Is there a legitimate argument for design?

Niiice

Again, I believe that ID uses science to understand how it all works, while ID Properly Pursued is more concerned with why it works out that way. And I would say that any concept that is contradicted by objective empirical evidence is at odds with reality.Science makes the a priori assumption that objective evidence reflects reality, and thus that we can approximate reality by testing concepts against the objective evidence, and eliminating invalid concepts to improve the accuracy of the approximations (tentative theories). The converse assumption is that all is illusion and you don't know what is 'real' or that anything can be regarded as real. More Buddhist than Taoist per se. Perhaps pantheism would be a better fit than deism. A number of founding fathers were Deists. The "sig" is my signature block at the bottom of my post (you can make your own by editing your CP - see menu bar at top of page). As a designer we frequently borrow elements from other designs and combine them into new designs. This would violate the nested hierarchy that Taq mentioned in Message 375, and this would show up in genetic evidence.For example:

1. the octopus eye has a retina that faces the light sources with the nerves behind the retina traveling directly to the brain, and the eye is focused by changing the distance between the retina and the fixed lens,
2. the human eye has a retina that faces away from the light source, the photons must travel through the retina to reach the receptors, the nerves are bundled inside the eye to then pass through a hole in the retina (the blind spot), and the eye is focused by changing the shape of the lens to make the focal length match the fixed distance to the retina,
3. frogs have a transparent\translucent nictitating membrane that can be drawn across the eye to keep it moist and provide additional protection for the eye,
4. birds have up to 8 types of cones, so they see 8 primary colors, including some ultraviolet,
5. combining these features into a designed eye would take the forward facing retina to improve perception at lower light levels, a nictitating membrane to provide protection from high light levels, 8 cones for more color distinction and range, both focusing mechanisms to provide zoom lens vision, making glasses unnecessary,
6. all these features can be found in human designed camera lenses.

No organism has yet been found to have a single borrowed feature. This argues against organisms being designed objects themselves, rather that inhabitants of a universe designed for the development of life via designed 'rules' of abiogenesis and evolution, resulting in the nested hierarchy that is observed across the biological spectrum of life as we know it.I think of god/s more as artists than engineers ...EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : end

Jefferson is considered a Deist by many, but the one you are thinking of is the "other" Thomas ... Paine. There isn't one asfaik, and it kind of goes against to core concepts of no dogma and no revealed 'truth' and that understanding comes from understanding nature. Take your time and don't worry about specifics. One of the mistakes of newbies here is thinking they have to hurry up and answer everyone asap ... that'll kill ya. I often like to read a post and then think about it before compiling a reply (in a text document that I can save and complete in stages).Enjoy

You copied from "Normal" mode -- at the top right corner of the "Message you're replying to:" window there are two buttons, one for "Normal" and one for "Peek Mode:" -- the "Peek Mode" reveals the dbcodes that were used in the post, and when you copy that it (normally) looks the same as the original post (there are some cases where it doesn't, which I have yet to figure out a work-around, but they are rare).You can also use the "Peek" button at the bottom right of any post to see how it is formated.This is a good way to learn additional formating codes.Enjoy

In other words, the universe was designed so that abiogenesis and evolution would occur, and that they are the means by which the diversity of life as we know it has occurredOr to be more explicit: what is designed is the set of "natural laws" that govern how thinks work, how gravity works, how fusion and fission work, how chemistry works, etc etc etc and once set in motion, no further activity by god/s is necessary.Thus science can investigate how things work but not why they work the way they do instead of some other way. Nor can there be any way to determine design from non-design, ie - that an organism was designed to be as we see it today (a concept that I have some issues with, such as why were there so many wasted paths - extinctions - before getting to the design today) or that the universe was designed to produce an organism as we see today (which I don't have issues with), no matter how sophisticated you consider the organism to be. You can't have it both ways.Note that computer programs have been written and run using evolution algorithms to develop objects to perform certain functions, and it appears to be a very robust method of achieving the end goal - in spite of the dead-ends abandoned along the way. Design applies to art as well as to engineering, architecture, and vengeful people (), so I don't have much quibble with just the aspects of design per se, but I do with the concept that any specific organism was intended.Enjoy

You can take apart a car and study how the parts are shaped, how they interact, and how the whole produces an artifact that can move down the highway. You cannot study why the body design was shaped the way it was, nor why the internal parts have the specific arrangements they have, when there are numerous other patterns that produce a similar result. One of the issues (in Is ID properly pursued?) is whether you are seeing design or the appearance of design, as in the patterns seen through a kaleidoscope. It is only by understanding how the kaleidoscope functions that we see that the appearance of design is an artifact of the construction of the kaleidoscope. This last sentence seems a little jumbled ... care to clarify? Again, you can use peek mode (top right in reply) or the peek button (bottom right of any post) to see how formatting is done. You need a picture posted on the web to link to. They should be open source or your own or explicitly cited with author and location where possible (see forum rules, rule 7).From Perceptions of Reality, take 3 (a closed thread from 2006, suffering from old coding that is now broken, which I will correct in the following quote):

quote:

---

​

The area of overlap is the area of agreement, and the areas outside the overlap are the areas of contention.

