Does science actually admit "design"?

[OldWiseGuy]

It seems that the concept and recognition of purposeful design has been deliberately hidden in the language of evolutionary science.

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~grafen/cv/fisher.pdf


"Now Fisher used his fundamental theorem in various ways in his book and subsequently. The major effect was that he used it as a licence for regulated anthropomorphism. He discussed organisms as acting to maximize their fitness as though, in line with our discussion of optimization programs, they were rational creatures maximizing a utility function.

Let us ponder this licence a little. Why is a licence needed? Anthropomorphism has been a besetting sin of biologists and others for centuries in understanding organic design. It is essential for a materialist explanation of design to avoid requiring a ghost in the machine. Yet it is also virtually impossible to discuss design without using terms of purpose, so-called intentional terms. To say the eye is for seeing is to invoke intention, just as to say that the kidney processes
waste products, the liver regulates blood sugar, or the eye blink is a reflex to protect the eye. But a good materialist needs an excuse for using intentional terms, unavoidable though they are, and a good excuse, a written and logically argued excuse, may be called a licence."

 

[bhsmte]

LOL

 

[inquiring mind]

I agree, any concept of purposeful design, if there at all, does always seem to be hidden in evolutionary science. I don’t know why so many in the field of study refuse to outright admit that God designed and created everything and they are only struggling at best to understand what has happened since by studying any evolutionary processes (those even obstructed by gap or multi-gap possibilities, etc.), and that the “how or method of” His creation will never be understood beyond the fact that the Bible told us so.

 

[Hank77]

I didn't know this until yesterday, this is something Spurgeon said.

UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION NO. 41-42
A SERMON DELIVERED ON SABBATH MORNING, SEPTEMBER 2, 1855,
BY THE REV. C. H. SPURGEON,
AT NEW PARK STREET CHAPEL, SOUTHWARK.

III.
Then, thirdly, this election is ETERNAL. “God has from the beginning chosen you unto eternal life.” Can any man tell me when the beginning was? Years ago we thought the beginning of this world was when Adam came upon it. But we have discovered that thousands of years before that, God was
preparing chaotic matter to make it a fit abode for man, putting races of creatures upon it who might
die and leave behind the marks of His handiwork and marvelous skill before He tried His hand on man. But that was not the beginning, for revelation points us to a period long before this world was fashioned.....
The New Park Street Pulpit

 

[Ophiolite]

I agree, any concept of purposeful design, if there at all, does always seem to be hidden in evolutionary science.

It is not hidden, it is simply not evident and, consequently, apparently not there. Weak claims by ID proponents have all been refuted, unless you have a recent one or two I am unaware of.

(Let me say as an aside, as an "evolutionist" I would like nothing better than for evidence of design to be found. What an amazing world that would open up as scientists investigated the "whys and the wherefors". It would herald in an astounding revolutionary phase of biology, even more remarkable than the already remarkable phase we find ourselves in. So, just remember, anytime you are responding to me you are responding to an individual for whom evidence of design would be a delight.)

I don’t know why so many in the field of study refuse to outright admit that God designed and created everything

Surely this has been explained to you before! A significant proportion of scientists are Christians who revel in investigating the character of his creation, believing that he is an honest God who does not plant lies in the rocks or in the genomes of the planet. The greater part of the remainder probably adopt the view of Descartes (??), "I see no need for that hypothesis."

. . . . they are only struggling at best to understand what has happened since by studying any evolutionary processes (those even obstructed by gap or multi-gap possibilities, etc.), and that the “how or method of” His creation will never be understood beyond the fact that the Bible told us so.

Well, we have done a pretty good job of disentangling the story so far. This has been achieved by looking at the evidence, forming hypotheses, testing these hypotheses, modifying them as appropriate and gradually building a detailed picture of how the universe works.

The conclusions, provisional as all scientific conclusions are, have been based on two things - the evidence and the investigative power of the human intellect. As a Christian you would understand that both of these are the creation of God, so I am puzzled as to why you would now reject those conclusions. It's your right to do so, but it seems rather contrary.

His creation will never be understood beyond the fact that the Bible told us so.

As I say, you are seriously mistaken in that regard, but - again - you are entitled to be wrong.

 

[inquiring mind]

It is not hidden, it is simply not evident and, consequently, apparently not there. Weak claims by ID proponents have all been refuted, unless you have a recent one or two I am unaware of.

(Let me say as an aside, as an "evolutionist" I would like nothing better than for evidence of design to be found. What an amazing world that would open up as scientists investigated the "whys and the wherefors". It would herald in an astounding revolutionary phase of biology, even more remarkable than the already remarkable phase we find ourselves in. So, just remember, anytime you are responding to me you are responding to an individual for whom evidence of design would be a delight.)

