|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,766 Year: 4,023/9,624 Month: 894/974 Week: 221/286 Day: 28/109 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why only one Designer | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2157 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
ringo writes:
Guilty. The OP presented a very deficient strawman view of ID, and I agreed with the OP that if this were the extent of ID arguments, they could't discern between one or many designers. I brought up the "first cause" to explain how some of them would argue for a single designer. The one who brought up first causes was kbertsche, not the OP. "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
ringo writes: Straggler writes: But a single first cause is indisputably more parsimonious than multiple first causes isn't it? I don't see why. As Occam himself put it: "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem" (entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity).
ringo writes: I'm sticking with the idea that putting a number on it requires an extraneous assumption. Surely you agree that zero unevidenced designers is the most parsimonious proposition. This really is incontrovertible isn't it?
ringo writes: Straggler writes: And with regard to ID and the matters of religion this thread seems to be aiming at it is really "first cause" rather than simply number of designers that is the issue here. No? I've already said, "No." The one who brought up first causes was kbertsche, not the OP. In this very thread you make the case that ID and creationism are the same thing. Yet here you want to pretend that designers and first cause creators have nothing to do with each other in the context of this thread. You know as well as I do that the term "designer" in this context is absolutely one and the same thing as the notion of a first cause creator of some kind.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
I have read your posts in this thread. I can't find any arguments against the validity of applying parsimony to the issue at hand. You have asserted that parsimony has "nothing to do with reality" but beyond that assertion you haven't said anything at all to counter the following:
1) The more parsimonious a proposal is the less likely it is to be wrong because the fewer assumptions it contains that are unsupported. 2) The no designer proposition is the most parsimonious. Do you have any counter-arguments? Or just your already stated assertion? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Slevesque writes: All I'm saying is that ID and creationism isn't the same thing. I agree. Many in this thread are conflating the Intelligent Design movement with Intelligent Design as an explanatory proposition. They are conflating those who most commonly and publicly advocate the ID position with the ID proposition itself. The Intelligent Design movement is indisputably one and the same as the Christian fundamentalist creationist movement. They are the same people. And these creationists do themselves conflate ID and creationism for their own social purposes when it suits them. But that does not mean that ID and creationism are actually the same thing. ID as a position is not inherently Christian. Fundie Christians are currently very publicly advocating ID as a means to an end. But there are Moslem IDists. IDists of other godly beliefs. Even IDists of no specific godly belief at all. The illusion of design in nature is something that has fooled a lot of people over a vast amount of time. They have not all been Fundie Christians. Nor are they all now. There are some people who just think nature is all too "complex" to be "random" and that some sort of higher powered intelligence is therefore necessary. I would suggest that this view is far more prevalent in the world than Christian creationism. In fact I personally know people who would rather boil their feet than be labelled as Christian fundamentalists but whom could accurately be described as believing in Intelligent Design of some vague sort. Creationists advocating ID for social reasons just get most of the press. Hence the ongoing conflation. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
As I said, my understanding is that that applies to different kinds of entities, not multiple instances of the same kind.
As Occam himself put it: "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem" (entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity). Straggler writes:
That isn't the topic here. We're considering the hypothetical if there is at least one designer.
Surely you agree that zero unevidenced designers is the most parsimonious proposition. This really is incontrovertible isn't it? Straggler writes:
Not at all. As I've already said, if we see design in the universe, that only points to the last cause, not the first. There could have been near-infinite generations of "causes". You know as well as I do that the term "designer" in this context is absolutely one and the same thing as the notion of a first cause creator of some kind. Some causes might have cooperated with each other. Some might have competed with each other. Some might be extinct. In the case of life on earth, we have evidence of common descent. In the case of phantom designers, we don't. If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Many in this thread are conflating the Intelligent Design movement with Intelligent Design as an explanatory proposition. I would argue that they are one in the same. The purpose of ID is to give a scientific veneer to dogmatically held religious beliefs. When you really push ID you always end up at the same place: It just looks designed because I think so. This is where the ID proponent started before looking at any of the evidence. Along the way you will stumble on arguments from ignorance and arguments from incredulity, but never arguments from positive evidence. The beginning of any ID investigation starts with a person's religious beliefs and never strays far from them.
