Evidence of design

[Vaccine]

Let's say I can do those things I mentioned in regards to the gears I showed.

I maintain that what I stated previously conclusively shows that some gears are designed. If you think otherwise, please explain why.

I accept that. But why only some gears are designed? I could walk up to anyone on the street and ask are gears designed? Just about everyone would say yes. Show them a picture of gears on a bugs legs and ask the same thing and suddenly people start hedgeing, dodging, or denying gears are designed (regardless the cause). Why does acknowledging something so obvious make people uncomfortable ? Design in nature is not an illusion anymore than the fossil on the table in front of that creationist was. The question isn't are gears designed, of course they are. The question is what caused it.

 

[Speedwell]

So you say design as intention or purpose is not directly detectable in an object.

Right.

then proceed to do just that with gears of human manufacture.

Wrong. I do not detect design (intention) directly. I observe that the gears appear to be of human manufacture and infer the presence of a human designer. If I cannot conclude that the gears are of human manufacture then I can make no inference one way or the other about the existence of a designer.

Quite the contradiction. But one object is human manufacture you'll say. When you conclude an object is of human manufacture, like it or not you're employing the principles of intelligent design theory to draw that conclusion.

What "principles" would those be? ID theory offers us no satisfactory definition of design nor a repeatable test for its presence.

It's just an arbitrary line to use those principles to conclude design in one object but avoid using them with another object.

"Avoid?" What is it exactly that I, as a Christian who believes in God's authorship of the universe am trying to "avoid?" I think you just threw your intellectual integrity into the trash.

 

[Speedwell]

The question isn't are gears designed, of course they are. The question is what caused it.

Yes, both sets of gears exhibit "design" as organization towards function. But how do you tell if there was intelligent purpose behind either set?

 

[Vaccine]

No.

Why not?

Evidence. In the case of the watch gears, we can collect evidence to show that the fears were designed by some intelligent being.

No such evidence is available to show that the grasshopper 'gears' were so formed.....unless you have some to show us, of course.....?

No such evidence is available, or no evidence you find convincing?

 

[Speedwell]

Why not?

No such evidence is available, or no evidence you find convincing?

No evidence. As you know, I believe that God is the ultimate author of those gears (and of everything else) but I don't believe He produced them by haphazard tinkering as ID theory suggests.

 

[Vaccine]

Yes, both sets of gears exhibit "design" as organization towards function. But how do you tell if there was intelligent purpose behind either set?

Seems we'd need some scientific theory and use the scientific method. We can't really proceed unless we agree what a scientific theory is is determined by some objective criteria not people's biases.

 

[Vaccine]

Right.
Wrong. I do not detect design (intention) directly.

If that were true you would not be able to say one way or another anything was human manufacture.

What "principles" would those be? ID theory offers us no satisfactory definition of design nor a repeatable test for its presence.

Speaking of intellectual integrity. Why ask a question you seem to a priori determined the answer to?
The principles of specified-complexity and irreducible-complexity. You employed those to infer design in the case of human manufacture.

 

[Speedwell]

If that were true you would not be able to say one way or another anything was human manufacture.

Nothing is ever entirely certain, but natural forces do not generally produce flat brass gears with machining toolmarks.

Speaking of intellectual integrity. Why ask a question you seem to a priori determined the answer to?
The principles of specified-complexity and irreducible-complexity. You employed those to infer design in the case of human manufacture.

My design inference had nothing to do with complexity. I did not conclude the watch gears were of human manufacture because of their complexity. The bug gears were of comparable complexity. And that is what is wrong with ID. Design is not directly linked to complexity, not even imaginary kinds of complexity like specified or irreducible complexity.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

We haven't even got to the "that settles it" part. I just want to see how many people will hedge, dodge or flat out deny design exists in nature.
Do you deny design exhists in nature?

I'm happy to call the products of evolution 'design' - but clearly I don't mean it to have any association with purpose or intent, just the development of a functional element or system. Scientists often talk of the design of evolutionary features.

With regard to the 'gears' in the image you posted, if you're claiming that some intelligence is behind their design, the burden of proof is yours.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I could using intelligent design theory.
Do you acknowledge ID is a valid scientific theory?

