Parallel traits question.

OldWiseGuy · Jun 22, 2019

pitabread said:
I don't care what you call it, it doesn't change the fact that IDists have yet to come up with a verifiable method to detect design in biological organisms.

Heck, I can do that just by looking at it.

pitabread · Jun 22, 2019

OldWiseGuy said:
Heck, I can do that just by looking at it.

We've been through this. Your claims of design is based on emotion and not on objective, empirical, demonstrable methods.

If you could otherwise demonstrate design, you'd likely be on staff with the Discovery Institute making a 6 figure salary and publishing books on the subject.

R.J. Aldridge · Jun 22, 2019

pitabread said:
I don't care what you call it, it doesn't change the fact that IDists have yet to come up with a verifiable method to detect design in biological organisms.

I think the question you raise is a good one. Can we apply our experience of what we produce, our experiential knowledge of design, to biological systems themselves, and ultimately to nature itself? Because if we can, design is easily detected in biological organisms. On the other hand, if it is not logical to view nature through the lens of design, one must ask the question, is the ability to intentionally organize matter a natural phenomenon? if design is not natural, where does it come from? If it is natural, is it possible that it is a property if the universe that we can access, and if it is, what excludes the idea of nature being designed?

The way I see it, if there is no verifiable method to detect design in biological organisms, there can be no verifiable method to explain the rise of designers from nature.

Speedwell · Jun 22, 2019

R.J. Aldridge said:
I think the question you raise is a good one. Can we apply our experience of what we produce, our experiential knowledge of design, to biological systems themselves, and ultimately to nature itself? Because if we can, design is easily detected in biological organisms. On the other hand, if it is not logical to view nature through the lens of design, one must ask the question, is the ability to intentionally organize matter a natural phenomenon? if design is not natural, where does it come from? If it is natural, is it possible that it is a property if the universe that we can access, and if it is, what excludes the idea of nature being designed?

The way I see it, if there is no verifiable method to detect design in biological organisms, there can be no verifiable method to explain the rise of designers from nature.

In what sense do you mean "design?" Do you mean "design" as intention? Or do you mean "design" as functional complexity?

AV1611VET · Jun 22, 2019

GusKlenke said:
The system you're looking for is called Intelligent Design.

CHA-CHING!

R.J. Aldridge · Jun 22, 2019

Speedwell said:
In what sense do you mean "design?" Do you mean "design" as intention? Or do you mean "design" as functional complexity?

I am simply trying to understand where one stops and where the other begins in a philosophical sense. If intentional design is a product of unintended designers, unintentionality becomes the source of all intention, and I would like a method to distinguish between the two. Basically, if "intentional" design is by nature a "natural" phenomenon, why is intelligent design an "unnatural" explanation.

Personally, I do not believe that intention is a natural phenomenon. Nature orients itself according to physical properties, and it is nothing but the playing out of varying potentiality. Intention on the other hand, orients nature with actuality in accordance with a goal. If intention is natural, one would have to account for actuality and not just potentiality. One would have to naturalistically account for immaterial realities like values and goals, which are a product of a will.

pitabread · Jun 22, 2019

AV1611VET said:
CHA-CHING!

Incorrect.

Speedwell · Jun 22, 2019

R.J. Aldridge said:
I am simply trying to understand where one stops and where the other begins in a philosophical sense. If intentional design is a product of unintended designers, unintentionality becomes the source of all intention, and I would like a method to distinguish between the two.

I'm not sure I understand the distinction you are trying to make. As I see it, design as intention is distinct from design as a functional arrangement of components. The term has to different meanings. Thus, design (in the sense of a functional arrangement of components) carried out by nature would not necessarily be intentional, in the sense of expressing the will of a sentient being.

SelfSim · Jun 22, 2019

R.J. Aldridge said:
I am simply trying to understand where one stops and where the other begins in a philosophical sense. If intentional design is a product of unintended designers, unintentionality becomes the source of all intention, and I would like a method to distinguish between the two. Basically, if "intentional" design is by nature a "natural" phenomenon, why is intelligent design an "unnatural" explanation.

Personally, I do not believe that intention is a natural phenomenon. Nature orients itself according to physical properties, and it is nothing but the playing out of varying potentiality. Intention on the other hand, orients nature with actuality in accordance with a goal. If intention is natural, one would have to account for actuality and not just potentiality. One would have to naturalistically account for immaterial realities like values and goals, which are a product of a will.

Don't forget that the concept of natural physical laws (themselves) required human intelligence to distinguish in the first place. And there is clearly an intention of using these 'laws' to make predictions.
Physical laws in science are things we've distilled in the process of us exploring the possibility of our explaining (or giving meaning to) our perceptions. In this paradigm of thinking, the 'unintentionality' of which you speak, is simply that we didn't necessarily expect that we could actually formulate consistent physical laws in the first place .. ie: how those laws actually panned out was unintentional.

R.J. Aldridge · Jun 22, 2019

Speedwell said:
I'm not sure I understand the distinction you are trying to make. As I see it, design as intention is distinct from design as a functional arrangement of components. The term has to different meanings. Thus, design (in the sense of a functional arrangement of components) carried out by nature would not necessarily be intentional, in the sense of expressing the will of a sentient being.

