|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Constraints of Design | |||||||||||||||||||||||
dogrelata Member (Idle past 5333 days) Posts: 201 From: Scotland Joined: |
onfire writes: I guess I may have misunderstood the OP, I though a 'Designer' was aleady established. I accept the wording in the OP is a little ambiguous, but when I used the phrase “what design constraints did the intelligent designer have to work with in formulating its ”grand design’?”, it was aimed squarely at those who have already concluded that they detect ID within nature, not the membership as a whole.
onfire writes: So I was not proposing a Designer based off of evidence that I have seen, I thought you said there was a Designer and what in nature can give evidence that said Designer has constraints. Similarly, I am asking IDers what constraints, or otherwise, they see when they examine what they conclude is evidence of ID within nature. I hope this helps ”unmuddy’ the waters a little.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dogrelata Member (Idle past 5333 days) Posts: 201 From: Scotland Joined: |
I’m going away for a few days, so I’d like to propose a definition of design, based on observations of what we know of things that are universally accepted as being the product of design by ”intelligent’ entities, i.e. Homo sapiens.
Design is the process of modifying pre-existing elements, forms, processes or knowledge and ideas. Based on what we observe, design does not involve the ”creation’ of new basic elements or processes, e.g. we see no evidence of any designs that ”reverse’ gravity from an ”attracting’ to a ”repelling’ force. The above is no more than a proposal to try to start the ball rolling. Doubtless others will have very different ideas.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ikabod Member (Idle past 4514 days) Posts: 365 From: UK Joined: |
i would add that design has a fixed goal ....it is not a case of lets mix A with B and see what we get .. it is i want to have C , and i can define what C is , to a greater or lesser degree ...
put another way design starts with a target and has a end point the route to that target may or may not have limits due to the nature of the target ,but othwerwise a open .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2498 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
onifre writes: I don't suppost ID, nor the idea of a required Designer, however, I would say that intervention by a Designer doesn't necessarily have to be visable, nor understandable, to 1 specific species, in 1 particular corner of the universe. The intervention may be completely un-noticable and thus no evidence for intervention would ever be seen. Of course, a light touch designer could be undetectable, but that's not the claim of the I.D. movement which is, obviously, attempting to present evidence for design. The modern I.D. claim is founded on pointing to details that they claim actually do break the constraints of nature in their existence but not the way in which they function. So, if the claim is made for the human eye that it could not be produced without the intervention of an intelligent designer, this raises the question of why the designer broke constraints by designing it, but didn't bother to do so in its function, and enable us to magically see what's behind our heads.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2972 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
ikabod writes: put another way design starts with a target and has a end point Just to play devil's advocate, what if the design was an evolutionary program? The target would be evolved species, however, with no specific design in mind. I know we are talknig about design as per the ID movement but they don't seem to be engaging in any debate on this thread so, I thought I'd strike up any kind of debate. "All great truths begin as blasphemies" "I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks "I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5611 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
You just have to take the literal meaning of it. So this information theoretician derived the universal alphabet from nature, just like for instance the chart of all chemicals was derived. So then looking in terms of this alphabet it's discovered that the order of people's language and DNA is similar.
So that basically means that rather then that DNA is just an instruction set, it also occasions decisionmaking processes in development to adulthood. So the language of DNA is not just like -make the eyeball in the socket there, put a lens on it, but it is also like; -make a beautiful eyeball there, fantastic good going, now go and make a crystal clear lens on it. So there are qualifiers in DNA language which indeterministicly regulate decisionmaking processes that are involved with development.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4211 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
So this information theoretician who is that?
derived the universal alphabet from nature, what, might i ask is that? There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5611 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
BCS, The Chartered Institute for IT | BCS
talking about DNA "where A = T delivers the new symbol, which maybe a single character, a subset alphabet or an entire alphabet. That is, it represents the create operation, so that by contrast GC symbolizes the conserve operation, which examines/proof-reads all symbols currently in existence to ensure no anomalies exist as a consequence of the bringing into existence of the new symbol. This rule must therefore verify/maintain the conservation of 3 dimensional chemical structural stability" The universal alphabet is based on the zero, and all tracing back to zero. For example from 0 and 1, we get 00,01,10,11. The 00 traces back to zero, and the 01 traces back to zero through its counterpart 10. But then 11 does not trace back to zero so it is just expressive, occasioning decisionmaking. So the instruction set part of DNA is in terms of 00,01 and 10, and this tracing back to zero enables seeing if development is going according to design in DNA, which leaves the 11 combination to occasion decisionmaking for when there is no exact design.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4211 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
The article is fine but what does it have to do with whether a designer exists or not.?
