• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Does science actually admit "design"?

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Site Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,976
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟1,005,212.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Based on your post, I shall be trying this at the weekend with my son.

If you can choose an open area with a hard surface or a body of still water so the sound isn't impeded as it travels from your son to you. I think you will need at least two full blocks distance between you and him. A good test would be to make a loud sharp sound rather than voice. You can easily see a hammer striking a frying pan better than mouth movements, but the resulting delay would be the same.

Speed of sound = 1200 ft/sec
Speed of light = 186,000 mile/sec

A sound made 1200 feet (four football fields away) from you takes a full second to reach you while the image of the source of that sound reaches you instantly.
 
Last edited:
  • Friendly
Reactions: Ophiolite
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Site Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,976
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟1,005,212.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
But, again, I'll say this to answer the OP's question: NO, science DOESN'T admit designer as per something designed by a designer.

So science admits design but no designer?
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
It looks like 'the aorta sends motor impulses to the larynx via the RLN' genius is ignoring me.

Always seems that the most pompous of the Dunning-Kruger types end up ignoring requests for them to put their money where their mouths are.
 
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
9,210
10,099
✟282,290.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
So science admits design but no designer?
I think you already know this, but are just playing dumb:

When scientists speak of design in nature it has a different meaning from that intended when talking of human design. In the context of natural design, it references the way in which the anatomical structure, or biochemistry, or metabolic cycles, or behvioural patterns, etc. form a cohesive suite of 'elements'. It is a shorthand way of conveying a general concept.

Confusion between the two forms does not occur among those who have studied the matter. Nor should it occur among those who have had it explained to them. When it does, we are led to suspect deliberate obfuscation or deficient intellectual effort.
 
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Site Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,976
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟1,005,212.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I think you already know this, but are just playing dumb:

When scientists speak of design in nature it has a different meaning from that intended when talking of human design. In the context of natural design, it references the way in which the anatomical structure, or biochemistry, or metabolic cycles, or behvioural patterns, etc. form a cohesive suite of 'elements'. It is a shorthand way of conveying a general concept.

Confusion between the two forms does not occur among those who have studied the matter. Nor should it occur among those who have had it explained to them. When it does, we are led to suspect deliberate obfuscation or deficient intellectual effort.

So natural designs things, albeit accidently.
 
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
9,210
10,099
✟282,290.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
So natural designs things, albeit accidently.
Nature designs things - yes, but there is nothing accidental about natural selection.

I know you have been told that before, yet you keep repeating it. Now, is it proper to keep recycling the same faulty misunderstanding when you have been corrected on it? I cannot see any justification for that. Please stop it.
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
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.

Most likely that 'Natural design" is a result of massive intelligence since
good design does not manifest itself in a vacuum, or as a result of thermal energy.
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Nature designs things - yes, but there is nothing accidental about natural selection.

I know you have been told that before, yet you keep repeating it. Now, is it proper to keep recycling the same faulty misunderstanding when you have been corrected on it? I cannot see any justification for that. Please stop it.

People like to remain in their own opinions and change slowly.
After a few years of not knowing how influence works, you'll see.
And I was JUST about to like your first sentence too.
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
It seems that the concept and recognition of purposeful design has been deliberately hidden in the language of evolutionary science.

Naturally.

The goal is to exclude supernatural influence and find natural reasons for everything.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: OldWiseGuy
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
LOL! It's the Atheist Conspiracy!

No.....that's the plain stated goal of science, to find the cause for any effect.
It's not conspiracy, it's the intent.
 
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
15,036
7,402
31
Wales
✟424,248.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
Naturally.

The goal is to exclude supernatural influence and find natural reasons for everything.

How can it be a goal when there is no way include supernatural influence in science in the first place?
Me thinks the gentleman doth protest too much.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Naturally.

The goal is to exclude supernatural influence and find natural reasons for everything.


No.

The goal is to explain things in testable ways with supporting evidence.
The supernatural isn't testable, nore supportable.

Don't blame science for it being impossible to differentiate the "supernatural" from the imaginary and/or the non-existant.

The second you can demonstrate the existance of the supernatural AND that it actually plays a role in any phenomenon, is the second that science will happily include it as a factor.

Until that day, why would it?
We might just as well include undetectable, undemonstrable graviton fairies in the theory of gravity. Same merrit.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Ophiolite
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
No.

The goal is to explain things in testable ways with supporting evidence.
The supernatural isn't testable, nore supportable.

Don't blame science for it being impossible to differentiate the "supernatural" from the imaginary and/or the non-existant.

The second you can demonstrate the existance of the supernatural AND that it actually plays a role in any phenomenon, is the second that science will happily include it as a factor.

Until that day, why would it?
We might just as well include undetectable, undemonstrable graviton fairies in the theory of gravity. Same merrit.


Usually you can come up with something in opposition to my posts.
You're slipping.
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
How can it be a goal when there is no way include supernatural influence in science in the first place?
Me thinks the gentleman doth protest too much.

Why you thinks I am protesting? I arnst not.
 
Upvote 0