Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Spotting Beretta's "designer" {Now only 1 summation message per member}
RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 1 of 315 (473509)
06-30-2008 11:14 AM


In response to a question as to the identity of a proposed intelligent designer in the thread Dogs will be dogs will be..??" Beretta writes:-
Beretta writes:
How about who cares which God, how or when. The fact remains that we have design, very clever, very intricate, very organized -so that tells me that there has to be a designer. Random mistakes over I don't care how long isn't going to produce carefully integrated design. Genetic mistakes only produce our genetic load and very occasionally something that may be considered to be an advantage though, in those few cases, the advantage comes about by loss of pre-existing genetic information.
When asked about testing for the existence of this designer Beretta argues that:-
Beretta writes:
[it can be done] by conceding that specified complexity and the genetic code needs a cause that is far from random. By realizing that a painting needs a painter, a bridge needs a designer and anything as intricately put together as the simplest of bacteria needs a designer.We don't need to see the painter to know that there is one.
I propose a thread to further discuss the nature of Beretta's designer.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add the " {Now only 1 summation message per member}" part to the topic title.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminNosy, posted 06-30-2008 11:19 AM RickJB has replied
 Message 5 by RickJB, posted 06-30-2008 1:53 PM RickJB has not replied
 Message 6 by bluegenes, posted 06-30-2008 2:13 PM RickJB has replied
 Message 8 by ikabod, posted 07-01-2008 3:34 AM RickJB has replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 315 (473512)
06-30-2008 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RickJB
06-30-2008 11:14 AM


Would this thread do?
Distinguishing "designs"
Hurry and answer and I'll promote yours before I head off to fitness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RickJB, posted 06-30-2008 11:14 AM RickJB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by RickJB, posted 06-30-2008 12:05 PM AdminNosy has not replied

RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 3 of 315 (473520)
06-30-2008 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminNosy
06-30-2008 11:19 AM


Hi
I'd like to focus on Beretta's arguments if possible.
It's your call.
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminNosy, posted 06-30-2008 11:19 AM AdminNosy has not replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 4 of 315 (473531)
06-30-2008 1:16 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 5 of 315 (473536)
06-30-2008 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RickJB
06-30-2008 11:14 AM


Initial questions...
Cheers Nosy!
Okay, here are some initial responses and questions. I'm going to leave aside issues that related to genetics and ToE for the moment. Others who are more qualified than myself may wish to add their views on these areas.
Beretta writes:
How about who cares which God, how or when.
If you don't know the nature of a given designer how can you know if anything was designed by it?
Beretta writes:
The fact remains that we have design, very clever, very intricate, very organized -so that tells me that there has to be a designer.
Unfortunately your opinion does not make either design or a designer a fact. Complexity is found in nature. Complexity does not always equate to design.
Beretta writes:
By realizing that a painting needs a painter, a bridge needs a designer and anything as intricately put together as the simplest of bacteria needs a designer.We don't need to see the painter to know that there is one.
You are making assumptions about the designer without having identified him/her/it. Your examples are all based on instances of human design. Are we to assume that our designer/God designs like a human? Does man "design" in God's image? Does it follow that a designer/God would design in the same manner as humans?
Finally, a further question. The idea of a designer is often placed in opposition to Evolution. But what if Evolution itself was designed? If there is a designer/God, could this be a possibility?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RickJB, posted 06-30-2008 11:14 AM RickJB has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Blue Jay, posted 07-01-2008 9:50 PM RickJB has replied
 Message 55 by Beretta, posted 07-13-2008 9:31 AM RickJB has replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 6 of 315 (473540)
06-30-2008 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RickJB
06-30-2008 11:14 AM