ID is not a scientific theory (it isn't well substantiated, repeatedly tested and confirmed), it's an hypothesis.

But it's not a scientifically adequate hypothesis, because it fails the criteria of abduction (argument to the best hypothesis). It is not testable (falsifiable), making no novel predictions; it is not fruitful, having no predictions to get right; it has no scope (explanatory power), because it raises more questions than it answers and those questions are unanswerable, and it is not parsimonious because it introduces a redundant unexplained and inexplicable additional entity.

So no, it's not a valid scientific theory, and it's useless - except as an exercise in outlining the difference between an adequate hypothesis and an inadequate one.

 

[-57]

You are just repeating what you have been told to repeat.

Sometimes it is obvious to look and know there was intellligent design involved. Mt. Rushmore is one of those objects.

The gear presented earlier is yet another....or can you show how it evolved?

 

[Jimmy D]

Sometimes it is obvious to look and know there was intellligent design involved. Mt. Rushmore is one of those objects.

The gear presented earlier is yet another....or can you show how it evolved?

The sculptures on Mt Rushmore were designed so everything is designed? Cool.

 

[-57]

The sculptures on Mt Rushmore were designed so everything is designed? Cool.

Considering you have absolutly NO WAY to evolve those gears...just as Mt. Rushmore in no way eroded by natural means....It shows the gears were designed.
This is basic stuff.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Considering you have absolutly NO WAY to evolve those gears...just as Mt. Rushmore in no way eroded by natural means....It shows the gears were designed.
This is basic stuff.

No, it's false equivalency.
We can show that Mt Rushmore was designed and we can see it being built. You on the other hand have absolutely no way of showing that God created and designed the gears other than your own claims and a literal reading of a book that was written over 2000 years ago.

 

[-57]

No, it's false equivalency.
We can show that Mt Rushmore was designed and we can see it being built. You on the other hand have absolutely no way of showing that God created and designed the gears other than your own claims and a literal reading of a book that was written over 2000 years ago.

You have no way, now workable theory to produce that engineered gear.

 

[Vaccine]

ID is not a scientific theory (it isn't well substantiated, repeatedly tested and confirmed), it's an hypothesis.

But it's not a scientifically adequate hypothesis, because it fails the criteria of abduction (argument to the best hypothesis). It is not testable (falsifiable), making no novel predictions; it is not fruitful, having no predictions to get right; it has no scope (explanatory power), because it raises more questions than it answers and those questions are unanswerable, and it is not parsimonious because it introduces a redundant unexplained and inexplicable additional entity.

So no, it's not a valid scientific theory, and it's useless - except as an exercise in outlining the difference between an adequate hypothesis and an inadequate one.

Suppose it was testable, made predictions, had scope and parsimonious. Would you acknowledge it a scientific theory then?

 

[Speedwell]

Suppose it was testable, made predictions, had scope and parsimonious. Would you acknowledge it a scientific theory then?

Of course. The notion that science rejects it because they're afraid of finding God is a figment of the creationist imagination.

 

[Vaccine]

Nothing is ever entirely certain, but natural forces do not generally produce flat brass gears with machining toolmarks.

You were certain about not being able to directly detect design a moment ago. Would you say it was at least within the realm of possibilities the gears on the planthoppers legs were intelligently designed?

My design inference had nothing to do with complexity. I did not conclude the watch gears were of human manufacture because of their complexity. The bug gears were of comparable complexity. And that is what is wrong with ID. Design is not directly linked to complexity, not even imaginary kinds of complexity like specified or irreducible complexity.

How exactly do you define complexity?

 

[-57]

parsimonious.

Evolution concerning complex biological components maks tons more assumptions than ID.

 

[Speedwell]

You were certain about not being able to directly detect design a moment ago.

I said I was unable to detect design as intention directly. Design as organization towards function is detectable.

Would you say it was at least within the realm of possibilities the gears on the planthoppers legs were intelligently designed?

It is possible, but I would not know how to determine it. It cannot be inferred from organization towards function alone.

How exactly do you define complexity?

Mathematically.