution. I don't think it is possible for most individuals to keep up with the rate at which things are collectively being learned about evolution, and the religious cannot hope to know all about an eternal being in only 120 years or so).

The truth is that religion can learn from science and science can learn from religion.
Science does not have the whole truth, and though the bible may be completely true, it is certainly not the whole story of eternity.

Even if a scientist believes the bible to be complete fiction, the concepts therein can be of great benefit to the scientific mind.
We have found through science fiction that what is believed to be impossible is often only temporarily so -so it would not be wise to assume that we know what another being which may or may not exist may be able to do.

I am a very religious person, but I love to learn scientifically-proven things and re-read scripture. I do have to take science with a grain of salt, as it were, as it (generally speaking) does make assumptions based on only what is known -but I also make assumptions about scripture based only on what I know, and learning more facts helps me read scripture more correctly. I also differentiate between what I KNOW to be true in scripture, and what I believe -because anything we experience is affected by that which is already in -or absent from -our minds.

Either "side" trying to drive out the other is helping no one.

Anyway -that was all over the shop -hope it made some sense.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I don't actually see a problem.

I can say I know by this or that -you can say otherwise.

It doesn't matter who is correct -that situation is not going to change until it does.

All we can do is what we can with what we have.

I think that mixing science and religion in one class is a mistake in an educational setting.

Should we teach evolution or ID?

Why not just teach the evidence and all possibilities in the science class -and leave religion to the religion class.

The only way we can determine design is by contrast of things that are not designed. That is the inherent problem. If we lived in a world that was only ever blue how would we know it was blue?

 

[Etritonakin]

The only way we can determine design is by contrast of things that are not designed. That is the inherent problem. If we lived in a world that was only ever blue how would we know it was blue?

What if you are wrong?

Why only by contrast? Are you not assuming those things are not designed?

Are you truly contrasting them to things not designed -or do you simply have available proof of a designer -the reference of yourself?

Is it not more correct to say that you can only determine something is designed by man by contrasting it to things not designed by man?

Even then, you could not distinguish between what was and was not designed by man if it was similar to that which also existed without man's influence.

Why not also by likeness -similarity?

What if everything we can experience was designed?

We do not know that it was not.

We can reverse-engineer and mimic "natural" things -so we would need to determine what is impossible without design.

If the elements themselves -and their parts -and all other "physical" things we can experience and detect as humans were the product of the mind of a designer, and that which is not the product of design is so far removed by time or distance or greatness or smallness that we cannot detect or experience it if such exists, where does that leave us except waiting for the opportunity to know and experience more?

We can only define the general shape of the unknown by the borders of the known -but we can.

We can only determine now what is impossible without design as it relates to the known environment.

I heard something about a preacher talking about putting a bunch of watch parts in a bag and shaking it up -would it ever become a watch?

Is something as simple as a watch impossible for "natural processes"? Given enough time, would nature make a watch? A car?

Yet ...we are to believe a single cell -much less man -happened without design?

If we take all of the elements and whatever else there is -put them in a bag and shake them up, so to speak, would they automatically arrange into the same arrangement?

Can we assume they are in this arrangement without design?

Is it possible to determine from the nature of what is known that a certain level of order, complexity, specificity, etc. is absolutely indicative of design?

 

[shawn001]

I don't actually see a problem.

I can say I know by this or that -you can say otherwise.

It doesn't matter who is correct -that situation is not going to change until it does.

All we can do is what we can with what we have.

I think that mixing science and religion in one class is a mistake in an educational setting.

Should we teach evolution or ID?

Why not just teach the evidence and all possibilities in the science class -and leave religion to the religion class?

For example... Scientifically, we see this and that happening, know this or that is happens, believe this or that happens -which may change with more evidence. If a student says "God did it" -why not just say "Perhaps, I don't know -not sure -haven't seen or met him". If the student says the earth is 6,000 years old, just say you disagree based on the evidence.
If you have an issue with some teachers teaching things which you see to be false -such as the 6,000 year thing, learn their perspective and perhaps enlighten them.
Ask them to consider whether or not they are reading what is written correctly.
They might listen. They might not -but starting out with "the bible is wrong" will not get any point across -and shows ignorance of the bible just as some religious show their ignorance of science.