Surely this has been explained to you before! A significant proportion of scientists are Christians who revel in investigating the character of his creation, believing that he is an honest God who does not plant lies in the rocks or in the genomes of the planet. The greater part of the remainder probably adopt the view of Descartes (??), "I see no need for that hypothesis."

Well, we have done a pretty good job of disentangling the story so far. This has been achieved by looking at the evidence, forming hypotheses, testing these hypotheses, modifying them as appropriate and gradually building a detailed picture of how the universe works.

The conclusions, provisional as all scientific conclusions are, have been based on two things - the evidence and the investigative power of the human intellect. As a Christian you would understand that both of these are the creation of God, so I am puzzled as to why you would now reject those conclusions. It's your right to do so, but it seems rather contrary.

As I say, you are seriously mistaken in that regard, but - again - you are entitled to be wrong.

I find it puzzling that if there was definite, indisputable evidence of design found, your primary concern at that point would still be about biology... I can’t begin to comprehend that reasoning, maybe you can explain, but we’ll get back to that in a little bit. First, I’d like to say that when you’re responding to me you are responding to someone who has a great deal of respect for science and its accomplishments. I just have no problem with believing that there is a God who created the wonder of life, and accepting that origin as being beyond our understanding, and also appreciating man’s limited advancements in studying the processes that have happened “since,” remarkable as they are. To answer your question concerning “the evidence and the investigative power of the human intellect,” I don’t see where I gave any indication these are not both the creation of God; perhaps you didn’t understand that I was distinguishing creation from scientific understanding and evolution, to use your words “provisional as all scientific conclusions are,” and I’m confident you have no evidence there is no ID. God does not plant lies anywhere, we simply do not understand everything, nor will we.

 

[Ophiolite]

I find it puzzling that if there was definite, indisputable evidence of design found, your primary concern at that point would still be about biology... I can’t begin to comprehend that reasoning, maybe you can explain, but we’ll get back to that in a little bit.

That is simply explained. If we were to find evidence of design we would wish to know:

• What is the nature of the design?
• How is it expressed?
• How extensive is it?
• Has it operated in a similar manner over billions of years?
• Etc.

As the answers to these questions began to be discerned we would then be in a better position to assess the nature of the designer. You appear to assume that the only option would be God. It is certainly not the only option. (I can think of four alternatives off hand and its not a topic I've previously given much thought to.)

So, if there were clear evidence pointing to design then investigations such as those suggested above would be crucial to help us move on to determining the nature of the designer. That's why biology would be a priority.

First, I’d like to say that when you’re responding to me you are responding to someone who has a great deal of respect for science and its accomplishments.

Good to know. Duly noted.

I just have no problem with believing that there is a God who created the wonder of life, and accepting that origin as being beyond our understanding, and also appreciating man’s limited advancements in studying the processes that have happened “since,” remarkable as they are.

Two points here:
1. I have no problem believing there may be a God, but I would be astounded if he was anything like any of the Gods envisaged by man and I currently see no need to expect that there is one.
2. I was not speaking about origins (unless you meant the origin of humans*). We have clear evidence for evolution from a common ancestor via natural selection and related processes. Our understanding of the details grows daily.

To answer your question concerning “the evidence and the investigative power of the human intellect,” I don’t see where I gave any indication these are not both the creation of God; perhaps you didn’t understand that I was distinguishing creation from scientific understanding and evolution, to use your words “provisional as all scientific conclusions are,” and I’m confident you have no evidence there is no ID. God does not plant lies anywhere, we simply do not understand everything, nor will we.

You didn't give any such indication. But my point is that, if he exists, he gave us the evidence in favour of evolution and he gave us the intellect to understand it. That evidence is so sound, so solid, so diverse, so mutually reinforcing, that if evolution is not true then God is almost certainly lying. Were I still a Christian then, for me, to reject evolution would be a form of blasphemy.

I refer you to Psalms 119: 18. "Open thou mine eyes that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law."
One of the most wondrous is surely evolution.



*Note: I can't really go along with Alexander Pope who said, "the proper study of Mankind is Man." It's too self indulgent and gives echinoderms and hedgehogs a raw deal.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It seems that the concept and recognition of purposeful design has been deliberately hidden in the language of evolutionary science.

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~grafen/cv/fisher.pdf


"Now Fisher used his fundamental theorem in various ways in his book and subsequently. The major effect was that he used it as a licence for regulated anthropomorphism. He discussed organisms as acting to maximize their fitness as though, in line with our discussion of optimization programs, they were rational creatures maximizing a utility function.

