Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 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}
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 46 of 315 (473990)
07-04-2008 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by rueh
07-03-2008 12:41 PM


Re: Looking in the wrong places
Hi, rueh. Please understand that I agree with everything you say. However, I think we have to grant them a few assumptions in order to get at the gist of this thread, which is trying to discern the Designer's hand in nature.
rueh writes:
Bluejay writes:
In a sense, every new major life-form ("baramin," as they like to say) that arises is another act of Creation, not a deep divergence in the tree of life.
That thought process is majorly flawed however. They treat every fossil you find as entirely new with no thought as to what precided it or what came after it.
I think they do take it into account, Rueh. To us, what precedes a fossil in the fossil record indicates what that organism evolved from. To them, what precedes a fossil in the fossil record indicates what materials God used to create that organism. Of course, this is only one flavor of IDist. Others claim (almost correctly) that there isn't a good link between the various forms that were supposed to have evolved into one another.
They haven't been able to prove any of this because they can't yet decide on the materials and methods of God's grand Creation experiment: some think He started with nothing, and "poofed" it all, while some believe He "poofed" some things into the next phase of His Creation in a manner that we scientists incorrectly interpret as unguided, opportunistic evolution.
This is why they can't make a case for their "theory": they have, as yet, been unwilling to commit to any sort of explanation as to the actual processes behind God's design. They insist that design must be true, but they refuse to explain what they mean by design, how such design could happen, and how such design could be seen in the natural evidence. This gives them the advantage of flexibility: they can always adjust their stance a little and stay on top. It gives them the disadvantage of having nothing to say: you can't study a theory that doesn't actually nail down a natural phenomenon.
So, there must be some settlement on a particular method, mechanism, and pattern of design, which can then be screened for in scientific studies. If we then come to the conclusion that the chosen method, mechanism and pattern of design is not supported by evidence, they could then be allowed to alter their views to another testable position, which we could then screen for. This still allows them the same flexibility, but it also gives them the potential to actually prove their ideas. But, the point is that they are currently evading this process completely, which is why they can't be in a science classroom.
----
To all IDists:
Somebody, please put forth an idea as to how we could discern this Designer's influence in nature. I promise not to ridicule or attack your idea on grounds of current evidence, at least until we've nailed down a theoretical framework whereby the idea could be directly tested (I cannot promise that everybody else will do this, though).

Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by rueh, posted 07-03-2008 12:41 PM rueh has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by RickJB, posted 07-04-2008 3:21 PM Blue Jay has not replied
 Message 48 by Codegate, posted 07-04-2008 3:41 PM Blue Jay has not replied

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


Message 47 of 315 (474025)
07-04-2008 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Blue Jay
07-04-2008 9:13 AM


Re: Looking in the wrong places
Beretta writes:
To all IDists:
Somebody, please put forth an idea as to how we could discern this Designer's influence in nature. I promise not to ridicule or attack your idea on grounds of current evidence, at least until we've nailed down a theoretical framework whereby the idea could be directly tested (I cannot promise that everybody else will do this, though).
This was my exact motivation for starting the thread but as yet we've had no ID proponents take up the challenge. When pro-evolutionists (for want of a better term) enter the EvC debate they often too easily fall into the trap of overly indulging the ToE criticisms that IDists use to support their position. The best response is to ask point blank for an ID hypothesis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Blue Jay, posted 07-04-2008 9:13 AM Blue Jay has not replied

Codegate
Member (Idle past 818 days)
Posts: 84
From: The Great White North
Joined: 03-15-2006


Message 48 of 315 (474027)
07-04-2008 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Blue Jay
07-04-2008 9:13 AM


Re: Looking in the wrong places
bluejay writes:
Somebody, please put forth an idea as to how we could discern this Designer's influence in nature. I promise not to ridicule or attack your idea on grounds of current evidence, at least until we've nailed down a theoretical framework whereby the idea could be directly tested (I cannot promise that everybody else will do this, though).
I'm going to go through a though experiment on this one.
What evidence would lead biology to examine a designer hypothesis?
1) A master genome, that is, latent genes geared towards extremely specific environmental conditions. For example, if the human genome had a set of genes that when expressed made the body impervious to the effects of zero gravity. Not just partially better, but fully functional right from the get go. A designer would most likely have planned for the future after all.
2) Specific features expressed identically in genes across unrelated species. For example, a species of lobster, octopus and whale that all had a genetically identical method for removing mercury from their bodies, found in no other species.
3) The babelfish hypothesis. For example, the discovery of a species of plant that produced a berry that cured all human ailments.
I'm sure there are others, but even these first three that I could imagine are stretching the limits.
Even if every one of these possibilities was discovered, it raises the question, why only these specific instances? Why doesn't every species show this kind of evidence?
At least if the ID movement was out there searching for instances like this that (IMO) point heavily towards some kind of designer, they would be contributing to science as a whole.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Blue Jay, posted 07-04-2008 9:13 AM Blue Jay has not replied

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


Message 49 of 315 (474243)
07-07-2008 4:17 AM


Calling Beretta!
Anything to add to this thread, Beretta?

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by rueh, posted 07-10-2008 10:59 AM RickJB has replied

rueh
Member (Idle past 3661 days)
Posts: 382
From: universal city tx
Joined: 03-03-2008


Message 50 of 315 (474717)
07-10-2008 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by RickJB
07-07-2008 4:17 AM


Re: Calling Beretta!
Man you can just hear the crickets screaming when IDist and creationist are asked to do anything other than pick apart pieces of evolution they don't like.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by RickJB, posted 07-07-2008 4:17 AM RickJB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by RickJB, posted 07-10-2008 12:02 PM rueh has replied

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


Message 51 of 315 (474731)
07-10-2008 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by rueh
07-10-2008 10:59 AM


Re: Calling Beretta!
Rueh writes:
Man you can just hear the crickets screaming when IDist and creationist are asked to do anything other than pick apart pieces of evolution they don't like.
Indeed, which is why the best way to rebutt ID claims is simply to ask for a design counter-hypothesis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by rueh, posted 07-10-2008 10:59 AM rueh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by rueh, posted 07-10-2008 12:23 PM RickJB has replied

rueh
Member (Idle past 3661 days)
Posts: 382
From: universal city tx
Joined: 03-03-2008


Message 52 of 315 (474736)
07-10-2008 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by RickJB
07-10-2008 12:02 PM


Re: Calling Beretta!
Kind of sucks, cause I really like the idea of there being more to the Universe than we can see. I know that in physics this is literally true, however I would like there to be that agent behind it all. I can only hope that as we advance and fill in our gaps in theory and in technology that greater and greater complexity may be derived. I would love a universe or multiverse that becomes fractal in nature where we can feel as much a part of it as it is to us. I know that I am usually one to speak out against preconceived notions of god and that my own desire than becomes somewhat hypocritical. But I can't help it I just really don't believe that the religions we have now are anywhere close to being intelligent or technologically advanced enough to make any claims with certainty about a true nature of god and therefore his workings and that for now, science is the way to further our knowledge of the working of our universe. Hopefully as in generations past, as our worldview changed from earth centered to heliocentered the culture changed to adapt those discoveries into their religion. We to can change, as our understandings of physics change from Newtonian to quantum to GUT. And that we may someday have that knowledge that we seem to lack now that smooth’s the transition of science and religion. Ah some much for pipe dreams.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by RickJB, posted 07-10-2008 12:02 PM RickJB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by RickJB, posted 07-10-2008 12:39 PM rueh has replied

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


Message 53 of 315 (474740)
07-10-2008 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by rueh
07-10-2008 12:23 PM


Re: Calling Beretta!
Here's a fun short story that was written by Issac Asimov back in the fifties. It chimes somewhat with your thoughts.
The Last Question
Suffice to say, humanity has barely begun to learn about the universe!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by rueh, posted 07-10-2008 12:23 PM rueh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by rueh, posted 07-10-2008 12:47 PM RickJB has not replied

rueh
Member (Idle past 3661 days)
Posts: 382
From: universal city tx
Joined: 03-03-2008


Message 54 of 315 (474743)
07-10-2008 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by RickJB
07-10-2008 12:39 PM


Re: Calling Beretta!
Oh yeah read that one. Right now I am reading Physics of Immortality by Tipler. Alot of the same ideas. He actualy does a pretty good job at identifying what the designer would need, (so long as you can suspend disbelief in a couple of areas) through the Omega point theroy. I would play devils advocate and use some of his examples for this thread however I just started it and don't believe I could give the concepts their due in time to meanigly contribute their implications to this thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by RickJB, posted 07-10-2008 12:39 PM RickJB has not replied

Beretta
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 55 of 315 (475074)
07-13-2008 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by RickJB
06-30-2008 1:53 PM


Re: Initial questions...
If you don't know the nature of a given designer how can you know if anything was designed by it?
You don't have to know the nature of the painter to recognize that something was painted. This is not to say that the nature of the creator is unimportant just that you don't need to discuss that aspect when discussing the design alternative to random mindless evolution. Is it feasible that an intelligent creator may be a better explanation for what exists? Also on what basis can you eliminate that possiblity?
Unfortunately your opinion does not make either design or a designer a fact. Complexity is found in nature.
But it may equate to design -that possibility is by no means eliminated just because evolution happens to be a popular concept in this day and age. Lots of people think it's obvious that a creator exists just by looking at life. Because not everybody agrees does not make it untrue.
Complexity does not always equate to design.
How do you know that that is true?
Your examples are all based on instances of human design. Are we to assume that our designer/God designs like a human?
Maybe we are creative because our designer put creativity into our brains, into our makeup somehow. Our design ability is pretty archaic next to God's and despite improving all the time -we still can't create the simplest lifeform so we're way backwards comparatively speaking.
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?
The problem with evolution is that it is by general definition found in any textbook a random, mindless process, which leaves God out of the question except perhaps as a distant first cause. While it is of course a possibility, the possibility that the creator would be more involved than just to jumpstart the process, is also feasible -I think more feasible. The complexity of life seems to me to point in that direction far more than chance and selection of chance mutations does.

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 56 by RickJB, posted 07-13-2008 11:53 AM Beretta has replied
 Message 57 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-13-2008 12:01 PM Beretta has not replied
 Message 58 by ikabod, posted 07-14-2008 3:54 AM Beretta has replied

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


Message 56 of 315 (475101)
07-13-2008 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Beretta
07-13-2008 9:31 AM


Re: Initial questions...
Beretta writes:
You don't have to know the nature of the painter to recognize that something was painted.
Of course, but to stretch the analogy, you'd still have to know what a painting is in the first instance. We have still to establish what constitutes "design".
Beretta writes:
Lots of people think it's obvious that a creator exists just by looking at life.
If it's so "obvious", why is it only obvious to people with a very particular religious outlook to defend? Surely it should be obvious to a whole range of people? Also, why are these people unable to provide any evidence whatsoever beyond apologetics based on their favoured religious text or ad-hoc criticism of science done by others?
Beretta writes:
Our design ability is pretty archaic next to God's and despite improving all the time -we still can't create the simplest lifeform so we're way backwards comparatively speaking.
This is speculation of course, but if humans did continue to advance their technology and were one day able to create life, does that mean that humankind would one day collectively reach the status of God?
(Here's a fun Asimov story based on this very idea. The Last Question)
Beretta writes:
[RickJB: Complexity does not always equate to design.] How do you know that that is true?
Ever seen a close-up of a snowflake? Those structures arise from the chemical properties of water. Of course, you might argue that God intervenes in all chemical reactions, but you'd need a some kind of evidence to back that up!
Beretta writes:
The problem with evolution is that it is by general definition found in any textbook a random, mindless process, which leaves God out of the question except perhaps as a distant first cause.
I like the TalkOrgins definition:- "Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations." Certainly, evolution doesn't work with a particular outcome in mind, but then perhaps God doesn't want a particular outcome! Maybe God's just experimenting...
Thanks for taking part in the thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Beretta, posted 07-13-2008 9:31 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Beretta, posted 07-14-2008 8:10 AM RickJB has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 57 of 315 (475104)
07-13-2008 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Beretta
07-13-2008 9:31 AM


Re: Initial questions...
You don't have to know the nature of the painter to recognize that something was painted. This is not to say that the nature of the creator is unimportant just that you don't need to discuss that aspect when discussing the design alternative to random mindless evolution.
You have made 268 posts on this board and you still don't know that evolution is not random.
You have my sympathy.
Is it feasible that an intelligent creator may be a better explanation for what exists?
No, but thanks for asking.
Also on what basis can you eliminate that possiblity?
This "evidence" stuff we keep talking about.
But it may equate to design -that possibility is by no means eliminated just because evolution happens to be a popular concept in this day and age. Lots of people think it's obvious that a creator exists just by looking at life. Because not everybody agrees does not make it untrue.
Once more I refer you to the evidence.
How do you know that that is true?
Maybe we are creative because our designer put creativity into our brains, into our makeup somehow. Our design ability is pretty archaic next to God's and despite improving all the time -we still can't create the simplest lifeform so we're way backwards comparatively speaking.
Nice use of the word "maybe".
The problem with evolution is that it is by general definition found in any textbook a random, mindless process ...
This is a lie. If you do not know that you are lying, a glance into "any textbook" will show you that you are reciting a witless lie.
While it is of course a possibility ...
Thank you. So, while you admit that evolution is possible according to natural laws, you still wish to insist that GodDidItByMagic is more plausible?
Strange.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Beretta, posted 07-13-2008 9:31 AM Beretta has not replied

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


Message 58 of 315 (475210)
07-14-2008 3:54 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Beretta
07-13-2008 9:31 AM


Re: Initial questions...
You don't have to know the nature of the painter to recognize that something was painted.
clearly you you have never seen a work by Jackson Pollock , go look at one , wiki pollock and look at No.5 ,
(Jackson Pollock - Wikipedia)
now following you route which part of the painting shows intelligence ? as opposed to randomness , can you see a design ..
so.. moving on from a pointless analogy ....
now here is where you shoot yourself in the foot but good ....
This is not to say that the nature of the creator is unimportant just that you don't need to discuss that aspect when discussing the design alternative to random mindless evolution.
??? why not .. is not the nature of the creator .( note your word .. not designer ) fundermental to the understanding of everything .. if such a creator exsists ... understand the creator and you remove any need for debate about evolution or any other human discovery ....
what better point could you possible make than to explain who designed everything and how they did it ....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Beretta, posted 07-13-2008 9:31 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Beretta, posted 07-14-2008 6:01 AM ikabod has replied

Beretta
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 59 of 315 (475212)
07-14-2008 6:01 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by ikabod
07-14-2008 3:54 AM


Initial questions...
clearly you you have never seen a work by Jackson Pollock
Actually I'm not talking about just any painting -I'm talking about specified complexity. I'm talking about the difference between some random rock that kinda looks like it could be a face compared to Mount Rushmore that separately relates to something that we know about American history.Lets put it this way -if you see a painting of something you can identify separately like a cottage in a prairie, you know that random passing splatters didn't make that, somebody with intelligence organized that, somebody planned the outcome and it the picture works together and is identifiable. It means something. Do you need to know who the painter is? Perhaps ultimately you would want to, but for the meantime the argument is just "Is there a designer?" "Does the design of life require a designer or could random typing errors and selection of the better ones put together something as complex as a human being?" I understand that you believe that that is possible but then you have been educated to believe it and if enough people in a position of authority believe that to be true and tell you that it is possible, then chances are you will believe it too.What I am asking is - what about the possibility that that is not true and that a designer is required to put together an extremely intricate living being with intricately connected functions and parts that need to work together on a macro as well as a micro level -what if what you believe is not true? Is there a possibility that evolution without direction and a plan is not possible?
??? why not .. is not the nature of the creator .( note your word .. not designer ) fundermental to the understanding of everything .. if such a creator exsists
No I really don't think that you have to understand anything about the creator or creative intelligence in order to recognize intelligence and design. If you found a crashed UFO, you don't need to understand anything about the ones who made it to know that their craft was created or designed and that they must have intelligence in order to have got here in the first place.
ID is looking at that perspective of the argument. It's not a religious argument, it's a scientific one -can we identify design? What is it that tells us that something is designed rather than just fallen into place from following the laws of nature?
Who the creative intelligence is should not even be a part of science -it is more of a theological argument and science is not actually equipped to deal with it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by ikabod, posted 07-14-2008 3:54 AM ikabod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by ikabod, posted 07-14-2008 6:36 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 61 by RickJB, posted 07-14-2008 6:58 AM Beretta has replied
 Message 62 by Coragyps, posted 07-14-2008 7:42 AM Beretta has replied
 Message 74 by Meddle, posted 07-15-2008 9:48 PM Beretta has replied

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


Message 60 of 315 (475214)
07-14-2008 6:36 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Beretta
07-14-2008 6:01 AM


Re: Initial questions...
ok in all your examples you are taking sometime , a painting , a UFO all of which are artifical constructs .... claiming they look like they where designed .. therefore they have a designer ...well yes they where designed ... big deal ..
now pick a creature ....anyone you like and show me where the design comes in .... list the features that demand a designer ...
show where one can spot the workmanship ......like the equivelent of the painters brush strokes , or the painter use of light and shade .. or the UFO builders door handle for a 7 fingered three thumbed hand ... or the UFO's chlorine based internal atmosphere ....
a await your insights .....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Beretta, posted 07-14-2008 6:01 AM Beretta has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by ikabod, posted 07-15-2008 3:58 AM ikabod has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024