The truth is that religion can learn from science and science can learn from region.
Science does not have the whole truth, and though the bible may be completely true, it is certainly not the whole story of eternity.

Even if a scientist believes the bible to be complete fiction, the concepts therein can be of great benefit to the scientific mind.
We have found through science fiction that what is believed to be impossible is often only temporarily so -so it would not be wise to assume that we know what another being which may or may not exist may be able to do.

I am a very religious person, but I love to learn scientifically-proven things and re-read scripture. I do have to take science with a grain of salt, as it were, as it (generally speaking) does make assumptions based on only what is known -but I also make assumptions about scripture based only on what I know, and learning more facts helps me read scripture more correctly. I also differentiate between what I KNOW to be true in scripture, and what I believe -because anything we experience is affected by that which is already in -or absent from -our minds.

Either "side" trying to drive out the other is helping no one.

Anyway -that was all over the shop -hope it made some sense.

This isn't design or evolution, but

I am just curious Etritonakin if you have ever seen this documentary on Bible scholars and Archaeologists working on Scriptures and the Bible and matching it to the Archaeology they have found and are finding.

The Bible's Buried Secrets

 

[Etritonakin]

This isn't design or evolution, but

I am just curious Etritonakin if you have ever seen this documentary on Bible scholars and Archaeologists working on Scriptures and the Bible and matching it to the Archaeology they have found and are finding.

The Bible's Buried Secrets

Will check it out later. I hope Nova does a better job with biblical stuff than the history channel.

There was an interesting show on the Red Sea crossing -remains of chariots found, bones of horses, etc.... Not sure where I saw it -but a quick search of "Red Sea crossing" brings up related stuff.

 

[Ouroboros]

There was an interesting show on the Red Sea crossing -remains of chariots found, bones of horses, etc.... Not sure where I saw it -but a quick search of "Red Sea crossing" brings up related stuff.

Did you get that from WNDR? It's a fake news site.

Snopes: snopes.com: Chariot Wheels Found at the Bottom of the Red Sea

There was some archeologist who claimed to have found some artifacts 30 years ago or something (Wyatt), but he only had some very blurry pictures to show for, and it was a stretch to claim the shapes he saw in the picture were chariot wheels and such. And there's been a few TV shows where this is promulgated repeatedly.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

What if you are wrong?

About what specifically?

Why only by contrast? Are you not assuming those things are not designed?

Are you truly contrasting them to things not designed -or do you simply have available proof of a designer -the reference of yourself?

Is it not more correct to say that you can only determine something is designed by man by contrasting it to things not designed by man?

Actually it is. If I find a watch in the forest. I know its designed. Is it because of its complexity? No. The grass it was probably laying on is far more complex as it is a living breathing organism with millions of cells that are made up of highly advanced individual organelles with DNA that replicates itself and can turn sunlight and water into a sustainable energy source. So it is not the complexity of the watch. Is it the composition of the watch? The fact that it is made of metal indeed contrasts with the dirt, rocks and organic materal of the forest but that really isn't it. We know that there is nothing else in that forest that is similar to the watch. That is how we know it was designed. Of course yes there is the knowledge that humans make watches and this of course can be used to infer that it was designed. That is logical thinking as well. But then that further removes the argument for any sort of design as we do not know of any creation or design by god.

Even then, you could not distinguish between what was and was not designed by man if it was similar to that which also existed without man's influence.

It depends. How similar?

Why not also by likeness -similarity?

What if everything we can experience was designed?

We do not know that it was not.

We can reverse-engineer and mimic "natural" things -so we would need to determine what is impossible without design.

This is the problem with ID as any sort of scientific theory. It can't be tested and it can't even be researched. If everything in the universe was designed WE would never know it. But we do know that natural processes have the ability to make life. We know that our chemical processes occur naturally. We know that we evolved from less complex organisms. We were not designed as is.