​

But nobody really claims to know everything, so everyone has things they know and things they don't know:

​

​

To my view everyone has their own "knowledge" circle based on their particular experiences and what they have learned, and what they believe is true. The only difference is the location of their personal circle relative to other circles. Some circles can completely overlap the "science" circle and others overlap the "belief" circle.

​

But what are these circles - they're all perceptions of reality - but what makes one "science" and one "belief" such that they can be so characterized? Are they dichotomies in thinking or reference points along a progression?

​

The real question is how does one's personal view relate to {reality}, and how can we determine that (IF we can determine that)?

​

What is it that we do know?

​

How can we validate perceptions of reality?

​

Let me open up the discussion a bit by first proposing the whole playing field of human knowledge and perceptions of reality, in very general terms, using these definitions from Dictionary.com:

​

sci•ence (click)

1.a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
.. b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
.. c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.

​

phi•los•o•phy (click)

1. Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.
2. Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.
3. A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume.
4. The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.
5. The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology.
6. The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology.

​

faith (click)

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

​

If I were to draw a picture of this it would be something like this:

​

​

One could say that {all} science includes knowledge we that we are pretty sure we know, that {all} philosophy includes knowledge that we think we can know, and that {all} faith includes knowledge we cannot know that we know (hence we take it on faith).

​

There is nothing within science that is not also {included\accepted} in {some} philosophy or other, and there is nothing within philosophy that is not also {included\accepted} in {some} faith or other.

​

However, not all of this knowledge is true to reality.

​

There are many religions that are exclusive of other religions, so logically they cannot all be true as conceived (although it is possible they could all be close to the reality, just in different ways).

​

Philosophy based on logic is true if the precepts are true, but how do we know if the precepts are true? There are some philosophies that contradict or oppose other philosophies.

​

We also know that science has a tendency of finding new evidence that invalidates previous theories and shows new theories and understandings to be more valid, but because we cannot prove a theory in science we cannot know that we know.

​

So how can we judge the validity of perceptions of reality?

​

Let the discussion begin.

---

Curiously I don't think that is much different from your ring scenario ... The only problem I have with this, is that you don't have any way to know with any kind of certainty what the large circle is, the "the no-bullshit, not illusion or imagination, REAL family of all that actually IS" ... and the only known test for determining that something may be in that class is science, where conclusions are tentatively accepted as tested approximations of reality.That's why my circles start from the center with what we can know with some degree of confidence and then work out to areas where we have less and less confidence in those concepts reflecting reality. Scientists do this every day, building on the known approximation of reality and testing new concepts and ideas to build on and expand that knowledge base. The problem is not with the concept, but with the known (to scientists) limitations of the scientific method and what science can test, you can't test every idea with science. So you would agree that there are some concepts that cannot be studied by the scientific method and tested to see if they are valid approximations of reality ... they can still be rational, logical constructs based on the knowledge that we have, but this moves into the realm of philosophy and out of the realm of science and the ability of science to test. It is in the borderland between known and unknown. Curiously all I see it proving is that science cannot test the concept and that means that the validity of the concept is unknown. First, science doesn't prove things, it shows that models\theories appear to match reality, and that additional refinements as they occur improve the approximation of reality that is the body of scientific knowledge.Second, you have it backwards: if the objective empirical evidence by which we measure reality contradicts a concept (whether scientific, philosophical or belief\opinion\faith) that concept is invalidated by the evidence of reality.Would you not agree that the objective empirical evidence that the earth is an oblate spheroid orbiting the sun in a remote arm of the milky way galaxy is much closer to reality than the concept that the earth is flat, at the center of the earth, and orbited by the sun, planets and stars?Would you not agree that the only way for the earth to be flat, at the center of the earth, and orbited by the sun, planets and stars could be a valid concept is if the objective empirical evidence is illusory\fake\imaginary? We all start with this assumption, that what we sense is because the objective empirical evidence that we sense is a reflection of reality rather than illusion.And this is why science is and always will be tentative, why the knowledge gleaned has to be considered an approximation of reality. So you are saying that the earth is flat, at the center of the earth, and orbited by the sun, planets and stars is a valid concept?You are saying that a 6,000 year old earth is as valid a concept as a 4.5 billion year old earth? And again, I do not have any problem with this, nor do I think there are many scientists that would have any significant trouble with this statement. That does not mean that what can be tested and measured and modeled is not a good (if not the best we have) approximation of reality. And how do you test, detect and separate fact from fiction? What is your method? And again, how do you test, detect and separate fact from fiction?Got long, sorry, I tend to do that ... got longer by putting in background quotes.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : added quotes within quotes for clarity per Message 430