ID as a position is not inherently Christian. But it is inherently creationist, no matter what the religious flavor is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
A scam to sell the Brooklyn Bridge correlates more closely to other scams than it does to the Brooklyn Bridge. The Intelligent Design movement is indisputably one and the same as the Christian fundamentalist creationist movement. They are the same people. And these creationists do themselves conflate ID and creationism for their own social purposes when it suits them. But that does not mean that ID and creationism are actually the same thing. If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
I have read your posts in this thread. I can't find any arguments against the validity of applying parsimony to the issue at hand. You have asserted that parsimony has "nothing to do with reality" but beyond that assertion you haven't said anything at all to counter the following: I think the point being made is that reality is not forced to follow rules of parsimony. In science, we are trying to model reality so we must be careful to recognize the fact that parsimony is only a rule of thumb, not a natural law. A good example of this is DNA phylogenies. The tools used to construct DNA phylogenies rely heavily on rules of parsimony. For example, a shared base at an orthologous position is assumed to be a direct result of inheritance from a common ancestor. The rules throw out the possibility that the base changed somewhere in the lineage and then changed back to the ancestral sequence. However, anyone doing these analyses will readily admit that reverse mutations can happen. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
SavageD Member (Idle past 3778 days) Posts: 59 From: Trinbago Joined:
|
Well If you take it from the view of similar design, it would probably make sense.
Example: if were to start my own line of designer clothes, for each garment I make I would probably leave my signature on it to symbolize that the garment was fashioned by me. It would then be natural to think that there was probably one designer or one mind behind the design upon seeing my signature left on my product. Similarly every living thing contains some sort of signature (eg. dna). Why does every living thing require dna, why not some other mechanism for information? Probably evidence for common design. The biological system also exhibits an intricate system (ecosystem). plants depend on insects & animalsanimals depend on insects & plants insects depend on animals & plants Every-things intertwined, if you remove one of these, the entire ecosystem falls apart. This would then be evidence for a common designer since there was probably common thought used in designing the system. It may be possible that there were more than one designers, but that would be undermining the principle at hand, "life as we know it was possibly designed". The amount of designers won't really matter.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
SavageD writes: Well If you take it from the view of similar design, it would probably make sense. Example: if were to start my own line of designer clothes, for each garment I make I would probably leave my signature on it to symbolize that the garment was fashioned by me. It would then be natural to think that there was probably one designer or one mind behind the design upon seeing my signature left on my product. Similarly every living thing contains some sort of signature (eg. dna). Why does every living thing require dna, why not some other mechanism for information? Probably evidence for common design. The biological system also exhibits an intricate system (ecosystem). plants depend on insects & animalsanimals depend on insects & plants insects depend on animals & plants Every-things intertwined, if you remove one of these, the entire ecosystem falls apart. This would then be evidence for a common designer since there was probably common thought used in designing the system. It may be possible that there were more than one designers, but that would be undermining the principle at hand, "life as we know it was possibly designed". The amount of designers won't really matter. How is the existence of DNA evidence of design at all? Why is the signature different on every critter? Edited by jar, : add question 2 Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
SavageD Member (Idle past 3778 days) Posts: 59 From: Trinbago Joined:
|
jar writes:
How is the existence of DNA evidence of design at all? Why is the signature different on every critter? I'm not here to argue about dna being evidence of design, however if you can prove to me how something as complex & intricate as dna could appear in nature purely through natural processes, I'll be happy to have a conversation with you on this matter. as to why the signature is different on every critter, my point is not the dna molecule on a whole but the mechanism for which it is used. For example: every individual has a certain dna structure however no two person may have the same exact dna; But the dna sequence may be used to determine skin color, eye color hair length, etc etc It is mainly the 'mechanism' for which it is used that represents the signature, not the mere presence of it in an organism. Why not use another way for determining phenotypes & genotypes? It would then be clear that there were more than one designers since no two people think the same. Edited by SavageD, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
SavageD writes: jar writes:
How is the existence of DNA evidence of design at all? Why is the signature different on every critter? I'm not here to argue about dna being evidence of design, however if you can prove to me how something as complex & intricate as dna could appear in nature purely through natural processes, I'll be happy to have a conversation with you on this matter. as to why the signature is different on every critter, my point is not the dna molecule on a whole but the mechanism for which it is used. For example: every individual has a certain dna structure however no two person may have the same exact dna; But the dna sequence may be used to determine skin color, eye color hair length, etc etc It is mainly the 'mechanism' for which it is used that represents the signature, not the mere presence of it in an organism. Why not use another way for determining phenotypes & genotypes? It would then be clear that there were more than one designers since no two people think the same. Again, that is not what you said. DNA is not the same, just as two peoples signature is not the same. The fact that their is a mechanism "DNA" does not offer any support that there is some designer, and in fact would support there being a different designer for each unique signature using your argument as presented above. Intelligent design is simply a really stupid idea and all the evidence shows that if there was some designer he is nothing but an on the job training apprentice who has not yet reached journeyman status. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Example: if were to start my own line of designer clothes, for each garment I make I would probably leave my signature on it to symbolize that the garment was fashioned by me. Sure - so that your product could be distinguished from products made by other designers. But what if you were the only person who had ever learned, or ever would learn. how to make clothes? Is there really still a need for you to "brand" your products? I mean, just the fact that they're clothes would be proof that you made them, because you're the only tailor who has ever existed and will ever exist. So, unless you're asserting a universe of polytheism, where gods are competing amongst themselves to produce organisms, there's no reason to expect the singular creator of all life on Earth to have signed anything.
Why does every living thing require dna, why not some other mechanism for information? Well, not every living thing requires DNA. There are RNA viruses, for instance, that have no DNA at all.
Every-things intertwined, if you remove one of these, the entire ecosystem falls apart. Not always. Hardly ever, in fact - ecologies are much more resilient than you've been led to believe. I mean, over Earth's history, more than 99% of all the species that have ever lived have gone extinct; if the removal of an element of an ecology was enough to collapse the entire ecosystem, there wouldn't be a surviving ecosystem on Earth. Countless billions of species have gone extinct without a trace, but ecosystems survive. Some niches are just too good to go unfilled.
The amount of designers won't really matter. Well, it does matter, because you've specified a common designer. That can only be consistent with one designer - if one designer designed this, and another designer designed that, then this and that can't be said to have a common designer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
SavageD writes:
Because of common descent. You have ears because your parents had ears. Why does every living thing require dna, why not some other mechanism for information? Whales, humans and bats have the same hand structure because of common descent, not because it makes any sense to "design" them that way. Human designers don't build submarines, cars and aircraft on the same frame. The fact that there are different eye structures in squid and humans, for example, suggests that if they were designed, it was probably by different departments with poor communication between them. If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 331 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
I'm not here to argue about dna being evidence of design, however if you can prove to me how something as complex & intricate as dna could appear in nature purely through natural processes, I'll be happy to have a conversation with you on this matter. amino acids are made by combining a few basic "chemichals2 and some electricity. You get whole oceans full of these amino acids the amino acids combine to build a very simple self replicating molecule when these molecules replicate sometimes they dont copy themselves 100% accurately lets say the first molecule is actt it can survive long enough to copy itself but that is about itacct worse combination it dies acttc better combination makes more copies of itself before it dies continuation of this trend this molecule eventually makes a shell around itself to protect itself allowing the molecule to copy itself many times more before it dies then the basic actt molecule some might call this molecule alive cause it looks like a verry basic cell some call the molecule itself alive cause it looks like a verry basic virus the process contiues for 3.5 billion years and some of these one celled lifeforms become multicelluar life forms the plants went on to dry land first cause it was easier for them they got1 new space and no "predators" to eat them so they spread realy fast, after that the others came on land ........ And all of this by mutation of the dna molecule that is observed measurable and testable and natural selection just turn on animal planet and you can see natural selection Whats your "theory"? magic man dun it?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024