But yes we could attempt to see if it was impossible without design. The way we would do this is by contrasting it with the natural laws. If it was impossible for inorganic materials to create organic materials then we would have to admit that we don't know how it was put there. But even then it isn't evidence of a designer.

If the elements themselves -and their parts -and all other "physical" things we can experience and detect as humans were the product of the mind of a designer, and that which is not the product of design is so far removed by time or distance or greatness or smallness that we cannot detect or experience it if such exists, where does that leave us except waiting for the opportunity to know and experience more?

We can only define the general shape of the unknown by the borders of the known -but we can.

We can only determine now what is impossible without design as it relates to the known environment.

I heard something about a preacher talking about putting a bunch of watch parts in a bag and shaking it up -would it ever become a watch?

Is something as simple as a watch impossible for "natural processes"? Given enough time, would nature make a watch? A car?

Yet ...we are to believe a single cell -much less man -happened without design?

If we take all of the elements and whatever else there is -put them in a bag and shake them up, so to speak, would they automatically arrange into the same arrangement?

Can we assume they are in this arrangement without design?

Is it possible to determine from the nature of what is known that a certain level of order, complexity, specificity, etc. is absolutely indicative of design?

The issue with your assumption is that you believe that our complexity simply happened by pure chance. The complexity we have today is somewhat part of chance but the inevitability of the rise of organic materials is a chemical process. Shaking a bag full of watch parts is not a process. The design of a watch requires the careful placement of parts together with a working image in mind. A watch dose not evolve over time. An organism does. We know how it evolved and more or less how it arose from non-life. We also know why shaking a bag is a bad example of this process.

 

[Etritonakin]

About what specifically?

Actually it is. If I find a watch in the forest. I know its designed. Is it because of its complexity? No. The grass it was probably laying on is far more complex as it is a living breathing organism with millions of cells that are made up of highly advanced individual organelles with DNA that replicates itself and can turn sunlight and water into a sustainable energy source. So it is not the complexity of the watch. Is it the composition of the watch? The fact that it is made of metal indeed contrasts with the dirt, rocks and organic materal of the forest but that really isn't it. We know that there is nothing else in that forest that is similar to the watch. That is how we know it was designed. Of course yes there is the knowledge that humans make watches and this of course can be used to infer that it was designed. That is logical thinking as well. But then that further removes the argument for any sort of design as we do not know of any creation or design by god.

It depends. How similar?

This is the problem with ID as any sort of scientific theory. It can't be tested and it can't even be researched. If everything in the universe was designed WE would never know it. But we do know that natural processes have the ability to make life. We know that our chemical processes occur naturally. We know that we evolved from less complex organisms. We were not designed as is.

But yes we could attempt to see if it was impossible without design. The way we would do this is by contrasting it with the natural laws. If it was impossible for inorganic materials to create organic materials then we would have to admit that we don't know how it was put there. But even then it isn't evidence of a designer.

The issue with your assumption is that you believe that our complexity simply happened by pure chance. The complexity we have today is somewhat part of chance but the inevitability of the rise of organic materials is a chemical process. Shaking a bag full of watch parts is not a process. The design of a watch requires the careful placement of parts together with a working image in mind. A watch dose not evolve over time. An organism does. We know how it evolved and more or less how it arose from non-life. We also know why shaking a bag is a bad example of this process.

I do not believe our complexity happened by pure chance.

Shaking a bag is not a bad example -it is a bad example of what happened -it is an excellent example of what did not happen. What happened was much more like the process that makes a watch.

I'll agree with more or less -but more on the less side. You are aware of some of the specific steps in the process.

Obviously, all that is happened by a process -a very specific process.

It is an assumption that we do not have examples of what was designed by God -but we do not have confirmation.

The logic may be 100 percent sound that what is could not have happened without design, but without confirmation there will always be room for doubt -yet that is not to say we have not arrived at the truth.

When you say "natural processes" you may not know that they were designed and set in motion to cause a specific end result -and you do not know whether or not those processes included intentional action at any point -at least not at this time.

