|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is there a legitimate argument for design? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
taiji2 Member (Idle past 3491 days) Posts: 124 From: Georgia, USA Joined: |
taiji2 writes: I dismiss psychology as subjective because it deals with the interpretation of ideas and their effect on the patient which I do not find relevant in the argument for ID. If I have a misconception as to what psychology is, I apologize - my understanding of the field is limited to a lay perspective. Dr. Absolute writes: I think you may be confusing psychology with psychoanalysis. I stand corrected. Does that make psychology any more relevant in the discussion of evolution? If there is a relevancy there, then of course psychology can contribute.
taiji writes: What I can argue is that within the context of a discussion of ID, things would be much more clear if a science existed within which to argue the validity of an Original Design Idea. I can argue that if science has not made an effort to study ideas as a real phenomena then science such as evolution should not be very comfortable that their theories are falsifiable. Dr. Absolute writes: Suppose someone criticizes the theory of gravity by saying "No, actually it's love that makes the planets go round". People reply by pointing out that the theory of gravity works just fine, is supported by observation, and that his "love" hypothesis needs some work, like any sort of real substance or predictive power. So, Am I reading you right that you are dismissing everything I have said out of hand on the basis of your love hypothesis? Remember I had disclaimers that such a science might have no value, may not be possible, etc.. I also said such a science might be necessary to take the ID question from endless debate into final, scientifically derived conclusion. Everything I said was within the context of ID which is what we are talking about on this thread, not love. If I was not clear, let me try again. Every faith based theory works with some flavor of notion that an original design is involved. Some flavors allow for evolution, some don't. But ALL have the notion of an original idea. Now if the argument for a science to determine the truths of ideas is not pertinent to this discussion then what is?
Dr. Absolute writes: "Aha!" he replies. "Exactly! My hypothesis has massive holes in it. For one thing, we don't have an objective science of love as a real phenomenon in nature. Until we have that, how can you dismiss my hypothesis? How can you be comfortable that your ideas are falsifiable? How can such a discussion be declared closed if a science of love is possible but not pursued?" I am pretty sure this has been asked and answered, and I have no conceded no massive holes. As for my ideas being falsifiable.Would the proposition of a complex DNA molecule frontloaded for evolution at the spark of life be falsifiable to you (design not mentioned)? If so, I will have to get back to you on the falsifiability of design in that molecule. I am not a scientist, but my recollection is that many theories have a statistical dependency. If statistical dependency is valid, then I would presume the hypothesis would seek a statistical resolution to the question of whether it would be more statistically valid that design explain at spark of life a complex molecule frontloaded for evolution rather than a chance event in the primordial soup. In any event, if the hypothesis of the front loaded molecule is not falsifiable on its own, please tell me why.
Dr. Absolute writes: At this juncture we might point out that the holes in his hypothesis are not a problem for our theory, and then maybe throw things at him. Don't concede holes in theory. And, if there are... my hypothetical scientists which science has seen fit to withhold, and who are much smarter than me, would be much more fit to answer your questions.Please don't throw things at me. I am doing the best I can.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
and you could say "Oh, well, it's not my place to argue why the designer, in his infinite wisdom, chose to do that." Reminds me of one of my favoritie quotes. I think I saw it first here at EvC, so credit goes to somebody for passing along this gem. "[They say] "We do not know how this is, but we know that God can do it." You poor fools! God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so." William Of Conches
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
taiji2 Member (Idle past 3491 days) Posts: 124 From: Georgia, USA Joined: |
Tangle writes: taietc writes:That's two. How many do you need? Only one actually. But you need to make it good. Something exhibiting total chaos with nothing that could be mistaken for design down to the subatomic level would be a good one to start with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
taietc writes: Only one actually. But you need to make it good. Something exhibiting total chaos with nothing that could be mistaken for design down to the subatomic level would be a good one to start with. So two examples from the real, everyday, understandable world is one too many. You now want a single sub-atomic, chaotic example of life? You'll be muttering the words 'quantum uncertainty' next and talking knowledgeably of sonic screwdrivers and teleport machines. Have a thought for what you're saying. Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4451 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.0
|
If they can't be viewed as damaged good design (like a bent muffler on a car?), then they should indeed be viewed as reeking of sophisticated design. You seem to be setting a pretty high threshold with your "reeking of sophisticated design." When we look closely at almost any biological system in an organism we can point out design flaws. Those flaws reek of un-sophisticated design. What we see is mostly just barely good enough to survive and reproduce design. Evolution has to work with what it has so its design is whatever works is good enough. Considering that the vast majority of the species that have lived on this planet are extinct, their design clearly does not reek of sophisticated design. Many of those extinct species left descendant species, so their just good enough design was passed on, but in modified form.
