How does Complexity demonstrate Design

DarkStar No problem, thickness is an inherited trait in my family.LOL What observation have you made that is sufficient to show that complex = design without refering to a designer? If you can do so then why is a designer brought in? If you cannot then you must explain the means by which a designer accomplishes the building of the design.

---

You paddle your kayak up the river from your camp to fetch your camera which you left on a rock upstream a bit. The river flows at a uniform 2 mi/hr. You paddle (on still water) at a uniform 3 mi/hr. It takes 30 minutes to reach your camera. If you paddle all the way back to your camp, how long will the return trip take?

I think the biggest problem I have with people in this type of discussion is when the inclusion of a creator/designer, aka god, is demanded by certain individuals when discussing the theory of intelligent design while these same individuals become abrasive and insulting when other individuals demand a little reciprocity and want them to agree to the necessity of inclusion of a creator/designer, aka abiogenesis, when discussing the theory of evolution.I feel it is most disingenous to require one while ignoring the other. Either include them both or ignore them both, for as yet neither has been, nor can be, confirmed or denied through scientific means and yet both are, in my humble opinion, irrefutable and undeniable requirements when considering origins. If one wants to argue that the theory of evolution only deals with life after abiogenesis occurred then they should not be dismayed when one wants to argue that the theory of intelligent design only deals with life after creation.I have absolutely no problem discussing the theory of intelligent design with someone without insisting that the discussion include an intelligent designer, aka god, and I would hope that they would not insist that while discussing the theory of evolution with me that I include an unintelligent designer, aka abiogenesis. Once we have agreed to move beyond those barriers, the discussions move with more grace, style, and civility, moving us towards a greater understanding of each others point of view.What's good for the goose, so to speak. I have little to no patience when dealing with obtuse individuals who demonstrate their obstinate thought processes by refusing to ruminate the benefits of such open discussions. I recognize and acknowledge numerous patterns and designs, visible to the naked eye, which are present in nature. Honeycombs and spiderwebs are obvious visual examples.But well beyond that, from the smallest particle to the entirety of the known universe, there is pattern and design, extremely intelligent design. Whether or not there was an intelligent designer does not negate the fact, or change my willingness to admit, that the design itself is intelligent by definition and description alone.Cheers

---

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

Why on Earth would it be? You ID'ists are the only one talking about design and designers. You are, after all, the ones who claim you can infer things about the designer from the design. Is it disingenuous to ask you to do what you claim you can do? I hardly think so. You're the ones who bring the designer into it. When you talk about design, you beg the question "who is the designer?"If you're going to promote a model that necessitates a certain mechanism, it's not unreasonable to be expected to elucidate that mechanism. Except when it's not so intelligent, of course.The presence of pattern and complexity is not an indicator of design, unless you believe that snowflakes are designed. And if you do, then what isn't designed? If everything is designed, how do you propose to detect design when you can never see its absence?Trying to detect design is like trying to detect the smell of water, and ultimately, about as fruitful.

This shows exactly how well you have been paying attention, which is not very!I have never said that I am an ID'ist. But if you had been paying close attention to my posts, you would have known that.Jeers

---

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

Hey, if it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck...If you're not an ID'ist then you're a pretty convincing simulacrum. If you're going to uphold their position, don't be surprised when people count you among their number.Now, did you have a substantial rebuttal to my points? Or aren't you doing that, anymore?

the thing you don't seem to realize is life hasn't always been this complex... so you cannot look at life now and Infer design as it has evolved to become that complex (see my last post in here)This message has been edited by DC85, 06-12-2004 11:57 PM

no, complexity is an arbitrary measure. it doesn't necessarily go for less complex to more complex either, sometimes just the opposite.

I am not that dogmatic. The understanding behind the theory of evolution, what is known, what is not, and what is taught, has changed continually since I was a child. Things that were taught dogmatically when I was a child have now been abandoned as a result of new discoveries, new technologies. I remain as openminded as possible to even newer discoveries and newer technologies that may someday cause us to once again abandon what we were once convinced of, and embrace even newer realities that we could not have conceived within our minds as being a possibility. Forever and always upward in the spiral of life, and knowledge, and truth.Cheers

---

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

I know that.... however I think it is safe to say early life was much less complex

---

My site The Atheist BibleMy New Debate Fourms!

details change, yes.the overall theory has not so much as wavered. the biggest evolutionary shift in the last 150 years was the discovery of archaeopteryx. and we didn't throw away the other parts.and what has continually changed? i followed popular paleontology from the age of about three, and i haven't seen a lot of continual changing. i mean, there was the occasional study that showed a new dinosaur a million years back from when we thought they popped up, but no major evolutionary shakeup. just a few minor revisions.

DarkStar Alrighty now! I am going to accept that we leave the intelligent designer out of the theory of intelligent design.Now,then,please do tell me what the theory of intelligent design is without refering to an intelligent designer!In other words you will state in your next post to me the theory of intelligent design correct? I await your response.This message has been edited by sidelined, 06-13-2004 05:39 AM

---

You paddle your kayak up the river from your camp to fetch your camera which you left on a rock upstream a bit. The river flows at a uniform 2 mi/hr. You paddle (on still water) at a uniform 3 mi/hr. It takes 30 minutes to reach your camera. If you paddle all the way back to your camp, how long will the return trip take?