Let us ponder this licence a little. Why is a licence needed? Anthropomorphism has been a besetting sin of biologists and others for centuries in understanding organic design. It is essential for a materialist explanation of design to avoid requiring a ghost in the machine. Yet it is also virtually impossible to discuss design without using terms of purpose, so-called intentional terms. To say the eye is for seeing is to invoke intention, just as to say that the kidney processes
waste products, the liver regulates blood sugar, or the eye blink is a reflex to protect the eye. But a good materialist needs an excuse for using intentional terms, unavoidable though they are, and a good excuse, a written and logically argued excuse, may be called a licence."

I have no problem talking about the "design" of life.
I avoid using those words in settings like this forum, because I know that creationists will jump on it like dishonest hawks and immediatly add "baggage" to that term and say that "design requires a designer!!!", while that isn't true at all.

There's a difference between natural design and artificial design.

A snowflake is natural design.
A car engine is artificial design.

Complex living systems are also natural design. The result of the process of evolution.

It is, what evolution does.... It shapes/designs reproducing systems that compete for limited resources with respect to fitness.

That is what the process does.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I just have no problem with believing that there is a God who created the wonder of life, and accepting that origin as being beyond our understanding

Intellectually lazy.
"god-dun-it, we will never understand!" and the questioning instantly stops.

That is the kind of mentality that makes all scientific progress come to a halt.

and I’m confident you have no evidence there is no ID

Shifting burden of proof fail.
It's not upto us to "disprove" fantastical claims that have no evidence.

You want to make claims about "designers" - you support them.

God does not plant lies anywhere, we simply do not understand everything, nor will we.

And again with the intellectually lazy mentality.

"we will never understand! just accept god-dun-it, and move on...."

Many people have said that about a great many subjects. Subjects, that we then understood after putting in the hard work of studying them.

 

[tas8831]

I agree, any concept of purposeful design, if there at all, does always seem to be hidden in evolutionary science. I don’t know why so many in the field of study refuse to outright admit that God designed and created everything and they are only struggling at best to understand what has happened since by studying any evolutionary processes (those even obstructed by gap or multi-gap possibilities, etc.), and that the “how or method of” His creation will never be understood beyond the fact that the Bible told us so.

Hidden?

I think you mean "never found,"

I'm guessing your background in the relevant sciences are about on par with the retired economist that started this thread?

 

[tas8831]

Intellectually lazy.
"god-dun-it, we will never understand!" and the questioning instantly stops.

That is the kind of mentality that makes all scientific progress come to a halt.

There is a great irony here in that creationists/IDcreationists like to accuse evolutionary biologists of 'stopping science' by not allowing questions about design/creation 'in the door.' They like to claim for example, that is was creationsits that 'predicted' function in some junkDNA - yet their 'predictions post-date experiments and predictions made by those pesky evolutionists DECADES before they made theirs!

 

[tas8831]

God does not plant lies anywhere, we simply do not understand everything, nor will we.

1 Kings 22:23 Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I have no problem talking about the "design" of life.
I avoid using those words in settings like this forum, because I know that creationists will jump on it like dishonest hawks and immediatly add "baggage" to that term and say that "design requires a designer!!!", while that isn't true at all.

There's a difference between natural design and artificial design.

A snowflake is natural design.
A car engine is artificial design.

Complex living systems are also natural design. The result of the process of evolution.

It is, what evolution does.... It shapes/designs reproducing systems that compete for limited resources with respect to fitness.

That is what the process does.

This is a huge concession on your part.

Happy B'day.

 

[DogmaHunter]

This is a huge concession on your part.

It is not.

However, what YOUR post is, is a fine example of why I refrain from using the term around dishonest creationists, like you..... there you go, calling it a "huge concession", while in that post, I explicitly explain how creationists tend to attach baggage to that word which isn't at all justified.

I even give an example: "the design of a snowflake".

Count on a creationist, to engage in such dishonesty.

 

[Speedwell]

This is a huge concession on your part.

Happy B'day.

No, it's what we have been trying to explain to you all along.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No, it's what we have been trying to explain to you all along.

All I've heard from you guys is that there is no such thing as design. You've even challenged me to define "design". Now DogmaHunter admits design. It is a huge concession (and it's what I've been trying to explain all along).

Things are not just designed, they are exquisitely and beautifully designed. How a master designer is not implicit to some is a mystery.

 

[inquiring mind]

That is simply explained. If we were to find evidence of design we would wish to know:

• What is the nature of the design?
• How is it expressed?
• How extensive is it?
• Has it operated in a similar manner over billions of years?
• Etc.

As the answers to these questions began to be discerned we would then be in a better position to assess the nature of the designer. You appear to assume that the only option would be God. It is certainly not the only option. (I can think of four alternatives off hand and its not a topic I've previously given much thought to.)