not my place to argue why the architect put the sewer so close to the playground. I don't expect you to understand the mind of your sophisticated designer, I am just pointing out an example of less than sophisticated design, which is what you asked for.What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3991 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 6.9
|
taiji2 writes: Something exhibiting total chaos with nothing that could be mistaken for design down to the subatomic level would be a good one to start with. With you as the arbiter, of course: you see the problem with that, I'm sure. Similarly, I can challenge you to present one piece of evidence that confounds evolution or atheism or anything else--and I'll let you know when you've succeeded. You wouldn't hold your breath, would you? In my experience, proponents of ID find design everywhere; it may, like the human knee or lipid processes, be very poor design, but it's embraced as design nonetheless. How could anyone present something to you that you won't perceive as apparently designed? You are asking your debate opponents to confound your well-established subjective judgment. That's one reason science does not deal with appearances, but looks much deeper, to where the evidence can be not only perceived but demonstrated, and that demonstration replicated by others. Tell you what: you prove to me that chaos is the only alternative to design, and then I'll demonstrate some undesigned chaos."If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Something exhibiting total chaos with nothing that could be mistaken for design ... So now we're down to "nothing that could be mistaken for design"? That's a tall order, people can be pretty darn mistaken when it comes to design.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4451 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
But you need to make it good. Something exhibiting total chaos with nothing that could be mistaken for design down to the subatomic level would be a good one to start with. Good one. So basically you are saying that everything with any order to it is designed? And anything that occurred naturally without design will exhibit total chaos? Way to stack the deck. I'm not a particle physicist, but I thought everything at the subatomic level was chaotic.What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
taiji2 Member (Idle past 3491 days) Posts: 124 From: Georgia, USA Joined: |
Taiji2 writes: Not my place to argue why the architect put the sewer so close to the playground. Taq writes: You can't ask someone to point to bad design, and then produce an excuse of why no one is allowed to judge designs. Whoa.......... please. I took your post as jest. Omniverous mentioned people having fun here on the forum. I thought you were doing that and I was participating. There is an old dirty joke that has floated around for many years. The joke is simply the question "Why did God design woman with the sewer so close to the playground". This joke is what I thought you were referencing. I see now not everyone has heard it. It appears that your question was a serious one. First, I don't recall asking anyone to point to bad design. Looking back at what I said, I believe what I asked for was something that was not sophistidated design. Are we going to jump over now to a similar debate on what sophisticated is? And, just to head off any future questions of a similar nature, nothing in MY model of design argues for a perfect creator reaching perfect creation. I argue only that design occurred. Future questions on quality of design I will have to respond as asked and answered.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I stand corrected. Does that make psychology any more relevant in the discussion of evolution? If there is a relevancy there, then of course psychology can contribute. I only pointed out that psychology would qualify as a science of ideas. The relevance you must decide for yourself.
I also said such a science might be necessary to take the ID question from endless debate into final, scientifically derived conclusion. Everything I said was within the context of ID which is what we are talking about on this thread, not love. The thing about love is an analogy. If ID needs some science of ideas, and if we don't have such a science, that would be a problem with ID, not with evolution. Just as it's not a flaw in the theory of gravity that someone can claim that love makes the world go round and yet not have an objective scientific theory of love. That would be his problem, it wouldn't be a problem for physicists.
Now if the argument for a science to determine the truths of ideas is not pertinent to this discussion then what is? As I pointed out, science does almost nothing but determine the truth of ideas, that's what it's for.
I am pretty sure this has been asked and answered, and I have no conceded no massive holes. It seems to me that that's implicit in what you're saying, though. ID, you say, conceives of "the notion of an original idea". We don't have an "objective science" of ideas, you say. This makes ID hard to study, you say. In your words "such a science might be necessary to take the ID question from endless debate into final, scientifically derived conclusion". This is the basis of your argument. Well, if you are right then you have identified a flaw in ID, something that ID is lacking that might elevate it from vague speculation to the status of a scientific hypothesis or a theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi again taiji2
I'll reply to a couple posts to cut down on the load of replies you are receiving.
The question already asked is what does this rather abstruse line of questioning have to do with Intelligent Design. The answer is: What is design if not an idea. If, therefore, the scientific community has not addressed, studied, and developed supportable theory about ideas, the scope of study required to form any conclusions in the ID debate is flawed. Curiously, I feel that you have this a bit out of place - I do not consider ID to be a scientific pursuit but a philosophical one, one that employs science in order to understand the design. See Is ID properly pursued? ... My challenge to you is to show me anything in nature that doesn't reek of sophisticated design. ... The human eye. You can show me why you think it "reeks of sophisticated design" and I can show you why it isn't -- the key being an appreciation of what "sophisticated design" actually entails. Note that I am a designer by profession. See Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy... especially Message 4 Message 380: I don't mind being perfectly clear where I am coming from. I am not a Christian, nor do I believe in any of the Abrahimic dogma. I was raised a Baptist, but discarded that notion early in life. I have dabbled with the eastern religions and have settled on the Taoist cosmology as the one which most closely fits my acceptable worldview: in a nutshell... an Original Self Awareness (with ideas if you will) creating from Wu Chi (nothingness) the Tai Chi (duality) and from the Tai Chi all things. Nothing is said about the mechanisms for doing thus. Have you considered Deism? See my sig ...
