How does Complexity demonstrate Design

Oh? If that's true, what isn't designed? How can you propose to detect design when its absence can't apparently exist? What you propose is like trying to smell water, and it's about as fruitful.A mechanism that is responsible for everything explains nothing. The problem for the Strong AP is that we don't know if the basic physical laws are arbitrary or not; we don't know what circumstances are required for life, only for life as we know it; we literally know nothing about what it takes to form a universe or what "choice" exists in terms of what physical laws are expressed.In short the Strong AP assumes a considerable number of things about the formation of universes that we can't possibly know. For all we know, this is the only way that a universe can form, and life is inevitable. We just don't know. But I can show you random chance. I can show you events where the outcome is non-determined.I can roll dice and flip coins and show you that randomness exists. But where will you show me the mechanism that allows life to be designed?I know I've said this before, but it's still true - if you want to reject the observable mechanisms we can demonstrate are sufficient to give rise to life in favor of ones that can't ever be demonstrated or observed, that's fine. But don't call it science, because it's not. But scientific objectivity is when we restrict our theories to the minimum number of things we can all agree exists. You're free to abandon that as you see fit, but please, don't do thousands of years of human endeavor a disservice by calling what you do "science."

DarkStar notes:

quote:

---

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.

---

And it could just be that people are seeing what they want to see. Usually, when someone talks about seeing the 'handiwork of an intelligent designer,' we notice that they're only looking at the things that confirm their claim. Yes, living organisms are often beautiful, as well as amazing in their complexity and diversity. However, does everything we see appear to be what a purposeful designer would intend? If life on Earth also appears to be chaotic, cruel, messy, and wasteful, can we assume that this also supports the notion of intelligent design?In other words, what observations would disconfirm the design hypothesis? How would life on Earth look if it weren't the product of intelligent design?regards,
Esteban Hambre

It might depend on what is being designed.There are a few of us that believe that at the lowest levels, the basic, wonderous rules we are just beinginning to learn, there is design. But I am talking about only at the rule level itself. And as we learn more, we constantly find that what we thought were designs were not. They were only artifacts of an underlying design.So, except at the very edge, the very most basic rules, the Universe would look exactly as it does. There is no way to determine between the two and so even discussing the theories falls into the realm of entertainment as opposed to enlightenment.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

There are a few of us that believe that at the lowest levels, the basic, wonderous rules we are just beinginning (sic) to learn, there is design. But I am talking about only at the rule level itself. And as we learn more, we constantly find that what we thought were designs were not. They were only artifacts of an underlying design.

---

I don't have the slightest idea what you mean by this.Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection was revolutionary because, in the face of a scientific and philosophical consensus that Design could not arise without a pre-existing Mind, he postulated that the design we see in nature is in fact produced by a network of dumb algorithms. What we know about biochemistry, the DNA copying process, and selective filters serves to confirm his ideas. There doesn't have to be a purpose-driven intelligence behind the scenes when populations, organisms, and molecules are merely obeying these laws on various levels.What you seem to be saying is that the purpose is not in the design itself, but in the algorithms that make the design possible. However, all this does is restate the Mind-first doctrine that Darwin's theory rendered obsolete: you think that the basis for Design requires Mind or purpose. Maybe you could explain how the Mandelbrot set requires purpose to create its impressive designs, or how Conway's Game of Life was front-loaded with purpose when it merely comprises three dumb rules to create its strange and amusing cast of characters.There are those who are uncomfortable with admitting that design can come from purposeless sets of algorithms, since their faith in cosmic purpose can't rest on the observation of the wonders of the natural world. This is the real purpose laid bare by the design inference: not the fact that the design itself is the product of purposeful intelligence, but that we're inclined to attribute design to intelligence even when there's no reason to do so.regards,
Esteban Hambre

It all depends on if one follows with Kant practically that perhaps indeed substance (UNLIKE OBJECTS) is apriori SEATED in our facutly of cognitionsThe deed however willed by Gladyshev may not be "with" this as I new now see how it could be that via Lehn(supramolecular chemsitry via mixed instruction noncompound purity) he had sided with Penrose algorithmically.I think that Gould and Mayr use "FINAL CAUSE" in Aristotle's and not KANT's Sense
(paying rent and buildings in UPSTATE NY that are dependent on the final effect of RENT CONTROLS in NYC are not the same OBJECT let alone elementally substances that vary...)
but I might be mistaken academically on that.