I disagree with your first paragraph -but don't have time to address it right now.

 

[Etritonakin]

Did you get that from WNDR? It's a fake news site.

Snopes: snopes.com: Chariot Wheels Found at the Bottom of the Red Sea

There was some archeologist who claimed to have found some artifacts 30 years ago or something (Wyatt), but he only had some very blurry pictures to show for, and it was a stretch to claim the shapes he saw in the picture were chariot wheels and such. And there's been a few TV shows where this is promulgated repeatedly.

i haven't been to the area -not sure of much on the subject -just thought it interesting.

 

[Ouroboros]

i haven't been to the area -not sure of much on the subject -just thought it interesting.

Sure.

But even if they found some objects in there, how can we know they came from a specific event like the Exodus? There never were any other Egyptians with horses and iron wheeled carts there before or after? The only thing that could be somewhat telling is if they found several thousand of them, with skeletons, and perhaps be able to date them using C14.

 

[Etritonakin]

About what specifically?

Actually it is. If I find a watch in the forest. I know its designed. Is it because of its complexity? No. The grass it was probably laying on is far more complex as it is a living breathing organism with millions of cells that are made up of highly advanced individual organelles with DNA that replicates itself and can turn sunlight and water into a sustainable energy source. So it is not the complexity of the watch. Is it the composition of the watch? The fact that it is made of metal indeed contrasts with the dirt, rocks and organic materal of the forest but that really isn't it. We know that there is nothing else in that forest that is similar to the watch. That is how we know it was designed. Of course yes there is the knowledge that humans make watches and this of course can be used to infer that it was designed. That is logical thinking as well. But then that further removes the argument for any sort of design as we do not know of any creation or design by god.

It depends. How similar?

This is the problem with ID as any sort of scientific theory. It can't be tested and it can't even be researched. If everything in the universe was designed WE would never know it. But we do know that natural processes have the ability to make life. We know that our chemical processes occur naturally. We know that we evolved from less complex organisms. We were not designed as is.

But yes we could attempt to see if it was impossible without design. The way we would do this is by contrasting it with the natural laws. If it was impossible for inorganic materials to create organic materials then we would have to admit that we don't know how it was put there. But even then it isn't evidence of a designer.

The issue with your assumption is that you believe that our complexity simply happened by pure chance. The complexity we have today is somewhat part of chance but the inevitability of the rise of organic materials is a chemical process. Shaking a bag full of watch parts is not a process. The design of a watch requires the careful placement of parts together with a working image in mind. A watch dose not evolve over time. An organism does. We know how it evolved and more or less how it arose from non-life. We also know why shaking a bag is a bad example of this process.

If you somehow knew life on earth was unique in the universe, would you conclude it was designed?

We can know that a watch is designed because it cannot be produced by natural processes in the absence of forethought and intent (can such be called natural?) -unless we can say it is possible that natural processes alone could produce a specific model of watch, for example.

All of the materials of the watch are available in nature, but nature cannot produce it.

Does the same apply to DNA? Cells? Grass?

Is life on earth like a watch in the forest?

The materials are all over the universe -but could life have happened without forethought and intent?

Given enough information and a correct set of criteria, it should be able to be determined without indentifying the designer (though the designed thing would somewhat reveal the nature of the designer). Perhaps we just aren't there yet.

Why can natural processes in the absence of forethought and intent not produce a watch (a watch -not clocks, etc. found in "nature")?

I haven't thought it through enough to express it well -will work on it.

"Nature" is what we call the environment we did not design.

We only assume it was not designed -but whether it was or was not, we should eventually be able to prove it one way or the other.

We see certain processes taking place and in motion which need not continued input from a designer -but we have yet to determine whether or not what we see required forethought and intent.

Perhaps it required that God purposefully aimed this space rock at that planet -heated this thing to exactly that temperature at whatever time, etc. -causing a specific arrangement which could not have otherwise happened.

When we make a watch, it is technically by natural processes, but in an arrangement which cannot happen without us.

