|
Author
|
Topic: Even if there was a Designer, does it matter?
|
jar
Member (Idle past 99 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
Message 1 of 214 (589354)
11-01-2010 8:14 PM
|
|
|
A question I've asked repeatedly and never gotten a response is: "Even if ID was true, is there any value to the concept of a Designer beyond a historical footnote or in the case of Product Liability suits?" Yeah, it's interesting to point out the tail fins were designed by Harley Earl and that Bill Mitchell had an entirely different point of view, or in the case of obviously piss poor design having an individual that can be held responsible for compensation. But other than those two specific areas, historical footnotes and product liability, is there any other value to Intelligent Design? likely in Intelligent Design please
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 4 by Nij, posted 11-03-2010 4:09 AM | | jar has seen this message but not replied | | | Message 5 by Parasomnium, posted 11-03-2010 4:19 AM | | jar has replied | | | Message 6 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-03-2010 4:27 AM | | jar has seen this message but not replied | | | Message 7 by Larni, posted 11-03-2010 4:59 AM | | jar has seen this message but not replied | | | Message 9 by Dirk, posted 11-03-2010 10:06 AM | | jar has seen this message but not replied | | | Message 10 by NoNukes, posted 11-03-2010 10:12 AM | | jar has seen this message but not replied | | | Message 13 by Jon, posted 11-03-2010 10:38 AM | | jar has seen this message but not replied | | | Message 149 by mike the wiz, posted 12-31-2010 7:34 PM | | jar has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 99 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 2 of 214 (589490)
11-02-2010 8:43 PM
|
|
|
^^Bump^^
Can I get this promoted?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
jar
Member (Idle past 99 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: It IS important
I'm not convinced that is an issue. We can still be pretty sure about how the model and mechanics work and knowing there was a designer would not change that. The remaining question would be to discover HOW the designer actually influenced and effected change. Once those processes were understood the designer would remain important only in the two areas mentioned. Again, look at history. Does it matter who invented, designed the first radio? How about the first car or boat or airplane or Slurpee? The fact that something has a designer is not really that important. In fact, even when the original design is unavailable it is possible to reverse engineer something and even improve on the design. It would be exciting though.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 5 by Parasomnium, posted 11-03-2010 4:19 AM | | Parasomnium has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 17 by Rahvin, posted 11-03-2010 12:00 PM | | jar has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 99 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 19 of 214 (589571)
11-03-2010 12:14 PM
|
Reply to: Message 17 by Rahvin
11-03-2010 12:00 PM
|
|
Re: It IS important
If there's a designer, there's a plan. If there's a plan, then, if we are able to ascertain what that plan is, we should be able to predict future evolutionary developments in humans and other species. Identifying that there is in fact a designer would be a huge increase to our predictive abilities. Yes, understanding the model and mechanism would be a large increase in our predictive abilities, but it would also render the designer itself even less significant. Once we understand the mechanisms, and in the case of life we are dealing with methods that work at a low energy level, it is simply a matter of technology. If there was a designer, the designer itself still just gets relegated to either a historical footnote, or as mentioned, in Product Liability suits.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 17 by Rahvin, posted 11-03-2010 12:00 PM | | Rahvin has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 26 by Phat, posted 11-03-2010 1:34 PM | | jar has not replied | | | Message 30 by Rahvin, posted 11-03-2010 2:42 PM | | jar has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 99 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 37 of 214 (589640)
11-03-2010 4:16 PM
|
Reply to: Message 30 by Rahvin
11-03-2010 2:42 PM
|
|
Re: It IS important
You might as well say that, once we figured out how god breeding works, the breeder himself becomes less significant in the process of creating and maintaining dog breeds. That's simply preposterous. But it is not preposterous, in fact it is exactly what does happen. Once the knowledge of the methods is available, who the designer is becomes pretty much irrelevant. Just about anyone that knows the methodology and has urge can become a dog breeder.
Your question in the OP and your continued position seems to be asking whether "evolution as we currently understand it, all of the mechanisms being accurate" is significantly different from "evolution as we currently understand it, with all of the mechanisms being accurate, but caused by a designer." Nope. That is NOT what I'm saying. As I point out in the OP, it could well be interesting that Harley Earl was the designer of the tail fin on cars, but other than that small historical footnote, is the designer of any significance? If there was some designer regarding life, then the question is "how does the designer effect change?" Once the process is known, it would be no different than the discovery of the double helix, just another factoid and question resolved.