Core Taoism really doesn't have a dogma (temple Taoism does, but that is not what I read). Their cosmological view is simple and very non-restrictive. Evolution fits nicely within it, if you can get used to the idea that there is a primordial intelligence and that it had some agency in bringing something forth out of nothing. And I agree. Of course it also includes the concept that all is illusion ... which doesn't get you far in scientific investigations ...
Message 382: And I would argue you are right and so am I. My model sees evolution within ID. No conflicts there. ... Indeed. again see Is ID properly pursued? Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : dbcodeby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
taiji2 writes: My challenge to you is to show me anything in nature that doesn't reek of sophisticated design. Coyote writes: The human knee. I presume this was a joke. It made me smile. If not, I strongly disagree. We are down to opinions I think. No, this was not a joke. I am once again on crutches for a bad knee, and hoping the other one can hold on while this one heals. I can't remember how many of my friends have had knee replacement--now that this remedy is possible. One had a bad experience during the first operation and spent 15 days in a coma, but went right back to get the other knee replaced. The "design" was that bad. There is no way I can accept that the human knee can possibly be argued as an example of intelligent design, or even good design. On the other hand, the knee is a perfect example of evolution in action--a "just barely adequate" solution to the transition from quadrupedal to bipedal locomotion.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
I think at this point some evidence on genetic networks and how they are derived might be of help.
Here is an excellent on-line lecture: Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices, by Professor Garrett Odell (University of Washington). Abstract: Mathematical computer models of two ancient and famous genetic networks act early in embryos of many different species to determine the body plan. Models revealed these networks to be astonishingly robust, despite their 'unintelligent design.' This examines the use of mathematical models to shed light on how biological, pattern-forming gene networks operate and how thoughtless, haphazard, non-design produces networks whose robustness seems inspired, begging the question what else unintelligent non-design might be capable of. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
taiji2 Member (Idle past 3491 days) Posts: 124 From: Georgia, USA Joined: |
taiji2 writes: taietc writes:Only one actually. But you need to make it good. Something exhibiting total chaos with nothing that could be mistaken for design down to the subatomic level would be a good one to start with. Tangle writes: So two examples from the real, everyday, understandable world is one too many. You now want a single sub-atomic, chaotic example of life? You'll be muttering the words 'quantum uncertainty' next and talking knowledgeably of sonic screwdrivers and teleport machines. Have a thought for what you're saying. I am sorry. I seem to have offended you somehow. Perhaps you think I was making a spurious remark. Let me explain and hopefully you will understand why I should not have asked for less. My particular belief system is that the universe(s) and all wihin are parts of a single entity which for lack of a better word is called the Tao. I wrote this in previous post 380: ...........................I don't mind being perfectly clear where I am coming from. I am not a Christian, nor do I believe in any of the Abrahimic dogma. I was raised a Baptist, but discarded that notion early in life. I have dabbled with the eastern religions and have settled on the Taoist cosmology as the one which most closely fits my acceptable worldview: in a nutshell... an Original Self Awareness (with ideas if you will) creating from Wu Chi (nothingness) the Tai Chi (duality) and from the Tai Chi all things. Nothing is said about the mechanisms for doing thus. Core Taoism really doesn't have a dogma (temple Taoism does, but that is not what I read). Their cosmological view is simple and very non-restrictive. Evolution fits nicely within it, if you can get used to the idea that there is a primordial intelligence and that it had some agency in bringing something forth out of nothing.My Taoist cosmology believes that this resulted from a self-aware singularity................... Now, my belief system is that everything came from nothing. Everything was brought from nothing by an intelligence (presumably based on an idea or design). Everything from nothing includes all matter, even that at the sub-atomic level. I believe that design goes down to the subatomic level. That is the reason for the example I suggested. I fully expected others to give examples like you suggest, everyday stuff. I also had a reasonable expectation that I might get examples at the molecular level or lower. I was simply covering the most all-inclusive base before being asked. It was an effort to save time, not a spurious remark. I hope this helps
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
taiji2 Member (Idle past 3491 days) Posts: 124 From: Georgia, USA Joined: |
taiji2 writes:
My challenge to you is to show me anything in nature that doesn't reek of sophisticated design. Coyote writes:
The human knee. Coyote writes: No, this was not a joke. I am once again on crutches for a bad knee, and hoping the other one can hold on while this one heals. I can't remember how many of my friends have had knee replacement--now that this remedy is possible. One had a bad experience during the first operation and spent 15 days in a coma, but went right back to get the other knee replaced. The "design" was that bad. There is no way I can accept that the human knee can possibly be argued as an example of intelligent design, or even good design. On the other hand, the knee is a perfect example of evolution in action--a "just barely adequate" solution to the transition from quadrupedal to bipedal locomotion. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against. Coyote, i am truly sorry. No harm intended. My knees are occasionally bad. I try to keep my selse of humor about them. Shouldn't have assumed such with you. I am two for two screwups mistaking something else for humor. Going forward I will assume nothing is tongue in cheek and will reply with all seriousness. As an answer to you, I have other posts which state that evolution is within my belief system. I just don't believe it is all random mutation.Given that, your opinion that knees are flawed design through evolution is not inconsistent with my belief.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024