Let me break it down into four categories:

1. concepts that are falsifiable, and thus can be tested by the scientific method, but haven't been tested yet, and thus are "unknown"
2. concepts that have been tested and falsified, and that are presumed to be "not real"
3. concepts that have been tested and NOT falsified, and that are presumed to be "not invalid, may be correct" (tentatively accepted)
4. concepts that are NOT falsifiable, and thus canNOT be tested by the scientific method, and thus are "unknown"

So the only concepts that are considered "not real" (ie false or invalid) are ones that have been invalidated\falsified, like the flat earth shape and it's relation to the universe or the age of the earth, etc.Enjoy

The scientific method is a multi-step feedback system of increasing accuracy as invalid concepts are eliminated.The scientific method has several steps, and a simple listing can be found at:http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/...appendixe/appendixe.html

quote:

---

... The scientific method has four steps

​

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

​

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.

---

That packs a lot of steps together, and it can be drawn out better (imho) in chart form: Once the results have been replicated by others the hypothesis is considered a theory, and is accepted as a valid explanation of the evidence, but testing of the theory does not stop. Note that validation testing of the hypothesis\theory does not, cannot, prove it is true, rather the testing fails to prove that it is false, so attempts to prove it false continueAgain from the above link:
http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/...appendixe/appendixe.html

quote:

---

... Hypotheses, Models, Theories and Laws

​

In physics and other science disciplines, the words "hypothesis," "model," "theory" and "law" have different connotations in relation to the stage of acceptance or knowledge about a group of phenomena.

​

An hypothesis is a limited statement regarding cause and effect in specific situations; it also refers to our state of knowledge before experimental work has been performed and perhaps even before new phenomena have been predicted. ...

​

The word model is reserved for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has at least limited validity. ...

​

A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests. ... The validity that we attach to scientific theories as representing realities of the physical world is to be contrasted with the facile invalidation implied by the expression, "It's only a theory." For example, it is unlikely that a person will step off a tall building on the assumption that they will not fall, because "Gravity is only a theory."

---

Again, we see that the scientific theory is a tested hypothesis that produces consistent positive (valid) results, and again we see that the hypothesis rests on cases of objective empirical evidence where the derived hypothesis is known to be valid.This process rules out invalid concepts because their predicted results don't match the test results.Take the age of the earth as an example:We can observe that some people believe the earth is 6,000 years old, and thus we can start with an hypothesize that the earth is 6,000 years old.We test that with dendrochronology and find that tree rings extended back to 12,405 years ago in 2007, so the 6,000 year old age is invalid.So we revise the hypothesis to the age of the earth is 12,412 years old (in 2014)We test that with lake varves and find that the varves extended back to 35,930 years ago in 2007 so the 12,412 year old age is invalid.So we revise the hypothesis to the age of the earth is 35,937 years old (in 2014)We test that with ice cores and find that the ice layers extended back to 900,000 years ago in 2007 so the 35,930 year old age is invalid.So we revise the hypothesis to the age of the earth is 900,000 years old (in 2014)And we can continue in this way until we come to the radiometric data that shows the earth is at least 4.55 billion years old.You can also look up historical estimates of the age of the earth and see a similar process going on as new information was found for the age of the earth. The currently accepted age of the earth is 4.55 billion years, however this is subject to modification if new information shows an older age or invalidates the current accepted age.Enjoy

Good, we are in agreement on this. Indeed. If there were intervention then we should see elements of design, such as borrowed traits and broken nesting of hierarchies. As these have not been observed to date leaves the concept untested, ie unknown. It's not so much deciding it needs to know as it is the limitations on the scientific method. Can we test and replicate why an artist chose a particular color for a painting or to distort a shape in a particular way to arrive at a work of art (think Van Gogh and "Starry Night")? What we can test and replicate is how the canvas is made and stretched, how the paints are made, how the colors are achieved, how they are applied, the thickness of the paint and the shape and condition of the brush, the force used to apply the paint, etc ... and in the end we can't test and replicate why some paintings are appealing, even when severely distorted from what is seen and observed. Basically, if we cannot tell that design is involved then we can't know whether design is involved or not -- it is in the unknown category rather than valid or invalid. Interesting. I like this, and consider that it compares well to particles popping in and out of existence or changing from one particle to another in quantum mechanics; the universe is in constant flux at the quantum level, reinventing itself moment by moment. We are in basic agreement then.

