Why designed?

[Etritonakin]

Yes, that nails it.

If everything is designed, then I cannot say what is designed or not. It is actually meaningless to do so. It is like saying: wow, this watch seems to exist.

On the other hand, if there is something undesigned, where does it come from?

Ciao

- viole

It can, however, be rightly said that everything HAS design or is of a specific design.

"Design" can be used loosely even if an intelligent designer is not considered -such as saying a certain animal is capable of certain feats due to the design of its body.

From a scientific viewpoint, however, we do not know enough about all that preceded us to conclude that there definitely was or was not an initial self-aware designer -or a designer predating any life form on Earth which could be called a designer.

(Loosely... our own human design, for example, came about as the result of a process -and that process might be called a design process -so design is really not the issue -the issue is there was a self-awareness associated with and responsible for that design.
We can only bring things into being by the same basic processes which brought us into being -using the same basic materials -so the only difference is that we have direct evidence of human self-awareness associated with things designed by humans.)

Sometimes enough evidence is available -but there is not sufficient reference to understand the evidence correctly.

It may be that enough evidence is available -and we haven't processed it correctly -or that enough evidence is not yet available, etc., etc.

 

[leibowde84]

Is the belief that things are designed any more unusual (or less useful) than the belief that things just happen that way?

I think her point is that it doesn't seem rational to assume design just because something is complex.

 

[leibowde84]

Evolution of the leg is pure speculation based on a philosophy of naturalism. And there are many arguments against naturalism.

This is incorrect. There is a plethora of evidence supporting the scientific theory of evolution. Remember, a "theory" is very different than a "scientific theory".

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

Creationist Myth #1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.
Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.

All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.

 

[Etritonakin]

I think her point is that it doesn't seem rational to assume design just because something is complex.

I think it would be more correct to say it does not seem rational to assume a designer given our perspective, available evidence, knowledge, etc.

However, it seems to me that absolute proof of a designer would be similar to absolute proof of human design.

We could know something was designed by a human (or similar) essentially because it would be of a configuration of available materials which could not have occurred without a human (or similar) -such as a 1973 Dodge, for example.

We do not know enough -or don't realize we know enough -about the precise nature of "nature" and it's history to know what is possible with or without an initial self-aware, creative designer -or whether an initial designer was necessary for all that followed.

What we see is already a system in motion which is able to design without self-awareness (the Big Bang, evolution, etc.) -but we can set similar automated systems in motion -so we can only say that a self-aware designer is not necessary at a certain point.

However, we do not know why everything is now in motion, how it was set in motion or when it was initially set in motion if that was the case -and we cannot simply assume the Big Bang was the beginning of everything.

Short of an initial self-aware creator introducing itself and giving every individual proof, we might have little hope of gathering enough evidence soon, as we could be extremely far removed from the true foundation of all things.

If God is the one by whom all things consist -things are now configured differently than they were originally -and God is the beginning -the question is then one of the original configuration.

We tend to think of God as similar to ourselves in various ways -but that does not necessarily reflect his previous self-configurations.

Rather than being a "man in the sky" who has always been there, why could not everything have started with God self-configuring -being both environment and inhabitant developing together?

Both creator and created.

That smacks of evolution -but evolution and design/creation are really just different aspects of the same overall thing.

Some say that time began with the Big Bang -but that is only true if there is no other reference. If time truly began with whatever "I AM" truly means or initially meant -before the Big Bang, that would not contradict the idea that God is eternal. He still would always have been, as he would be the reference for time itself.

Just some ideas.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Yes, that nails it.

If everything is designed, then I cannot say what is designed or not. It is actually meaningless to do so. It is like saying: wow, this watch seems to exist.

On the other hand, if there is something undesigned, where does it come from?

Ciao

- viole

In other words, proponents of Intelligent Design can't propose what a non-designed phenomenon ought to be like. Or they're indirectly proposing that non-designed things simply can't exist for some unfounded reason.

 

[outhouse]

In other words, proponents of Intelligent Design can't propose what a non-designed phenomenon ought to be like.

Because it is all man made modern mythology, with he sole purpose of keeping biblical creation alive in a public classroom.

 

[Etritonakin]

Posted this in another thread, but wanted to post it here, too. If that is not allowed, please let me know.....

It is assumed -by some -that a designer is not necessary, because a designer is not immediately apparent.

However, if a designer was not necessary after a certain point -such as the singularity we call the big bang -it does not mean that a designer was not necessary initially.

The big bang itself HAD design.

Therefore it had a designER -regardless of self-awareness.

We credit "evolution" with our own existence -and evolution is very much a designer which was not, as far as we know, aware of itself.

It might be said, however, -given that perspective alone -that humans are the result of evolution having gradually become aware of itself.

How did that happen?

By specific arrangement and function of available materials -even if we are not fully aware of those materials, and some might be called "spirit".
They are the same materials that make up the inanimate and the less aware, etc.

It should be noted, however -that the "evolution" of physical life is based on elements which have not always existed.

That does not mean similar processes could not have happened prior to the existence of the elements. It would just be a different sort of evolution.

Rather than separating things which truly do not exist separately, however -design, evolution, creativity, etc... we ought to realize that they are essentially responsible for and dependent upon each other -they are all aspects of the same overall thing.
They could not exist without each other.

However, the present design of all things happened in a specific order.

Our own existence happened after many events in that order -but our own existence is based on that which has always been.

It is said that we are made from the dust of the stars -but we are truly made of that which existed before the elements, because the elements are made of that which existed before they did.

So -we can know certain things about that which has always existed from our own experience.

That which existed before the elements is that which had the ability to cause the elements.
The elements were caused by the big bang.
That which existed before the big bang had the ability to cause the big bang.

If there is design, there is a designer -but also awareness -yet not always complex awareness.

I use the terms loosely, but until we have a complete understanding and perfectly descriptive words for all things, that must be the case. We should not be limited by our own present imperfect language.

"Evolution" has awareness -but not necessarily complex awareness.

Something cannot adapt to its environment if it is not aware of its environment on some level -but its environment is also aware of it on some level -because it is affected by it.

The basis of awareness is interaction itself.

We are now self-aware due to interaction leading to specific arrangement.

So -where there is any interaction, there is also the potential for complex awareness and self-awareness.

We may find that self-awareness necessarily preceded other sorts of complexities -such as the big bang.

It is impossible to actually isolate ourselves from our present environment -which is already in motion -but even at our level we can see that certain things (simple and complex) are not possible unless we cause them.

That which can happen without us and cannot happen without us -and we, ourselves -are all of the same stuff -but certain arrangements must occur before other arrangements in order to make them possible.