So, if there were clear evidence pointing to design then investigations such as those suggested above would be crucial to help us move on to determining the nature of the designer. That's why biology would be a priority.

Good to know. Duly noted.

Two points here:
1. I have no problem believing there may be a God, but I would be astounded if he was anything like any of the Gods envisaged by man and I currently see no need to expect that there is one.
2. I was not speaking about origins (unless you meant the origin of humans*). We have clear evidence for evolution from a common ancestor via natural selection and related processes. Our understanding of the details grows daily.


You didn't give any such indication. But my point is that, if he exists, he gave us the evidence in favour of evolution and he gave us the intellect to understand it. That evidence is so sound, so solid, so diverse, so mutually reinforcing, that if evolution is not true then God is almost certainly lying. Were I still a Christian then, for me, to reject evolution would be a form of blasphemy.

I refer you to Psalms 119: 18. "Open thou mine eyes that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law."
One of the most wondrous is surely evolution.



*Note: I can't really go along with Alexander Pope who said, "the proper study of Mankind is Man." It's too self indulgent and gives echinoderms and hedgehogs a raw deal.

Thank you for a well-drafted response, I can see your passion for the subject. I’m sorry for the delay in my communication, but I’m sort of testing waters here to make sure I correctly understand the things said, and looking ahead it may be as one poster suggests... there may be some “intellectual laziness” involved too.

So, if there were clear evidence pointing to design then investigations such as those suggested above would be crucial to help us move on to determining the nature of the designer. That's why biology would be a priority.

Of course, this scenario will not occur because the whole “accepting on faith and not our own reasoning” would become irrelevant… and that’s not going to happen (Bible believers sort of think that’s where are troubles began, as far as moral implications and salvation anyway). I must admit, I am still surprised that anyone would imagine that their level of scientific understanding could achieve the height of God’s, but you have to believe in God to think like that though.

1. I have no problem believing there may be a God, but I would be astounded if he was anything like any of the Gods envisaged by man...

You have a point there.

2. I was not speaking about origins (unless you meant the origin of humans*). We have clear evidence for evolution from a common ancestor via natural selection and related processes. Our understanding of the details grows daily.

For argument’s sake, I’ll include human origin. I have no problem with the evidence we see, it’s correctly interpreting that evidence when projecting it backwards that concerns me. I don’t think we will ever have the slightest clue of how God has worked, where origins are concerned, and I think the evidence you rely on could just as easily indicate some type multi-origin design with gaps as it does one single one of an unbroken linear nature.

 

[Speedwell]

All I've heard from you guys is that there is no such thing as design.

Wrong. You either haven't been paying attention or you are being deliberately dishonest.

You've even challenged me to define "design".

Of course. you're the one trying to prove "design." You want to prove design in natural objects so you can shove your Bible up our noses. We're not trying to disprove design, we're only telling you that you can't prove it, and maybe don't even understand what it is.

 

[DogmaHunter]

All I've heard from you guys is that there is no such thing as design.

In the sense that you creationists use that word!

And your reply to my post is an excellent example of that.
For you, the word "design" automatically means "designer", in the sense of a "person" or conscious entity.

But that is not the case. We can talk about the design of a snowflake - and in that case, we by NO MEANS are implying a "designer". Instead we are refering to the patterns inherent in snowflakes, its build up, its geometry,...

It is natural design.

You've even challenged me to define "design". Now DogmaHunter admits design.

And again with that word "admits".
As if I am "guilty" of something.

Stop being so dishonest. I made it perfectly clear what I meant by the word - which is very different from what YOU mean by that word.

When I say that "there is no design in life", then I am using that word like YOU are using it. With attached and implied baggage. A loaded word, if you will.

It is a huge concession (and it's what I've been trying to explain all along).

It is not and I explained how it's not.
But as expected from an intellectually dishonest creationist, you seem to be ignoring that part.

How a master designer is not implicit to some is a mystery.

To "some"? To most, you mean.

And no, it's not really a mystery.
It's rather easy.... it's only implied, when the person has a priori fundamentalist religious beliefs which DEMAND such a designer.

 

[inquiring mind]

Intellectually lazy.
"god-dun-it, we will never understand!" and the questioning instantly stops.

Concerning origins... sort of, yes.

That is the kind of mentality that makes all scientific progress come to a halt.

No, it's the kind that says I'm not accepting your reasoning and you probably need to work harder on it.

Shifting burden of proof fail.
It's not upto us to "disprove" fantastical claims that have no evidence.

But, you believe your evidence is interpreted 100% accurately... this would be a 'tit for tat' rabbit hole.

Many people have said that about a great many subjects. Subjects, that we then understood after putting in the hard work of studying them.

Not me.