Design...actual or not and why?

[Oncedeceived]

The appearance of Design is a very important part of the universe and life on earth. It seems that most everyone believes that there is an appearance of design.

Richard Dawkins: "Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selectioin overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning. The purpose of this book is to resolve the paradox to the satisfaction of the reader, and the purpose of this chapter is further to impress the reader with the power of the illusion of design." Cover

Nobel laureate Francis Crick writes, "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved."

Paul Davies: The temptation to believe that the Universe is the product of some sort of design, a manifestation of subtle aesthetic and mathematical judgment, is overwhelming.

So my question to non-believers is what do you attribute that design to and why? What evidence do you feel explains this obvious appearance of design?

 

[essentialsaltes]

The appearance of Design ...

So my question to non-believers is what do you attribute that design to and why? What evidence do you feel explains this obvious appearance of design?

Your OP describes it well. It is 'apparent design'. Natural selection molds each species to its environment, and when we marvel at how well each species fits its environment, we are tempted to say that it was designed to fit it. But what really happened is that all the variations that did not fit have been winnowed away by death.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Your OP describes it well. It is 'apparent design'. Natural selection molds each species to its environment, and when we marvel at how well each species fits its environment, we are tempted to say that it was designed to fit it. But what really happened is that all the variations that did not fit have been winnowed away by death.

While a life form fits into the environment as if it were designed to be there, it doesn't hit on the design I was speaking about. The universe and its fine tuning and the biological design of the parts of the organism as well as the organism itself are what I was describing.

 

[mnorian]

Once; I know you put this question to non-believers; but I would like to add a few comments:

The purpose of this book is to resolve the paradox to the satisfaction of the reader, and the purpose of this chapter is further to impress the reader with the power of the illusion of design

If the design was an illusion; there would be no power in it; like the magician's stage magic, it would be easy see the illusion; but because there is a designer, God, the scientist work and work to prove there is no design, but they never will.

Nobel laureate Francis Crick writes, "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved

That's because if they didn't, they would see and know it's God's design; be in awe of Him, and accept Him as their savior; but then they would be kicked out of the science club; and they couldn't do that!

Paul Davies: The temptation to believe that the Universe is the product of some sort of design, a manifestation of subtle aesthetic and mathematical judgment, is overwhelming

This is a Godly temptation; unlike the other kind, there is no bad consequences; they should go ahead and believe away!

 

[Davian]

While a life form fits into the environment as if it were designed to be there, it doesn't hit on the design I was speaking about. The universe and its fine tuning

How do you know that tuning was possible?

and the biological design of the parts of the organism as well as the organism itself are what I was describing.

If you would like to claim that what you perceive as design is actual design, the bur...

Nevermind. I see that you are still going in circles.

 

[Davian]

Once; I know you put this question to non-believers; but I would like to add a few comments:

If the design was an illusion; there would be no power in it; like the magician's stage magic, it would be easy see the illusion;

Many do see it; they have yet to demonstrate actual design.

but because there is a designer, God,

The argument from design works against an "all-powerful, all-knowing" god; why would such a god need to "fine tune" or carefully "design" anything? A god like that could have orange growing on the surface of the Sun. Why would an "all-powerful, all-knowing" god make the world, and life, only exist within such tiny parameters?

the scientist work and work to prove there is no design, but they never will.

Name these scientists.

That's because if they didn't, they would see and know it's God's design;

How would actual design tell us it was your particular god?

be in awe of Him, and accept Him as their savior;

Knock Knock

• Davian
• Jan 1, 2015

but then they would be kicked out of the science club; and they couldn't do that!

It's a conspiracy!

This is a Godly temptation; unlike the other kind, there is no bad consequences; they should go ahead and believe away!

It would be at the cost of my intellectual integrity.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The appearance of Design is a very important part of the universe and life on earth. It seems that most everyone believes that there is an appearance of design.

There are things that have the appearance of design. I can agree to that.
However, imo, these things aren't as abbundant as you tend to claim/imply.

Richard Dawkins: "Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selectioin overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning. The purpose of this book is to resolve the paradox to the satisfaction of the reader, and the purpose of this chapter is further to impress the reader with the power of the illusion of design." Cover

Nobel laureate Francis Crick writes, "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved."

Paul Davies: The temptation to believe that the Universe is the product of some sort of design, a manifestation of subtle aesthetic and mathematical judgment, is overwhelming.

I highlighted the key words for you.

So my question to non-believers is what do you attribute that design to and why?

To the same phenomena the quotes you posted attribute it to: evolution by natural selection.

What evidence do you feel explains this obvious appearance of design?

All the evidence that supports evolution theory.

It's literally what evolution explains... why living things have the appearance of design.

 

[DogmaHunter]

While a life form fits into the environment as if it were designed to be there, it doesn't hit on the design I was speaking about.

Actually, it covers 2 of the 3 quotes you posted.
Only the third one was talking about the universe itself.
As for the universe itself... that's just hindsight and teleological fallacies.