I understand your point. I am trying to point out the paradox of natural vs. intelligent design. Design carried out by nature is not necessarily intentional, yet the design carried out by intelligent beings is necessarily natural if one assumes a naturalistic origin of life. If it is necessarily natural, intention is a by-product of nature and is therefore unintentional.

Perhaps I am playing games with definitions, but when someone says that there is no way to detect intelligent design in biological organisms, the truth is, the only way to detect design, intended or not, is by understanding what goes into intelligently designing a system. Our understanding of design is the only tool available for us to judge the functionality of biological systems. It is the only thing we know of in this universe that has been verified to produce such complex, interdependent systems, but if we use such abilities to understand nature, those who use intelligent design are apparently unscientific.

Speedwell · Jun 22, 2019

R.J. Aldridge said:
I understand your point. I am trying to point out the paradox of natural vs. intelligent design. Design carried out by nature is not necessarily intentional, yet the design carried out by intelligent beings is necessarily natural if one assumes a naturalistic origin of life. If it is necessarily natural, intention is a by-product of nature and is therefore unintentional.

Perhaps I am playing games with definitions, but when someone says that there is no way to detect intelligent design in biological organisms, the truth is, the only way to detect design, intended or not, is by understanding what goes into intelligently designing a system. Our understanding of design is the only tool available for us to judge the functionality of biological systems.

The way we detect "design" as functional arrangement of components is by observing a functional arrangement of components. We need not understand a priori how that arrangement has been brought about.

It is the only thing we know of in this universe that has been verified to produce such complex, interdependent systems

Randomly distributed variation followed by selection can also create such systems.

but if we use such abilities to understand nature, those who use intelligent design are apparently unscientific.

Intelligent Design is "unscientific" only because at this point it is nothing but an unfalsifiable assertion which contributes nothing to our understanding of nature. Unfalsifiable propositions are by definition unscientific.

OldWiseGuy · Jun 22, 2019

Speedwell said:
Intelligent Design is "unscientific" only because at this point it is nothing but an unfalsifiable assertion which contributes nothing to our understanding of nature. Unfalsifiable propositions are by definition unscientific.

What is it that we cannot understand about nature by studying intentional design?

Shemjaza · Jun 22, 2019

AV1611VET said:
CHA-CHING!

pitabread said:
Incorrect.

I disagree, I think it's a perfect sound effect.

It's the cash register sound of the ID institutes and promoters using this interesting biological and historical question to line their pockets with the money of the faithful.

OldWiseGuy · Jun 22, 2019

pitabread said:
We've been through this. Your claims of design is based on emotion and not on objective, empirical, demonstrable methods.

If you could otherwise demonstrate design, you'd likely be on staff with the Discovery Institute making a 6 figure salary and publishing books on the subject.

Since evolutionary scientists have appropriated the meaning of "design" in regard to organisms I doubt if my observations would be taken seriously. Of course I do understand that if science concedes design they must concede a designer.

Brightmoon · Jun 22, 2019

As far as the original post . Early fish like organisms had a single fin running down the center on top or bottom . The genes that controlled that make-this-here just turned on in two areas rather than in just one central area. It evolved because having left and right fins made it easier to steer . You can see this in the fossil record too. Fins in modern fish also still form as a single ventral ( stomach side) fin and as a single fin on top

The pectoral fins form behind the gill opening because the scapula is actually attached to the back of the skullroof in fish . These form the front limbs in land vertebrates. The two fins at the bottom are the pelvic fins . And you can see the single ventral fin .

Brightmoon · Jun 22, 2019

OldWiseGuy said:
Since evolutionary scientists have appropriated the meaning of "design" in regard to organisms I doubt if my observations would be taken seriously. Of course I do understand that if science concedes design they must concede a designer.

snowflakes look designed , they aren’t . Their shapes are a predictable result of the shape of the water molecules, temperature, wind speed, and air humidity . You think living organisms look designed because they’re a little more complex chemical factories than snowflakes. God-did-it is a belief and as of right now there is no scientific way to test to see if thatbelief is accurate . Belief has nothing to do with science

AV1611VET · Jun 22, 2019

Brightmoon said:
snowflakes look designed , they aren’t . Their shapes are a predictable result of the shape of the water molecules, temperature, wind speed, and air humidity .

Then why aren't the flakes nearest them the same shape?

pitabread · Jun 22, 2019

OldWiseGuy said:
Since evolutionary scientists have appropriated the meaning of "design" in regard to organisms I doubt if my observations would be taken seriously.

Your observations aren't taken seriously because they are based on emotional reaction.

pitabread · Jun 22, 2019

Shemjaza said:
It's the cash register sound of the ID institutes and promoters using this interesting biological and historical question to line their pockets with the money of the faithful.

That is true. They do take in millions each year in donations.

AV1611VET · Jun 22, 2019

pitabread said:
That is true. They do take in millions each year in donations.

As opposed to what? taxing us to fund SETI?

Parallel traits question.

Wake me when it's soup.

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

A non "-ist"

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Wake me when it's soup.

Regular Member

Wake me when it's soup.

Apes and humans are all in family Hominidae.

Apes and humans are all in family Hominidae.

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Similar threads