There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3665 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
The article is fine Oh bluescat, you crack me up... I'm assuming by 'fine' what you mean is 'usual crank bullshit'?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Please stop posting in this thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ikabod Member (Idle past 4514 days) Posts: 365 From: UK Joined: |
Just to play devil's advocate, what if the design was an evolutionary program? The target would be evolved species, however, with no specific design in mind. hmm i would call that experimentation not design ..you mix a bunch of things together and see what happens ...you start with a bamboo forest and see what appears there ... where as with Design .. you would go .. i need a creature to eat bamboo and then design a giant panda ...or start with a panda and design bamboo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dogrelata Member (Idle past 5333 days) Posts: 201 From: Scotland Joined: |
onfire writes: I know we are talknig about design as per the ID movement but they don't seem to be engaging in any debate on this thread so, I thought I'd strike up any kind of debate. Yip, it doesn’t look like the IDers are coming out to play. But I suppose their whole strategy is based on a guerrilla campaign of black propaganda - attacking evolutionary theory and offering nothing in return that can be subjected to even the most cursory of observation, let alone the scrutiny of scientific rigour. It looks like this debate is about to die on its feet.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2972 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
ikabod writes: you mix a bunch of things together and see what happens I mean something a bit more sophisticated than that, something like Richard Dawkins' Biomorph Land Program, Kevin Kelly -- Chapter 14: In the Library of Form
quote: quote: quote: Those where just a few quotes, the whole article explains it in detail. But, what im interested in is the comparison of a program like Biomorph Land to something like what we experience on Earth. It could very well be a designed program...even though I know that is a far fetched idea, but it does fit the profile of an evolutionary program. Thoughts anyone??? "All great truths begin as blasphemies" "I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks "I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2897 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
All quotes from dogrelata:
For the first time in some months, I’ve managed to find a little time to check out some of the current topics that go towards making this forum so fascinating. One thing doesn’t seem to have changed much though - evolutionists are still asking IDers to produce evidence to substantiate their claims, and still no evidence appears. Do I detect some cockiness in this statement? "Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall."
Indeed, on a couple of occasions I have asked IDers to personally ask their ”prime suspect’ for ”IDer in chief’ how it formulated its grand design. Not surprisingly, I have had no positive responses. As somebody who sees no evidence for the existence of supernatural entities, I predict no such positive response will ever be forthcoming. Another falsified theory. In the beginning God.... In the beginning was the word....(word=logos, the same word we use for logic). God formulated His grand design in His mind with His logic. Then He spoke and things came into existence. Matter. Lots of it. We know for a fact that matter can be created from energy. We know for a fact that there must be an infinite power source in the beginning before the BB. Science has recognized these things.
However, it does not follow that non-IDers should give up on the quest to try to illicit some kind of response from the ID lobby, beyond the perfunctory, “we don’t think natural processes can explain this, therefore it must have been designed”. I don't think your quotation is correct. I would argue that "we know that natural processes cannot do certain things, therefore it must have been designed."
They have chosen to draw one inference from the analogy, but surely there are other questions raised by it that require addressing. For example, by analysing the watch in much greater detail, much can be learned about the design (and production) processes, as well as the materials that were used, etc, not to mention the amount of design knowledge that existed at the time the design was formulated. These might all be seen as design constraints placed upon designers whenever they look to design and produce anything. So the first question might be, based on what IDers have observed of the designs they perceive in nature, what design constraints did the intelligent designer have to work with in formulating its ”grand design’? Specifically, what design knowledge was available to it? What materials were available to it? Where did these materials come from? God is all knowing. So He knew all design knowledge. No materials were available in the beginning. God created the materials through His infinite power. No poof. No magic. Simple physics.
At this point the ID lobby tends to go on the offensive by attacking evolutionary theory without a backward glance to the analogy that underpins the intelligent design argument. By the current definition of nature, there is no possibility of the supernatural. So God is not supernatural. He is natural. It is just a matter of definition.
Indeed, the very reason that things need to be designed and then produced is because they cannot be ”magiced’ into existence - evidence of design is in itself evidence of the designer having to work within the constraints of the reality they inhabit and is a clear pointer to the designer having no ”supernatural’ or ”magical’ powers. God is against magic. He says so in His scripture. God did not use magic. He used physics. There is nothing magical about converting energy to matter.
So the second question would be, do IDers accept the proposition that evidence of design within natural processes would point to a designer working within the constraints imposed upon them by their environment and the lack of any ”supernatural’ or ”magical’ powers on the part of said designer? God does not use magic. His power is unconstrained. Infinite. By the current definition of nature, God is not supernatural. He is natural. PS. I use the term "God", because He has been identified by the legal community and the scientific community as the intelligent designer. So why not call the intelligent designer by name?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024