Beretta writes:
By realizing that a painting needs a painter, a bridge needs a designer and anything as intricately put together as the simplest of bacteria needs a designer.
If even the simplest of bacteria needs a designer, then the designer would certainly need a designer.
End of that argument, as we disappear into the black hole of infinite regression.
Apart from that, we have a designer who always designs within the parameters of evolutionary possibility. There's no reason why the designer can't do Haldane's proverbial rabbit in the PreCambrian, or something interesting like a marsupial elephant, or a snow-kangaroo.
On a normal designed planet, there would be thousands of complete anachronisms, both living and in the fossil record, which would not fit into any theory of evolution. Yet here on earth, it is clear that our intelligent designer is trying to make it look as though evolution is the story.
Indeed, she appears to be bending over backwards to conceal herself and give nature the credit/blame, so we must rely on blind faith if we are to believe she exists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RickJB, posted 06-30-2008 11:14 AM RickJB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by RickJB, posted 06-30-2008 2:57 PM bluegenes has not replied

RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 7 of 315 (473546)
06-30-2008 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by bluegenes
06-30-2008 2:13 PM


Hello Bluegenes,
Infinite regression is, of course, a well known problem, but it doesn't seem to deter the ID community from making an exception for their designer/God.
I'm keen to a have an ID proponent attempt to assign a nature to a proposed designer/God. There are many underlying assumptions as to what constitutes design and most seem to assume the designer/God works in the same manner as a human being. This mostly likely has roots both in scripture and in the human tendancy to anthropomophize. Nevertheless, I wish to see this issue tackled by those who argue for such an entity.
Bluegenes writes:
Apart from that, we have a designer who always designs within the parameters of evolutionary possibility.
Indeed, and if we must consider a designer/God then it begs the question, if ID proponents are so keen to ascribe the world around us to design, why are they seemingly so loathe to credit a designer with the process of evolution? In lieu of any evidence of a designer whatsoever, how than this be discounted?
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by bluegenes, posted 06-30-2008 2:13 PM bluegenes has not replied

ikabod
Member (Idle past 4493 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 8 of 315 (473595)
07-01-2008 3:34 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RickJB
06-30-2008 11:14 AM


When encountering the Designer issue , i always like to ask the following ..
what raw material did the designer start with ...
1. nothing
2. a universe empty of matter
3. a flat pack self assembly universe with the optional unicorn and winged horse figures .
What was the designer aiming to produce ...
1. the human race
2. the kingdom of the ant
3. a world where genetic engineering could make unicorns and winged horses
is the designer in active control of the design .. if so
1. did he/she remove the dinosaurs because they perfer little furry mammals
2. why make so few humans so funny looking
3. why are there no fun creatures like unicorns and winged horses
is there going to be a finished product ...if so
1. will the designer just turn the lights of and put the universe in a box on a high shelf
2. will the designer appear and give out winners medals
3. will the designer try a new version ... universe 2 ... the unicon strikes back ...
the problem i have is that if it is ID then the whole question shifts from ,why is the world as we see it to ,the nature of the designer .. you can forget ALL science , ALL considered thought on the nature of man and the universe .. all you need to find is the designers moblie phone number and ask them to text you the answer to the big WHY ? not this then becomes very simple .. is it possilbe to contact the designer .. if not well may as well give up .. sit back and just watch the show we are part of ...nothing has any real value .. Howevr IF you can speak to the designer does that mean we have out grown the design .. and do we then need the designer any more ?.. (( ok this assumes we have free will and are not organic robots within the design ))

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RickJB, posted 06-30-2008 11:14 AM RickJB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by RickJB, posted 07-01-2008 4:51 AM ikabod has not replied

RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 9 of 315 (473596)
07-01-2008 4:51 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by ikabod
07-01-2008 3:34 AM


Ikabod writes:
What raw material did the designer start with?
What was the designer aiming to produce?
Is the designer in active control of the design?
Is there going to be a finished product?
All interesting questions, none of which ever appear to be tackled by those who argue for a designer/God!
The question of active control particularly interests me. Most analogies presented are of an "artisan" nature - a painter who makes a painting, a builder who builds a bridge - but what about a software developer who designs a program that iterates over a probablistic algorithm to produce a non-deterministic outcome? This "design" analogy is curiously absent from those presented.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by ikabod, posted 07-01-2008 3:34 AM ikabod has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 10 of 315 (473688)
07-01-2008 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by RickJB
06-30-2008 1:53 PM