The new ID Theory of Evolution would be that life diversifies according to a divine plan through designer-caused mutations and designer-guided selection. No, the new Theory of Evolution would be that change happened by whatever the new processes and methodology that was discovered. The model, the mechanics, how the designer effected change might be of significance but the designer itself, just a note that says Harley Eal designed tailfins.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 30 by Rahvin, posted 11-03-2010 2:42 PM | | Rahvin has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 99 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: It IS important
Or determine the actual model and methodology and do what we have always done. If someone can design something then so can others. Patents exist for a reason. The reason is that once something is known to exist and be possible, humans have shown themselves to be very good at figuring out how it was done and how it could be done better. If there really was a designer, then the issue is to figure out what the model and methods are that allow the designer to effect change. Questions like those are grist for the Scientific Mill. Once those processes are known then the designer itself becomes just a historical footnote or something to sue in Product Liability cases. And this is actually the dilemma that the ID proponents face. For ID to be taken seriously, the model, the method of how the designer effects change needs to be presented, and then tested. BUT, if those tests do show support, if the method and model is supported, the actual designer becomes nearly irrelevant.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 39 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-03-2010 5:45 PM | | Dr Adequate has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 42 by Dirk, posted 11-03-2010 6:09 PM | | jar has seen this message but not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 99 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 45 of 214 (589667)
11-03-2010 6:24 PM
|
Reply to: Message 44 by Rahvin
11-03-2010 6:14 PM
|
|
Re: It IS important
I agree that it is likely you are expressing your opinion and that it is even likely that I did not word my OP in a way that allowed you to understand what I was discussing or asking. However, I have tried throughout this discussion to reword, try different approaches, in order that you might understand what I have been saying. If I have failed, then I'm sorry. May you have a nice day.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 44 by Rahvin, posted 11-03-2010 6:14 PM | | Rahvin has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 99 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 49 of 214 (589681)
11-03-2010 7:48 PM
|
Reply to: Message 47 by Jon
11-03-2010 7:02 PM
|
|
Re: Smaller Steps
First question: If there was a designer, there was always a designer. Agree, or disagree? Why would it matter?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 47 by Jon, posted 11-03-2010 7:02 PM | | Jon has seen this message but not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 99 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: Who wrote Shakespeare?
I think most of us, particularly me, understand what you are saying and to some extent agree. The area where I disagree is in just how big a problem the existence of some designer might be. If there was a Designer then there is some additional yet unknown method which the designer uses to effect change. We are learning, to use your analogy of the eye, just how an eye could be developed, how we can manipulate genes to effect change. We are reverse engineering the product. Once we can understand how living things could be created, once we understand the methods for effecting change, even if they are different methods then the original designer used, the original designer becomes irrelevant except in those two areas I have mentioned.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
jar
Member (Idle past 99 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: Who wrote Shakespeare?
We have been wrong before, that is how advances happen.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 63 by Parasomnium, posted 11-04-2010 4:18 PM | | Parasomnium has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 99 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: The Chase Cut
In the case of biology, the explanation in question is the theory of evolution, which even explains things that, when viewed from the point of view of Intelligent Design, can only be called "anomalies", for bearing such remarkable likeness to bad design. So, if there was a designer, then this must have repercussions for the way we acquire knowledge, because our current way of doing so tells us that no designer was involved. If we are wrong about that, what else are we wrong about? We are likely wrong about much of what we know, or at least our knowledge is only as good as it can be so far. But that has always been true, we learn from the things we get wrong, and it is the knowledge that what we know is wrong that leads us to the next step. BUT... my initial question is slightly different. If there is some designer then that designer has some method of effecting change. Now determining how change is effected is what Science has shown us time after time. Questions like that are grist for the Scientific method. Once the method is known, then the designer itself becomes irrelevant, relevant in only the two areas I have mentioned.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
jar
Member (Idle past 99 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: The Chase Cut
Yes, once the method is known, the very fact that there is a designer is irrelevant except in the areas I mentioned.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
jar
Member (Idle past 99 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: The Chase Cut
There is no play. If I misunderstand you it is not for lack of trying. If there is some method that the designer uses, either those we know about or ones we will learn about in the future, then that knowledge is what is important, not the designer. AbE: You said:
If I may paraphrase your conclusion: because the process is known, not the designer an sich, but the very concept of a designer has become irrelevant. Once a process is known then the designer is irrelevant as well as the concept of a designer. Edited by jar, : add more material
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 78 by Parasomnium, posted 11-06-2010 5:22 PM | | Parasomnium has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 99 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Even if there was a Designer, does it matter?
What might be changed is irrelevant. The question is "Even if there was a Designer, does it matter?"
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
jar
Member (Idle past 99 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: Even if there was a Designer, does it matter?
That might be something you are interested in but it is irrelevant to this thread and far off topic. The question in this thread is "Even if there was a Designer, does it matter?"
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
™ Version 4.2