Obviously, we find ourselves in a universe in which we can exist.
The earth wasn't made so that we could live here. The earth isn't "meant" to accomodate for us.

Rather, we evolved to be able to survive on the earth.

If you can't understand the difference between these two things.... then I can't help you.


Also... if have to add....

I find it hilarious how you quote people to make a point that none of these people would agree with. At all.

 

[The Cadet]

Two questions become important here.

Firstly, is anything not designed? Most Christians who appeal to the design argument seem to believe that everything was designed as it was by God. But the problem with that is that while my brain is, in that framework, designed, so is the rock next to my table, the table itself, the tectonic plates beneath it, and everything else. As Russell Glasser so geniusly put it, "You're walking along a beach made of tiny watches, picking up one specific watch, and saying 'this looks designed'." If everything is designed, then we have the problem that certain things which appear designed ought to be indistinguishable from other things which clearly appear undesigned.

Secondly, how do we go about distinguishing design from non-design? For all the talk of intuition, I have yet to see any actual mechanism. As mentioned above, Christians who appeal to the argument from design are often miserably bad at distinguishing design from non-design. But even moving away from that issue, we see "design" in things that came about by natural processes all the time. I mean, does this look designed?

It's a human face in the mountainside. It looks like it was carved by an intelligence. Yet, for all we can tell, it came about through purely natural processes.

The way I have found to distinguish natural processes from design is relatively straightforward. As anything could have been designed and design does not inherently leave any evidence, we must take as a null hypothesis that something was not designed. It is essentially our "not guilty". Then, we try to falsify that null hypothesis. Is it impossible that it came about through natural processes? Do we know that it was designed by some revelation from the designer (for example, if I wanted to know if my house was designed, I could try to find the blueprints and figure out who the architect was)? Are almost all things like it designed?

In the case of life, however, none of this is true. There is no trustworthy revelation from the designer of life. There is no indication that anything in life is designed. It is quite clearly not impossible for it to come about through natural processes. As a result, we have no justifiable reason to claim that it was designed, and as a result, we must fall back on our null hypothesis: that it was not designed. All we have to assert that it was designed is a strong intuition, but intuition is not useful in science. Our intuitions when it comes to physics, for example, are distinctly Aristotelian, despite the fact that Aristotle's physics were really, really wrong. And in this case, it seems like our intuitions have, again, led us astray.

That's because if they didn't, they would see and know it's God's design; be in awe of Him, and accept Him as their savior; but then they would be kicked out of the science club; and they couldn't do that!

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct...llion-scientists-identify-as-evangelical.html

You're just wrong. Depending on which source you refer to, the percentage of scientists who are atheists may range from 25% to 40%, but the idea that science is a religion-free zone is simply not true. Take Kenneth Miller - devout catholic, but also an evolutionary biologist, a respected member of the NCSE, and an expert witness for Tammy Kitzmiller in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial. He's just the most noteworthy example; as that article points out, a good 75% of scientists in the USA are religious.

 

[mnorian]

Many do see it; they have yet to demonstrate actual design

One of the design demonstrations. is the periodic table: It is so organized (the design behind the atomic numbers, not the table that man made) that they could tell there had to be missing elements; which they later found.

The argument from design works against an "all-powerful, all-knowing" god; why would such a god need to "fine tune" or carefully "design" anything? A god like that could have orange growing on the surface of the Sun. Why would an "all-powerful, all-knowing" god make the world, and life, only exist within such tiny parameters

He is a God of order.

Name these scientists

Well, for three; Richard Dawkins, Francis Crick, and Paul Davies.

How would actual design tell us it was your particular god?

Because the design is also evident in the Bible; the word of God.

It would be at the cost of my intellectual integrity

Is a person's intellectual integrity worth losing their soul over?

 

[DogmaHunter]

One of the design demonstrations. is the periodic table: It is so organized (the design behind the atomic numbers, not the table that man made) that they could tell there had to be missing elements; which they later found.

How does this support the idea that atoms were designed?

It seems to me that you are merely asserting that it demonstrates design.
Please explain how exactly it demonstrates design.

He is a God of order.

Then why is the universe chaotic in nature?

Well, for three; Richard Dawkins, Francis Crick, and Paul Davies.

The goal of these people is not "to prove there is no design".
The purpose of their work is merely to explain why nature is the way it is.

Their conclusion is evolution and other natural phenomena.

The only people here who start from the answers and try to force-fit the questions to it, are creationists. You.

YOU are starting with the premise that a god exists and created everything. And then you go out of your way to support that unsupported premise.

You start with an answer and then try to find support for it (while ignoring everything that works against it).

While actual scientists, like Dawkins, start from a question and study/investigate towards an answers.

In science, the answers are CONCLUSIONS.
In religion, the answer are given BEFORE asking the questions. And inherent in religion is the idea that the answers given are true by default and thus can't be questioned.

This is why science flies you to the moon while religion flies you into buildings.

Because the design is also evident in the Bible; the word of God.

That's because your book IS designed. By humans.
Just like all other books.

Is a person's intellectual integrity worth losing their soul over?

[/quote]

If you believe souls exist, you have already abbandoned your intellectual integrity.

 

[mnorian]

If the design was an illusion; there would be no power in it; like the magician's stage magic, it would be easy see the illusion; but because there is a designer, God, the scientist work and work to prove there is no design, but they never will

Ok; I mis-typed here it should have been: "The scientist work and work to prove there is no designer, but they never will."

 

[GrimKingGrim]

It appears designed but that's just how our intuition works.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Ok; I mis-typed here it should have been: "The scientist work and work to prove there is no designer, but they never will."

That statement is non-sensical.
Why would they work to disprove claims that are asserted without evidence?

You might as well say that physicists work and work to prove there are no pink graviton fairies.

 

[SteveB28]

The appearance of Design is a very important part of the universe and life on earth. It seems that most everyone believes that there is an appearance of design.

Richard Dawkins: "Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selectioin overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning. The purpose of this book is to resolve the paradox to the satisfaction of the reader, and the purpose of this chapter is further to impress the reader with the power of the illusion of design." Cover

Nobel laureate Francis Crick writes, "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved."

Paul Davies: The temptation to believe that the Universe is the product of some sort of design, a manifestation of subtle aesthetic and mathematical judgment, is overwhelming.

So my question to non-believers is what do you attribute that design to and why? What evidence do you feel explains this obvious appearance of design?

Quite simply, it's a result of the natural forces acting in our world/universe.

The other week, my great grandson and I were fishing by the edge of the estuary near my home. As we stood, the tide receded, exposing a ripple pattern in the damp sand. It looked almost as if a giant with an enormous rake had shaped that pattern, in much the same manner as sand is shaped in traditional Japanese gardens.

A visitor from outer space might have reached a similar conclusion - that it had been 'designed' by an intelligent hand.

But it wasn't. We understand the simple physics involved in that ripple pattern. As we do all of the appearances of design in nature.

 

[mnorian]

That statement is non-sensical.
Why would they work to disprove claims that are asserted without evidence?

You might as well say that physicists work and work to prove there are no pink graviton fairies.

Did you read the quotes in the op?

 

[mnorian]

How does this support the idea that atoms were designed?
It seems to me that you are merely asserting that it demonstrates design.
Please explain how exactly it demonstrates design

Can you wait while I finish my molecular science degree?

Then why is the universe chaotic in nature

It's not; God has His plan/design all mapped out; just because man can't always see it, doesn't mean it's not there.

You start with an answer

Because God gave us the answers in the Bible; but they weren't good enough for men; so they had to make up their own.

In religion, the answer are given BEFORE asking the questions. And inherent in religion is the idea that the answers given are true by default and thus can't be questioned

I follow Jesus; He is the way; the truth; and the light; religion is a man-made construct.

That's because your book IS designed. By humans.
Just like all other books

Designed by God; written by men.

If you believe souls exist, you have already abbandoned your intellectual integrity

I don't worry about "intellectual integrity"; but that God gives me "the mind of Christ" and saves my soul, through Jesus His Son.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Can you wait while I finish my molecular science degree?

You asserted that it supports design. I assumed you could actually justify/defend/support that statement.

I guess not.
So...... what's that about?

It's not;

It is from my perspective.

God has His plan/design all mapped out; just because man can't always see it, doesn't mean it's not there.

How do you know it's there when you can't see it?
"god has a plan" smells like a cop-out. A one liner that is used when you can't actually give a sensible answer.

Because God gave us the answers in the Bible;

How do you know?
Muslims tell me god gave answers in the quran.
Hindu's tell me god(s) gave answer in the bagavad ghita.

but they weren't good enough for men; so they had to make up their own.

And thank god for that (pun intended).
Today, we actually cure desease instead of performing an exorcism.

I follow Jesus; He is the way; the truth; and the light; religion is a man-made construct.

/facepalm

The only reason you know about jesus is because of man-made religion, Einstein.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Did you read the quotes in the op?

Yes, I read the juvenile attempt at quote mining.

There is nothing in there that supports your point.

 

[The Cadet]

Did you read the quotes in the op?

Do you know why nobody in physics is speaking up about pink graviton faeries? Because nobody is seriously posing it as a problem to accepting the established facts. In biology, they are. The problem is that when people see design in biology, it actually drives them away from the actual explanation, the one that can be supported by evidence. This is a problem that must be addressed by biologists. In an ideal world, it wouldn't be an issue, but this is not an ideal world.

Because God gave us the answers in the Bible; but they weren't good enough for men; so they had to make up their own.

It's not about making up our own, it's about checking to see if the bible is true. The problem is, it isn't. What the bible says does not mesh with what we see in reality. So we can either hold to the book, rejecting reality, or we can accept the bible for what it is: a flawed text written by flawed humans who did not have access to the knowledge we have today.