Re: Initial questions...
RickJB writes:
If you don't know the nature of a given designer how can you know if anything was designed by it?
You know I'm not an IDist, so I don't think I can give a real answer to this. But I also don’t think this is a fair question: it’s vague. I think it needs to be refined a bit before they can actually work with it.
If it’s alright with you (it’s your thread), maybe we should discuss the following question:
How much do IDists need to know about the designer before they can accurately make testable inferences about his/her/its/their design style or modus operandi?
If not, perhaps I could start a new thread to work that out.
----
At this point in time, I don't know that they actually have to know anything about the designer itself, so long as they know something about the actual process of design. Currently, most attempts at investigating design come from comparisons to human design (paintings, buildings, cars, etc.), which, to me, seems like a reasonable place to at least start, because, in investigating the concept of “design,” the human style of design is the only example we actually have currently. So, until we meet advanced, designing aliens (or until dolphins begin making technology), all we have to work with is human-style design.
The obvious rebuttal to this is that the human-style design model has utterly failed to explain nature. Thus, the next task would be to either expand the human-design model to better explain the data, or to scrap it and try to uncover an entirely different (non-human) style of design that fits the data.
But, if you divorce your line of inquiry from human-ness, what do you get? Well, you get science. And science is what rejects creationism.

Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by RickJB, posted 06-30-2008 1:53 PM RickJB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by subbie, posted 07-01-2008 11:54 PM Blue Jay has not replied
 Message 16 by RickJB, posted 07-02-2008 5:42 AM Blue Jay has not replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 11 of 315 (473697)
07-01-2008 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Blue Jay
07-01-2008 9:50 PM


Giving ID its due
It seems to me that, if we are going to be completely fair to IDists, we have to acknowledge that there is in fact the beginning of a good idea in their position. Darwin himself conceded that if a structure can be found that cannot have developed via a series of small steps, that would invalidate his theory. The problem that IDists have is not in the basic concept that they're pursuing, it's in the execution. In fact, I think that if we discount even the possibility of the IDists' position being valid, I'm hard pressed to imagine how the ToE can be falsified.
In essence, if a structure can be found that cannot have developed through natural processes, wouldn't that force us to conclude that some non-natural, intelligent agent had to be behind it? And, if the inference of an intelligent agent is supported by the evidence, it's possible, depending on what the evidence is, that that evidence might allow us to come to conclusions about the nature of the intelligent agent, or the nature of the means the agent used, or both.
IDists like to argue by analogy, comparing their search for intelligence to a forensic investigation of a crime scene. Often the evidence found gives clues to the nature or identity of a human agent behind a possible crime, and the means the agent used. In the abstract, the comparison is an apt one.
Of course, we all know that this is merely a theoretical discussion, because IDists, despite all their protestations to the contrary, already know who their Good Old Designer is, and any real world evidence that suggests something different from their idea will be ignored or hand-waved away, exactly the same as they ignore the evidence for the ToE. And, in the same way that no evidence will make any difference to them regarding the existence of their Good Old Designer, no amount of evidence will influence their conclusions about the nature of their Good Old Designer, or the history of the development of life.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Blue Jay, posted 07-01-2008 9:50 PM Blue Jay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by NosyNed, posted 07-02-2008 5:08 AM subbie has replied
 Message 17 by PaulK, posted 07-02-2008 8:01 AM subbie has replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 12 of 315 (473701)
07-02-2008 12:51 AM


Quoth Minnemooseus in the July 2008 Post of the Month thread:
Somehow this has struck me as being a significant message per the core issue of "Intelligent Design". Although I don't think it would totally invalidate Darwin's theory, it would put some dents in it.
in response to my post in this thread saying
It seems to me that, if we are going to be completely fair to IDists, we have to acknowledge that there is in fact the beginning of a good idea in their position. Darwin himself conceded that if a structure can be found that cannot have developed via a series of small steps, that would invalidate his theory.
Moose is quite right, of course. The mountain of evidence supporting the ToE cannot be overcome by one single piece of unexplained evidence. Science doesn't work that way. As a practical matter, it would require myriad, systematic examples of such structures to bring down the ToE. Nonetheless, it is important to keep in mind that such a possibility exists, because it is only such a possibility, in my opinion, that makes the ToE falsifiable.
(Sorry if all of this is dragging the thread too far off topic.)

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by bluegenes, posted 07-02-2008 2:51 AM subbie has replied
 Message 18 by Blue Jay, posted 07-02-2008 3:01 PM subbie has replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 13 of 315 (473703)
07-02-2008 2:51 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by subbie
07-02-2008 12:51 AM


The designer is a deceiver
subbie writes:
Nonetheless, it is important to keep in mind that such a possibility exists, because it is only such a possibility, in my opinion, that makes the ToE falsifiable.
Only? Rabbit fossils in the Precambrian? 100 million year old hominids?
On a designed planet, there should surely be thousands of such anachronisms, and any theory of evolution would be impossible. That's why, if Beretta understood the evidence, he would be opting for a designer who only designs within the parameters of evolutionary possibility with the intent being to deceive anyone making the kind of careful observation of Her Creation that modern biologists make.
It's either evolutionism or omphalism

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by subbie, posted 07-02-2008 12:51 AM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by subbie, posted 07-02-2008 6:35 PM bluegenes has replied

ikabod
Member (Idle past 4493 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 14 of 315 (473704)
07-02-2008 3:38 AM


overview so far
ok a bunch of points / replies here
message 10 from bluejay ..if you are goign to put forward ID you must has some position on who/what the designer is ... as it is the core of your view .. you do not try to explain ToE without genetics , so how can you explain ID with out the designer ...
the comparisons to human design paintings, buildings, cars , cloths .. all shows that there is many more than one way to design something .. thus asking ID to explain why something would have been designed that why .. which directly questions the nature and actions of the designer .. unless we a re happy with the classic ..because .. answer
message 11 from subbie
this does raise the question is ID a stand alone idea , or is it there to rebutt ToE .... and as to the Good Old Designer issue , this goes back to my first question ...
What raw material did the designer start with?
.. which leave the whole creation issue in the air ..
message 13 by bluegenes
i do agree with you , but ...On a well designed planet, there should no such anachronisms .. every thing should fit in place like meshing gear wheels .. OR there should be impossible gaps and vast numbers of totally unrelated examples ...
then again as you say may it is omphalism world ...
.....................................................................
ID has the great asset that it has no target that can disprove it .... until ID defines the designer and his/her methods is some way it is not ready to enter the arena as a real explaination of the unviverse .

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Blue Jay, posted 07-02-2008 3:15 PM ikabod has replied
 Message 24 by subbie, posted 07-02-2008 6:43 PM ikabod has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 15 of 315 (473705)
07-02-2008 5:08 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by subbie
07-01-2008 11:54 PM


A couple of problems here
In essence, if a structure can be found that cannot have developed through natural processes, wouldn't that force us to conclude that some non-natural, intelligent agent had to be behind it?
There are problems buried in the above. They are not new though.
1) How could we conclude that they cannot have developed through natural processes with out being in the position of giving an argument from ignorance? We know a lot more than we did 200 years ago but we still know far from everything about natural processes.
2) What do we mean by "non-natural"? Supernatural or just a natural intelligent agent? If it is a non-supernatural intelligent agent then it is acting through some selected natural processes. They would just be different than garden variety evolutionary processes. Even "artificial" selection acts through the usual evolutionary processes. We can't tell from the ongoing development of, say, dogs that it is not natural selection (can we?). We only know because we see the designer acting but the designer only selects from existing forms just as the environment does.
We might be able to tell if we were testing for genetic engineering though. Maybe that is what should be looked for.
If we did we'd recognize it in a number of ways:
1) a discontinuity in the genetics. This could take many forms but even some of them can be natural. I guess it isn't totally impossible for a virus or bacteria to carry a bit of fish DNA into ourselves for example.
More obvious would be the insertion of DNA that comes from no where else in any present or known past organisms. In other words a real discontinuity. Right?
2)A different basic mechanism such as a different genetic code altogether. Artificial life?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by subbie, posted 07-01-2008 11:54 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by subbie, posted 07-02-2008 7:05 PM NosyNed has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024