I've edited Message 428 to add background quotes for clarity.Enjoy

The only a priori assumption that is needed for science to work is that the objective empirical evidence represents reality.Once you make that assumption you can observe the objective empirical evidence and form hypothesis about how it works or what it represents, and then you can test that hypothesis against the objective empirical evidence or use it to uncover new objective empirical evidence. This forms a basis that can be built on by further hypothesis through logicIf hypothesis A has not been invalidated then hypothesis B may be valid ... and then test THAT hypothesis against objective empirical evidence. Now hypothesis B is in double jeopardy for falsification of either hypothesis.We can also talk about confidence levels for different ideasWe can have high confidence that the invalid (falsified) ideas are in fact wrong, as we have explicit evidence of it being wrong, so we know it is false.We can have moderate confidence in validated ideas that have not been falsified and which appear to work as predicted. The more these ideas work as predicted and are not falsified the more confidence we can have that they may be true.We can only have low to zero confidence in ideas that are untested or untestable, the unknowns. We can't say that they are right or wrong, just that we don't know.I've posted this elsewhere before: Note that this scale relies on the scientific method to reach levels III and IV, and both of those require objective empirical evidence. In addition, each level leads to the next higher level as more evidence and information becomes available and stricter standards of testing are applied (ie, are falsifiable).Another distinction that you can make between II and III is that any observation is corroborated\tested\replicated by others.Enjoy.

Curiously I almost posted a prediction that someone would make a pedantic knee-jerk reply, which I trust is caused by missing the point. http://www.pablopicasso.org/seated-woman.jspSo how do you test the reasons why Picasso painted the face blue and mangled the face, hands and body?And don't confuse this with how he did it.Now if I was asked my opinion on why Picasso did it, I would reply that I don't know the mind of Picasso, I can't measure his thoughts.And if I was asked my opinion of how Picasso did it, I would reply that he drew lines and filled in colors with a paint brush, with paint that was on his palette. I could even say how he mixed colors to get to particular shades ...... but I could not begin to hazard any kind of test or hypothesis for why that particular shade was chosen, nor do I see how anyone - other than Picasso - could answer that question, no matter how much they studied the painting, painting in general, the artist and artists in general. Remember that not everything is open to scientific investigations. Untestable ideas? Unfalsifiable concepts?Remember that not all concepts are scientific. Astrology? Religion?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : clrtyEdited by RAZD, : ..Edited by RAZD, : ...

Curiously, I have to disagree. The first stars were pure hydrogen according to the standard model, and all the other elements have been formed by fusion within stars, so accordingly all matter is formed from hydrogen atoms in one way or another.Inert gases do not interact in chemical reactions (why they are called inert), but they have uses -- my new windows have argon between the panes to prevent moisture condensing on the inside and so they stay clean inside.Enjoy

And yet, curiously, you don't get those "good building blocks" without starting with hydrogen according to the standard model.Rather than melting lego block I would use the analogy of construction, where you start with wood, then from the wood you make trusses. Further development lets you laminate wood into stronger members. From just wood you can build simple structures but with the refined materials built from wood you can build larger and more intricate structures.Or in abiogenesis, you start with self-replicating molecules that then build structures and become cells.It is simply a progression from simple to complex. A single lego block is not much to look at, but when you combine them you have a more complex structure. You can even model DNA activity with legoshttp://video.mit.edu/watch/dna-replication-with-legos-10133/Enjoy

Sorry, you're not getting it.What is the causal force making Picasso choose blue at that moment? Can that be replicated so that another artist is forced to paint a face that specific blue?George Mallory - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Mallory is famously quoted as having replied to the question "Why do you want to climb Mount Everest?" with the retort "Because it's there", ...

---

Curiously I note that there are a lot of mountains that are "there" and this answer does not explain why Mallory didn't climb those other mountains.Thus this answer does not have any predictive value that can be explored via science. Without predictions you can't test hypothesis.Picasso could have answered "because I felt like it" ... and this too does not provide any predictive value for any of his other paintings, colors and shapes etc.You could also conceivably ask 10 artist why they do what they do and get 10 different answers.The answers to this question are subjective.Conversely you could study how they do what they do and gather a lot of objective evidence. Science works on objective evidence.Why is the sky blue?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : test