|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why only one Designer | |||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
These materials couldn't simply have always been there....there had to be a process whereby these materials came about Nope, they weren't always there, and the processes by which they came about are generally understood and taught within even an introductory physics course. Take at look at the Wikipedia article on the Timeline of the Big Bang. It may have some technical inaccuracies and poor analogies, but it should help you understand some of the basics of the Big Bang.
What caused this 'bang' / explosion? Also a silly philosophical inquiry that has no real scientific significance. There's no evidence of anything 'before' the bang; as such, there's no evidence of anything that 'caused' it.
Personally I look at the ecosystem as a sign of common thought, which is a typical sign of a common designer. And this remains your personal delusion, one for which you've yet to offer any supporting evidence. Is there any reason at all that science should take your delusion seriously?
water -> plants -> insects & animals Remove anyone of these (on a whole) and the entire system falls. Fortunately: a) Evolution isn't concerned with the origin of life itself, andb) No sane scientist anywhere has suggested that life first evolved before Earth had water Interesting, just as one would ask, if there is a god who created this god? No, only a Creationist who assumes that everything needs a Magic Creating Fairy would ask that. Jon Edited by Jon, : clarity Edited by Jon, : conventions Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
... the main ID proponents (e.g. Dembski) try to argue for positive evidence of design rather than arguing for negative evidence (lack of scientific explanations). But those arguments are also arguments from ignorance/incredulity: we can't see a way this could arise naturally, thus it was designed. IC and SC (the basic support pillars of the entire ID position) are nothing more than arguments from ignorance/incredulity. So I disagree with you that an ID proponent has ever seriously attempted to present positive evidence for design; they do no such thing, because they need no such evidencethey already have all the Answerstm. Jon Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
As I said, they are trying to make positive arguments for design. You are just re-stating a "negative evidence" argument. That's not what they are trying to do. Could you provide an instance or two of an IDist providing positive evidence of design? Jon Edited by Jon, : grammar Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
These hypothesis aren't even testable, so how then can they even begin to understand them? Perhaps you can show how they aren't testable. Many of the Big Bang predictions have been tested and verified (CMBR, for example).
Well...where did these processes come from? Like I said, that's a meaningless pseudo-philosophical question. There is no evidence for a 'before' the Bang; there is no evidence of a 'where' that the processes could have come from.
anything which a exhibits some level(s) of functionality(ies), intricacy / complexity & structural integrity both on the physically observable level(s) & sub-system level(s) are all products of design since we can observe that such objects are near impossible to come about through chance. Except that: a) No one claims that complex life forms came about by chance, andb) All evidence indicates that the complex 'structural integrity both on the physically observable level(s) & sub-system level(s)' arose through completely natural processes and not by design for example, a watch. The watch is irrelevant. Before watches there were sundials; even designs evolve.
Thats many a reason to take the concept of design seriously Those reasons have all been considered, seriously, for hundreds of years. Folk have taken them into account repeatedly. The conclusion? Those reasons don't actually matter; the evidence says there was no designer.
I'm talking about the ecosystem here, not the origin of life...in 'b' you make no sense either, wtf were talking about o.o?...were you attempting to quote mine? Your argument that life cannot be sustained without water is not a counter argument to evolution, because evolution: a) Does not concern itself with how life originated, andb) Does not posit that living things existed on Earth before there was water And of course, water does not rely on life for its existence. You're just trying to sell a varnished version of the old IC argument; except that the things you mention as IC are clearly not irreducible, as parts of them can exist perfectly fine without the whole. But, to move this back to the topic: for the sake of this thread, we've all agreed to assume that life was designed. The next task, then, is to figure out how many designers there were. Do you have any reasons for us assuming one designer over multiples? Back in Message 142, we had this exchange:
quote: As you seem to have more time on your hands now, perhaps you'd be able to clear that up for me. Jon Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
The optimal number of a human design team is between 4 and 12. In ID, 'designer' encompasses planning and construction; that includes the design team and all the workers on the factory floor. Based on the analogy used by IDists, the number of designers for the Universe should be well over 12. Jon Edited by Jon, : clarity Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
So how many designers of the universe would you put forward as the evidenced conclusion then Jon? Don't know. Like I said, though, well over 12. Not that it matters, of course, since any amount of designers more than one is enough to make the ID/Creo argument untenable to the religious monotheist wishing to use the ID/Creo argument as evidence of their god. But, if we are interested in determining a more precise figure for the number of designers, I did propose a method that might help us do that earlier in the thread:
quote: Jon Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Is there any number of human designers who could have designed the universe? Likely, not sure though. But ID/Creo does not posit a human designer. Jon Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
So on what basis is it being argued that more than one designer is the evidenced conclusion here? I already offered up one of the possible paths to that conclusion:
quote: And that's only part of it. As part of the ID/Creo argument relies on comparisons to things known to be designed, the most reasonable conclusion to draw from their argument is that other designed things (life and such as they would argue) were designed similarly to the things known to be designed. And how were those known designs designed? By a shit load of designers, that's how. So, these are two reasons why the ID/Creo argument from 'designed' to 'only one designer' breaks down; even though it only would take one to prove the argument invalid. Now, I'm sure there are many more ways to demonstrate the invalidity of this argument, but damnit, Straggler, are you really going to make ringo and me point out every single one of them? Jon Edited by Jon, : R → PG Edited by Jon, : clarity Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Okay, Straggler; that's nice. Do you have any comments on the actual topic?
Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Jon writes: Do you have any comments on the actual topic? Yes I do. The premise of it is flawed. So that's a 'no', then. Good to know. No more need to waste time replying to Straggler. Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
I dispute this whole line of argumentation. In contrast to zebras and unicorns, a solitary designer can belong to a population and still be a solitary designer. So, population size need not be a consideration for designers at all. It really has nothing to do with 'populations', though. Everything we know of comes in plurals; the only things that do not come in plurals are those things that cannot be plural by definition (the center of a particular circle, for example). Unless the IDists/Creos can show why a designer of life must be singular by definition, or present evidence that only one designer was at work, then there is little reason to conclude as much; we'd be better sticking with the default of 'where there is one designer, there is bound to be more'.
Without considering the actual evidence yet, I would conclude that, in principle, one designer is more parsimonious than two designers. Ringo's argument still stands. Nevertheless, I've introduced a method that we might be able to use to determine the number of designers:
quote: I think if you run through the steps, you'll find it quite impossible to hold to both the position that life was designed and the position that there was only one designer. The two views are simply not compatible given the evidence. Jon Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
In the absence of any specifics about the designer any comment about the number of designers is necessarily based on additional assumptions. It is good to see that you have come to understand ringo's argument. So what's your objection? Jon Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Some ID advocates posit that life was probably created by one designer due to noticed similarities & possible signatures (dna etc); Also the observation that this planet is the only one containing lifeforms (to date)....However all this is personal preference. Sorry, but evidenced conclusions are not a matter of personal preference, unless one is to throw out the entire scientific method. If the supposed similarities point to a single designer, then they point to a single designer, and a single designer should be the preferred conclusion based on that evidence. If the supposed similarities are not enough to point to a single designer, then they are not enough to point to a single designer, and those preferring a single designer conclusion would be scientifically unjustified in doing so.
The number of designers are irrelevant. This is not the stance of the typical IDist. Most insist on the singularity of the designer. Few would admit that such an insistence is based on 'personal preference' or a priori conclusions about the nature of the designer. This thread is for those who insist that the evidence for design points to a single designer to support that stance. Interestingly, no creationists holding to this position (there are many on these forums) have come forward to attempt to support such a position. I wonder what that should tell us... Jon Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
The main argument for ID is that "life originated because it was created." Where in that statement does it state a number of designers? For most IDists, the singularity of the designer is an integral part of the 'theory'.
Clearly I'm different Clearly.
Most ID advocates posit the one designer scenario for a number of reasons: noticed similarities (common design) & possible signatures (dna etc); The observation that this planet is the only one containing lifeforms (to date). The intricacy of the ecosystem (Organisms depend on each other). The stasis of different taxonomic groups etc etc etc seriously I can go on and on about this. As I already said:
quote: When it comes to science, evidenced conclusions are not a matter of 'personal preference'. The evidence either supports the notion of a single designer or it does not. Which is it? Jon Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Ignoring your tautological quotation, I would say the evidence mainly points to a single designer... Excellent! Now present that evidence. Edited by Jon, : quoting error Love your enemies!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024