Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is a Concept of a Designer unscientific?
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 16 of 26 (147438)
10-05-2004 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by agnostic
10-05-2004 7:56 AM


quote:
This forum is dominated by a dozen, sharp thinking scholars, who will put you down you and call you ignorant if you think out of their highly scientific mind-set.
Hmm, considering that this topic is entitled "Is a Concept of a Designer unscientific?", perhaps it is not so shocking that we would be discussing issues using "the scientific mindset"?
quote:
This is only you first post and you've already been insulted by "betraying a staggering ignorance of scientific method" How rude and unwelcoming!
It was a direct statement to be sure. It was also true. However the OP was not stated in tentative terms, especially. Not everyone who is a newbie here is a newbie to the debate.
quote:
For someone who has made an average of 10 posts a day for 17 months (yes over 6000) I would expect a little more consideration for a newbie.
I think the responses have been, by and large, perfectly fine and appropriate for a debate forum such as this. Could they have been gentler? Perhaps. I don't think they were out of line, however.
quote:
A designer could be considered scientific if "he" fine tuned the universal constants/ laws of physics, i.e. the speed of light, the mass of sub atomic particles, the number of atoms, the strenght of gravity etc.
This is nonsensical, really.
If a Designer/god was responsible for the nature of the universe, it dosn't mean it is observable, testable, nor falsifiable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by agnostic, posted 10-05-2004 7:56 AM agnostic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by agnostic, posted 10-08-2004 9:15 AM nator has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 17 of 26 (147610)
10-05-2004 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by nator
10-05-2004 9:38 AM


...and depending upon the lighting angle, it doesn't even look designed:
that's the best you could do?
like most arguments of design, it is not only unprovable, but you have to squint your eyes a little to even see it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by nator, posted 10-05-2004 9:38 AM nator has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 18 of 26 (147612)
10-05-2004 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by agnostic
10-05-2004 7:56 AM


This is only you first post and you've already been insulted by "betraying a staggering ignorance of scientific method" How rude and unwelcoming!
If someone had serious misconceptions about the prosecution of the scientific method, what would you call it but ignorance?
You seem to think that's a dirty word. I disagree. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, I may be ignorant, but you're ugly. But I can always study.
For someone who has made an average of 10 posts a day for 17 months (yes over 6000) I would expect a little more consideration for a newbie.
When folks roll in and ask honest questions, I'm invariably polite, to such an extent that people wonder what the fuck is wrong with me.
But when folks roll in and act like the know everything, when it's obvious they don't, then I don't feel particularly inclined to cut them a lot of slack. She knew the risks of acting like a know-it-all; namely, that people who do know way more than you won't take kindly to it.
This message has been edited by crashfrog, 10-05-2004 04:10 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by agnostic, posted 10-05-2004 7:56 AM agnostic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by agnostic, posted 10-08-2004 9:19 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
agnostic
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 26 (148281)
10-08-2004 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by nator
10-05-2004 9:53 AM


quote:
quote:
A designer could be considered scientific if "he" fine tuned the universal constants/ laws of physics, i.e. the speed of light, the mass of sub atomic particles, the number of atoms, the strenght of gravity etc.
This is nonsensical, really.
You are quite right, let me make another point...
Currently there is not, and there never will be a scientific test to conclude with 100% certainty that our universe was not designed. Therefore, the concept of a designer is highly unscientific - i.e. completely magical. (I don't beleive in magic because defies the laws of physics)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by nator, posted 10-05-2004 9:53 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by nator, posted 10-10-2004 11:28 AM agnostic has not replied

  
agnostic
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 26 (148284)
10-08-2004 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by crashfrog
10-05-2004 5:09 PM


point taken
Crashfrog,
I clearly jumped to the wrong conclusions by viewing only 1 of your replies.
apologies for the unjustified criticism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by crashfrog, posted 10-05-2004 5:09 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 21 of 26 (148874)
10-10-2004 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by agnostic
10-08-2004 9:15 AM


quote:
Currently there is not, and there never will be a scientific test to conclude with 100% certainty that our universe was not designed.
True, but meaningless for several reasons;
1) There is not and never will be a scientific test that will allow us to conclude anything with 100% certainty.
2) You cannot ever prove a negative.
quote:
Therefore, the concept of a designer is highly unscientific - i.e. completely magical. (I don't beleive in magic because defies the laws of physics)
Well, the concept of a designer could be quite scientific as long as the designer isn't supernatural. It is also true that one could scientifically test any supernatural claim for effects in the natural world.
What we understand as "magic" might just be superior beings with very advanced technology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by agnostic, posted 10-08-2004 9:15 AM agnostic has not replied

  
tsig
Member (Idle past 2909 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 22 of 26 (152183)
10-22-2004 11:58 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by mike the wiz
10-04-2004 12:57 PM