If a designer encoded the emergence of life into the Big Bang (or whatever) -setting in motion that which would eventually and inevitably produce life -this molecule being caused here -another there -moved together by this or that, the task would require knowledge of that which was before the Big Bang, but if the environment was encoded into the Big Bang and life could not have been produced without further action after the Big Bang, that should be apparent given enough information, etc.....

Perhaps we have enough information but haven't looked at it properly -perhaps not.

(I also like to look at the whole of what is in terms of a mold and a cast. We can say that whatever may have happened before man produced us -and must it not be at least as aware, capable and intelligent as we are?
Can we not know it somewhat by our own selves?)

 

[Ouroboros]

All of the materials of the watch are available in nature, but nature cannot produce it.

Does the same apply to DNA? Cells? Grass?

Which shows you that there's a difference. Nature does produce DNA, cells, and grass. Nature does produce watches from the raw material through a proxy called humans, but the other things are actually produced by nature. Right now, in your body, some million cells are being produced by DNA being replicated through a biochemical process. A process that's fairly well understood now in biochemistry and genetics. It's a natural process for a cell to produce another cell, so really, the cells are our Gods if we have to insist on a designer of cells and DNA. Chemicals are our gods as well. Physical elements and forces are also our gods. They shape, form, dictate, and control our existence, both beginning and end. Of course you can insist on an external God creating the universe, but it's very hard to argue a God making cells and DNA by hand, unless we start thinking of the physical processes are God's hands.

 

[psychoslice]

Well everything in nature is designed by nature, not some god in the sky, I just cannot believe that at all, no way.

 

[Etritonakin]

Which shows you that there's a difference. Nature does produce DNA, cells, and grass. Nature does produce watches from the raw material through a proxy called humans, but the other things are actually produced by nature. Right now, in your body, some million cells are being produced by DNA being replicated through a biochemical process. A process that's fairly well understood now in biochemistry and genetics. It's a natural process for a cell to produce another cell, so really, the cells are our Gods if we have to insist on a designer of cells and DNA. Chemicals are our gods as well. Physical elements and forces are also our gods. They shape, form, dictate, and control our existence, both beginning and end. Of course you can insist on an external God creating the universe, but it's very hard to argue a God making cells and DNA by hand, unless we start thinking of the physical processes are God's hands.

I said natural processes in the absence of forethought and intent. Everything that exists can be considered natural -in which case nothing is unnatural.

With that definition, God designing everything would be 100 percent natural.

Nature:

noun
1.
the material world, especially as surrounding humankind and existing independently of human activities.
2.
the natural world as it exists without human beings or civilization
3.
the elements of the natural world, as mountains, trees, animals, or rivers.
4.
natural scenery.
5.
the universe, with all its phenomena.
6.
the sum total of the forces at work throughout the universe.
7.
reality, as distinguished from any effect of art:
a portrait true to nature.

The fact remains that we do not completely understand the nature of nature -and that clouding definitions is counterproductive when attempting to learn more.

Nature does not produce watches.

Nature produces watches.

Both can be true depending on the chosen definition.

 

[Shad]

Did you get that from WNDR? It's a fake news site.

Snopes: snopes.com: Chariot Wheels Found at the Bottom of the Red Sea

There was some archeologist who claimed to have found some artifacts 30 years ago or something (Wyatt), but he only had some very blurry pictures to show for, and it was a stretch to claim the shapes he saw in the picture were chariot wheels and such. And there's been a few TV shows where this is promulgated repeatedly.

He was never an archaeologist, he is a nurse.... He put on an Indiana Jones hat and called himself one.

 

[Ouroboros]

I said natural processes in the absence of forethought and intent. Everything that exists can be considered natural -in which case nothing is unnatural.

With that definition, God designing everything would be 100 percent natural.

Nature:

noun
1.
the material world, especially as surrounding humankind and existing independently of human activities.
2.
the natural world as it exists without human beings or civilization
3.
the elements of the natural world, as mountains, trees, animals, or rivers.
4.
natural scenery.
5.
the universe, with all its phenomena.
6.
the sum total of the forces at work throughout the universe.
7.
reality, as distinguished from any effect of art:
a portrait true to nature.