That would be a big no. The reason being, I have neither deeply studied that theory, nor have I stated that I am a strong advocate of the theory of intelligent design, although I do accept and acknowledge the existance of design with regards to what I have learned in the observance of nature. What I have said is that I am able to identify pattern, design, and yes, even intelligent design in nature and throughout the universe. While I may not be a strong advocate of the theory of intelligent design, I am a very strong advocate of the Anthropic Principle.I can state for you what little understanding I have about the theory of intelligent design, an understanding that I have gained through intercourse and exchange with a number of proponents of the theory of intelligent design. This is obviously a very limited understanding of the theory of intelligent design, and that suits me just fine.The things which are visible throughout this world in which we live, throughout our solar system, throughout our galaxy, and throughout the entirety of the known universe show a pattern, a high degree of design, even intelligent design, perhaps even purposeful design. If I compare the complexity of designs viewed in nature, that is, those that are not man-made designs, with those that are man-made designs, I may well understand that the same rules of design that apply to man-made entities could indeed be a requiring force in the application of non man-made entities.Now the argument has been made by some that if one were to discuss an element of intelligent design, that they must also include the designer within the discussion of the design. I disagree. If I chose to inject myself into a discussion regarding an intelligent design such as an automobile, must I therefore include within that discussion the designer of said automobile? No, I need not do so. Why? Because the designer is not the central focus of the discussion. The discussion is about the design itself, and not the designer.Now, were I to open a dialogue with some individual regarding the designer of said automobile, I would obviously accept the inclusion of said designer within the confabulation. The resultant product and/or products of said designer may or may not be introduced into the conversation as a side note but by default, the main emphasis of that discussion would continue to focus on the designer.Now perhaps the honeybee is able to construct that wonderful, intelligently designed structure we all know as a honeycomb for no other reason than the honeybee is just pretty damn smart. Or perhaps, just perhaps, there is another explanation, other than the honeybee perfected this excercise after millions of years of trial and error, although that too is also a viable explanation of the honeybee's expertise in construction. Now if I purposely chose to enter into discussion with someone regarding the honeybee's ability to construct such an intelligently designed structure and then question how the honeybee gained such ability, then the conversation must necessarily lead somewhere beyond the mere discussion of the honeycomb itself.Perhaps my sagacious intellect is an affront to certain individuals, but it has served me well all my life and I shall make no plans to change the intentional design of my thought processes in order to satisfy subaltern individuals whose nescient behaviour reveals their true level of intellect. Not that I consider you in this class of individuals, far from it, but there are such individuals within this forum, individuals with whom interlocution is not desired by me, for I have found them to be less than worthy, and not deserving of my time.Cheers

---

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

DarkStar Pattern and design are obvious of course but intelligent design necessitates us asking,first,what is it about a design that we find to be intelligent, and second,in postulating that intelligence we need explain how the intelligence manifests itself in the design.That is to say,by what mechanism is the intelligence we claim to be there able to physically manipulate the design that we see. Of course not,because no one will dispute that the automobile is designed.We also have staggering large volumes of the means by which an automobile is put together.The same is not as cut and dried in your intelligent design stipulation.If you could do the same for your proposal of intelligence in the design you claim to see then we have a means of debating the pros and cons of the assertion. I also recalled this from your post# 62 So as we can see it appears you assert intelligence is there to be found in nature.I stipulate then that you have indeed led the conversation beyond mere description of design.I wish you to explain what you mean by intelligent if not a thinking scheming mind somehow situated in a position that allows its intelligence to be reflected in nature of the design you state you observe.This is where I am misunderstanding you and if you would please clarify the meaning of intelligent in this regard.Thanks D.S.P.S. If I am making it hard on you to clarify I will not apololgize. LOLThis message has been edited by sidelined, 06-13-2004 10:08 PM

---

You paddle your kayak up the river from your camp to fetch your camera which you left on a rock upstream a bit. The river flows at a uniform 2 mi/hr. You paddle (on still water) at a uniform 3 mi/hr. It takes 30 minutes to reach your camera. If you paddle all the way back to your camp, how long will the return trip take?

Ok, then you should have no trouble with this:Over here I have a pile of pennies scattered across the floor, at random. No design whatsoever.Over there I have a pile of the same number of pennies, painstakingly laid out into the same arrangement as the first pile, through my own intelligent design.Which is which? If you're able to detect design in the universe, surely you can show me which of these piles was designed? Because only one of them was. I presume you meant "the strong Anthropic Principle," right? After all what would the weak anthropic principle have to do with intelligence and design?

This is a prime example of flawed reasoning. Both piles were designed. One via chaotic distribution, one via painstaking involvement in the distribution. They are obviously both designed and they both have a designer responsible for their origin. The problem with using this analogy is that it has no correlation to the visible designs in nature without the acceptance of a designer. Well, let's take a look and see. http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rossuk/c-anthro.htmExample #1 is nearly adequate enough to explain my point of view. Again, let's take a look and see. http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rossuk/c-anthro.htmNo, that surely won't suffice so let's try something more. http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rossuk/c-anthro.htmCombining various aspects of this line of reasoning with the first example of Strong Anthropic Principle moves us a bit closer to my position regarding pattern, design, and intelligent design. http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rossuk/c-anthro.htm http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rossuk/Paley.htmMany will contend that Mr. Paley was right, but does the evidence support his view?The single answer to that question is that it always depends upon the individual who is viewing the evidence at hand.Where one may see random chance, another may see purposeful design, and still another may see intelligent design, and yet another may see see intelligent design, and the evidence of the handiwork of an intelligent designer.This message has been edited by DarkStar, 06-14-2004 02:47 AM

---

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM