The evidence for design and a designer - AS OF 10/27, SUMMARY MESSAGES ONLY

However much it is about DNA that science does not know, I certainly hope you're not citing our ignorance as evidence of design. This would be tantamount to arguing that the less we know the more evidence we have of design. Aren't you confusing purpose with function? Just because something performs a function doesn't mean it has a purpose. Or to express it another way, if everything with a function has a purpose then nearly everything in the universe has a purpose. Even drifting molecules in interstellar space have functions (light attenuation, gravity, potential eventual aggregation into a star, etc.), and if you insist on equating function with purpose then by your other claim that things with purpose were intelligently designed these molecules must have been intelligently designed. In the end this reduces to, "There's something instead of nothing, therefore it was intelligently designed."Purpose is a human construct implying intent, which is another human construct. Science has nothing to say about purpose and intent. Once you've started talking about purpose you've left the realm of science. The process of evolutionary change is driven by the need for adaptation to a changing environment, and so organisms are constantly forced to adapt existing organs and processes to new circumstances. This sometimes results in organs or processes that appear to be standing around with not much or even nothing to do. We call these organs and processes vestigial because they once played a more prominent role fulfilling an adaptational need that is either diminished or even no longer exists.In other words, the very nature of vestigial organs and processes is that they did once have a function, or for vestigial organs and processes that are still useful in some way that they did once have a more prominent function. So when you say, "What do ya know...things like the thyroid, tonsils and appendix turns out did have a purpose," you're only making clear your own misunderstanding of the how science thinks of the word vestigial. Vestigial organs have always been thought to once have a function. The term was invented to describe that very concept.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Improve clarity.

The quote comes from Cargo Cult Science by Richard Feynman: He makes the same point in a similar way elsewhere in the address: If it's just one person, seeing is not believing. The existence of an eyewitness is not proof. There are studies of the unreliability of eyewitnesses. Many of the people freed from prison on the basis of DNA evidence were convicted by eyewitness testimony.Because of the tentative nature of science you really want to avoid use of words like prove and proof. The more evidence we gather, the more scientists who have managed to obtain the same result, the more confident we become in our knowledge, but that knowledge remains always tentative and is never considered proven.--Percy

Hi Dawn,Science requires replicability. If you don't include replicability then you're not doing science.An eyewitness to an event might be very certain in his own mind of what happened, but if he is a scientist then he understands that for others to accept what he knows happened that he must provide corroborating evidence that other scientists can examine for themselves. One person's say so that something happened is, from a scientific perspective, mere anecdotal information that can at best serve only as a guide to further investigation.And as I said earlier, in science it is best to avoid words like proof and prove. All scientific findings, including the evidence itself, are tentative. Nothing is ever proven once and for all in science.As to purpose, that is a human construct with no place in science. You cannot equate function with purpose, because everything in the universe has a function. What you are actually claiming is that it is possible to tell when something came about through purpose and intent, but you have not provided the criteria by which you make this determination.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Typo.l

Dawn is using this definition of purpose: a result or effect that is intended or desired (Answers.com). In his mind, anything with purpose is the result of intent by someone and not the result of natural processes "operating in and of themselves." I've been using the word function in place of purpose.--Percy

Is it not true that you believe that purpose is the result of intent by someone and not the result of natural processes "operating in and of themselves"?--Percy

Okay, so you're saying that sufficient evidence would indicate that a function actually had a purpose that was constructed with intent. Given that this thread is about the evidence for a design and a designer, can you provide an example of some function for which you have evidence of purpose and intent, and can you describe that evidence?--Percy

Well, yes, you do seem to be missing the point, but more worrying is that you say this as if it hasn't been rebutted many times in this thread. You haven't offered any evidence. All you've done is made an unsupported assertion. One could plug anything into your assertion: "Sand is ordered, its purpose is to provide beaches for vacations. Its intent by its creator was so that his beloved creation could enjoy his day of rest."The eye has function, not purpose. You said you had evidence that its function has a purpose that reflects the intent of its creator. What is that evidence?--Percy

I didn't learn anything other than to receive further confirmation that ignorance and certainty go hand in hand, with certainty proving helpful in creating a state of mind where one pays little or no attention to what others are saying.--Percy