I see the designs at a far lower level that you seem to understand.What we observe in living things is absolutely purposeless.The level that I am pointing towards is much lower. At one time I might have pointed to the four forces, but since then we have learned that they are only aritfacts of even lower rules. Today I might point to string theory or branes. As we learn more I imagine that we will find that they too are but artifacts.I have no problems with Evolution. There is far too much evidence to show that it is happening and that what we see about us is not high level design, but the result of pure chance and time.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

I see the designs at a far lower level that you seem to understand.

---

Oh, pardon me. My question still stands: how would this more-fundamental-than-I-understand-level look if it were not the product of intelligent design?You admit that it's a mistake for intelligent-design creationists to attribute speciation or adaptation to the intervention of an intelligent agent. Aren't you making the same mistake in attributing these 'rules' on this more fundamental level to intelligent design?regards,
Esteban Hambre

I consider it a mistake to attribute life to design. I'm completely convinced that life is also accident. And believe the designer is sitting there amazed by what is unfolding.I fully believe that we will be unlikely to peal the onion away to the ultimate core.So what does the design look like?The design itself appears to be a set of yet undiscovered basic principles. We continue to find more of them, and each is more wonderous than the last. We are certainly in the realm of belief, and I would offer only my perception.What would it look like if there were no design?There would be nothing, no worlds, no stars, no galaxies, no life, no universe.There would be no light, no darkness, no form, no substance.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This is very true. The exact same thing can be said of those who see only random chance and/or natural processes at work. They see what they want to see. This would most surely depend on individual perceptions of what the designer, if there is one, actually intended. I would suppose that this must depend on any number of factors, including, but not limited to, what is referred to as the "sin factor" that the bible says was introduced into the world. If one rules out the bible, (or any religious record, for that matter), and in doing so also rules out the possibility of the sin factor as playing a role in cause and effect, then one would have to hypothisize on the nature of chaos, its function and purpose, and whether that function is a stabilizing or destabilizing unit within its environment. This question is unanswerable due to it's presupposition of having a full understanding of an unknown. One can hypothesize what the earth may look like, but one can never state matter-of-factly exactly what the earth must look like.Cheers

---

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

quote:

---

MrHambre writes: And it could just be that people are seeing what they want to see. Usually, when someone talks about seeing the 'handiwork of an intelligent designer,' we notice that they're only looking at the things that confirm their claim.

​

DarkStar responds: This is very true. The exact same thing can be said of those who see only random chance and/or natural processes at work. They see what they want to see.

---

But randomness can be measured. It is not an interpretation of the data, but rather what the data tells us. Ever heard of a normal bell curve? This is exactly how non-random events are detected, but their non-adherence to a bell curve. You might also want to read up on Hardy-Weinberg equilibriums. They show how natural selection causes non-random distribution of alleles in response to natural selection. That is, how beneficial mutations are detected by their non-uniform distribution within a population. Scientsts are not looking for randomness, they measure it. Can you say the same thing for design by an intelligent designer?

quote:

---

One can hypothesize what the earth may look like, but one can never state matter-of-factly exactly what the earth must look like.
  —DarkStar

---

This is exactly what the ID and AP theorists do. They claim that life MUST be designed. They claim that the Earth MUST have certain characteristics to house humans. They state matter-of-factly that natural artifacts that we see around us must have certain characteristics, be they products of design or designed to benefit/intrigue mankind.

Define for me, if you would, your understanding of natural selection, its absolutistic function, and how the absense of same would affect any environmental entity.Cheers

---

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

quote:

---

MrHambre: Yes, living organisms are often beautiful, as well as amazing in their complexity and diversity. However, does everything we see appear to be what a purposeful designer would intend?

​

DarkStar: This would most surely depend on individual perceptions of what the designer, if there is one, actually intended.

---

So what's your perception? It would be great for intelligent design creationists if we could all assume that an intelligent designer would intend for there to be a world full of mass extinctions, birth defects, excruciating and incurable diseases, and so on. However, since you want to believe there's a designer anyway, you have to concoct an explanation that makes use of the "sin factor" and other convenient but unscientific details.regards,
Esteban Hambre

In case John Paul comes back to the argument in a few months it is useful to remember that he was using much the same argument with regard to humans - and there he explicitly meant individual human babies - not just the first humans.In this thread (Intelligent Design Creationism)
http://EvC Forum: Intelligent Design Creationism -->EvC Forum: Intelligent Design CreationismSample quotes: From post 46: Post 55:

DarkStarI just came across this little Gem: What the hell is "absolutistic function"?This message has been edited by sidelined, 06-20-2004 01:37 PM

quote:

---

What the hell is "absolutistic function"?

---

The phenomenon we see here may be the answer to your question: It may be an artifact of a sagacious intellect and/or you may be a subaltern individual.