The fact remains that we do not completely understand the nature of nature -and that clouding definitions is counterproductive when attempting to learn more.

Nature does not produce watches.

Nature produces watches.

Both can be true depending on the chosen definition.

Yes. I was thinking the same things actually for my next response to you.

 

[Ouroboros]

He was never an archaeologist, he is a nurse.... He put on an Indiana Jones hat and called himself one.

LOL! I didn't know that. That's funny.

 

[Shad]

LOL! I didn't know that. That's funny.

Yah he is a fraud. None of his supposed evidence exists. The Chariot Wheel he claims was submitted to the Egyptian Antiquity Council but there are no records of it. In response he claims the council hid his findings. Which is baffling considering archaeology was still in it's era of using the Bible and trowel as the primary methodology of Biblical sites and objects. The council would have jumped all over such an artifact.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

All of the materials of the watch are available in nature, but nature cannot produce it.

Does the same apply to DNA? Cells? Grass?

Is life on earth like a watch in the forest?

The materials are all over the universe -but could life have happened without forethought and intent?

Given enough information and a correct set of criteria, it should be able to be determined without indentifying the designer (though the designed thing would somewhat reveal the nature of the designer). Perhaps we just aren't there yet.

That isn't correct. We can conclude that watches are designed because we know about watch designers and watch factories.

You might not be able to be able to tell which specific designer designed a specific watch that you find in the forest, but it's the fact that we know specific designers that we can say that the watch was designed.

Why can natural processes in the absence of forethought and intent not produce a watch (a watch -not clocks, etc. found in "nature")?

Since natural processes produced people and people produced watches, natural processes did produce watches. "Design" and "nature" aren't mutually exclusive.

If a designer encoded the emergence of life into the Big Bang (or whatever) -setting in motion that which would eventually and inevitably produce life -this molecule being caused here -another there -moved together by this or that, the task would require knowledge of that which was before the Big Bang, but if the environment was encoded into the Big Bang and life could not have been produced without further action after the Big Bang, that should be apparent given enough information, etc.....

This reminds me of that line from Eddie Izzard (quoting from memory, so I might be off a bit): "If there is a god, his plan seems very much like the plan of somebody who does not have a plan."

I suppose it's possible for people to design things that intentionally look undesigned (a lot of artistry goes into fake flowers, for instance), but you have to ask yourself why you would assume a designer in these cases.

BTW: why do these discussions always limit themselves to a single designer? If we're going to make analogies from humans, then let's go all the way: it's rare for a watch designer to design other things... or even different styles of watch. It kinda bugs me that so many arguments for God - flawed as they are - are never honest enough about their implications to admit that even if they were valid, they wouldn't be arguments for the existence of God; they'd be arguments for the existence of at least one god.

 

[Etritonakin]

That isn't correct. We can conclude that watches are designed because we know about watch designers and watch factories.

You might not be able to be able to tell which specific designer designed a specific watch that you find in the forest, but it's the fact that we know specific designers that we can say that the watch was designed.

Since natural processes produced people and people produced watches, natural processes did produce watches. "Design" and "nature" aren't mutually exclusive.


This reminds me of that line from Eddie Izzard (quoting from memory, so I might be off a bit): "If there is a god, his plan seems very much like the plan of somebody who does not have a plan."

I suppose it's possible for people to design things that intentionally look undesigned (a lot of artistry goes into fake flowers, for instance), but you have to ask yourself why you would assume a designer in these cases.

BTW: why do these discussions always limit themselves to a single designer? If we're going to make analogies from humans, then let's go all the way: it's rare for a watch designer to design other things... or even different styles of watch. It kinda bugs me that so many arguments for God - flawed as they are - are never honest enough about their implications to admit that even if they were valid, they wouldn't be arguments for the existence of God; they'd be arguments for the existence of at least one god.

I disagree