finding the designer
just like I cannot lay my hands on the designer of a car, by examining it.
Why of course you can find out the designer of a car. Determine the make, model and year, then find out who were the corporate engineers on the project. You'll find that no one individual designed it de novo, but that they used previous designs and improved upon them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by mike the wiz, posted 10-04-2004 12:57 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 23 of 26 (152245)
10-23-2004 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Kelly. J. Wilson
10-03-2004 11:26 PM


just my "to sense" worth ...
Kelly. J. Wilson writes:
If evidence is interpreted as showing design in living organisms, then is it truly unscientific to conclude that there was a Designer?
Big key word here is the initial "IF" ... for certainly evidence can be interpreted to meet a number of different ideologies. The question is how does the evidence really match the interpretation, how valid is the interpretation.
Take a kaleidoscope: looking in one end you see a pretty pattern that shows clear design elements of symmetry and structure, a pattern that would obviously be designed if it were a stained glass window.
Look in the other end and you see a purely random jumble of colored beads with no structure or symmetry.
Look inside and you see that the apparent symmetry and structure come from the mechanism that was used to observe the beads, the angle and placement of the mirrors.
Thus to infer a designer you need to eliminate every other possibility through a thorough scientific process, including evaluation of things NOT known yet. To leave any one science out of the mix, to leave any one avenue of scientific inquiry out of the mix is to only look through one end of the kaleidoscope.
ps - welcome to the fray.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Kelly. J. Wilson, posted 10-03-2004 11:26 PM Kelly. J. Wilson has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 24 of 26 (159650)
11-15-2004 9:04 AM


Maybe I'm missing something here, but....
I don't think that a concept can be considered
unscientific at all.
The concept of a designer is not unscientific
(any more than it is scientific) ... it is simply
a concept.
Concepts may or may not lend themselves to scientific
enquiry.
The concept of a designer is one that, at present,
cannot be investigated scientifically because we have
no framework for such an investigation. We cannot even
identify design in known designed objects without looking
up the design team, so how can we investigate design in nature?

  
Itachi Uchiha
Member (Idle past 5615 days)
Posts: 272
From: mayaguez, Puerto RIco
Joined: 06-21-2003


Message 25 of 26 (159823)
11-15-2004 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Kelly. J. Wilson
10-03-2004 11:26 PM


Kelly J. Wilson writes:
I leave you with the following question: If evidence is interpreted as showing design in living organisms, then is it truly unscientific to conclude that there was a Designer?
This one still has me scratching the back of my head. I'm eating a sandwhich right now and I look at it and it gives me evidence of a cook or baker that made it. So I guess it would be unscientific to say there was a baker who made it. Can someone please explain this better to me? I simply dont understand.
I believe in intelligent design because I sort of see a program running everything. In civil engineering (my area of work) programming is an essential part of our work in these modern times. Thanks to programs we can now design structures higways and water resource systems quicker and more efficiently. Whem you make a program(it doent matter what language) you have to define variables, equations and procedures for it to work porperly. My piont is that if there is no program that says that two hydrogen atoms combine with one oxygen atom to form water, what then makes them react. In pseudocode it would be something like:
SUB (formation of water)
c = hydrogen atom
d = oxygen atom
x = atom of another element
If c ^ d (water combines with hydrogen) Then
c ^ d = water
If c ^ x Then Exit
If d ^ x Then exit
END SUB
In this program only water is analyzed if c or d reacts with x then it would be another substance. I believe the elements are programed to combine or react with some elements or not react with others. If they aren,t programmed why then do they act the way they do.

Ponlo todo en las manos de Dios y que se joda el mundo. El principio de la sabiduria es el temor a Jehova

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Kelly. J. Wilson, posted 10-03-2004 11:26 PM Kelly. J. Wilson has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Peter, posted 11-16-2004 9:52 AM Itachi Uchiha has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 26 of 26 (160062)
11-16-2004 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Itachi Uchiha
11-15-2004 3:52 PM


quote:
I'm eating a sandwhich right now and I look at it and it gives me evidence of a cook or baker that made it.
The problem is that the sandwich doesn't provide evidence of
a cook or baker at all. Previous experience with sandwiches
suggests that they are made by a sandwich maker of some description,
but there is nothing inherent in the sandwich to confirm
or deny that any particular instance of a sandwich was, in fact,
made rather than just popped full-formed into existence on the
kitchen work-top.
An examination of the sandwich edge MAY disclose the use of
an implement implying that cuts were made to the bread (and filling
possibly), there may be marks in the butter/sandwich spread that
fit the pattern of a knife in the kitchen sink or drawer and thus
be suggestive of an implement having been used.
We may be able to find evidence of food remaining in the fridge
that has a quantity missing consistent with the quantity of
same material within the sandwich.
These evidences may combine to lead us to the conclusion that
the sandwich was, indeed, made by a sandwich maker.
The sandwich itself is not evidence of a sandwich maker, however.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 11-15-2004 3:52 PM Itachi Uchiha has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024