Criteria for determining design

[crjmurray]

Alright at this point we have one person who has described their criteria for determining design. Has anybody else got a criteria?

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Let me get this straight.

You go around asking for the definitin of "kind."

Then when someone gives you one, you say he should have said, "I don't know"?

Is this so you can boast you've never been given one?

Come on AV, you know I was speaking in a more general sense.

And yours is the best definition of creationist "kind" I've seen. Good on ya for providing it.

Can you provide a definition of "design"?

 

[AV1611VET]

Can you provide a definition of "design"?

No.

To quote Wikipedia:

With such a broad denotation, there is no universal language or unifying institution for designers of all disciplines. This allows for many differing philosophies and approaches toward the subject.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

No.

To quote Wikipedia:

It almost sounds like you think it is impossible to give a definitive definition of design (I don't want to put words in your mouth).

If that's true, I don't think Intelligent Design can become science as it would be unfalsifiable. Do you agree with this, and do you see it as a problem?

 

[AV1611VET]

It almost sounds like you think it is impossible to give a definitive definition of design (I don't want to put words in your mouth).

If that's true, I don't think Intelligent Design can become science as it would be unfalsifiable. Do you agree with this, and do you see it as a problem?

Intelligent Design can take a hike.

Intelligent Design is a contradiction in terms.

I believe in Creationism, not Intelligent Design.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Intelligent Design can take a hike.

Intelligent Design is a contradiction in terms.

I believe in Creationism, not Intelligent Design.

And to think, someone actually doubted that you were a YEC at some point

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Intelligent Design can take a hike.

Intelligent Design is a contradiction in terms.

I believe in Creationism, not Intelligent Design.

I admire your honest evaluation of ID.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I'm not trying to pull teeth here people. It's a simple question. What criteria do you use for determining if something is designed?

If it looks, walks, and quacks like it was designed, it was probably designed.

That may sound trite, but consider (reeeeally think about) what must take place in the total evolutionary history (not the big-chunks-of-change of macro-history that science presents) of a complex organism and the equally complex environment in which it lives, in order for it not to be designed.

 

[Kylie]

This thread is for those who believe in Intelligent Design and also for those who believe in Evolution. I don't like using the word believe for either one but there it is.

If you were to look at an organism how would you determine design? What is the criteria you would use? How does this criteria relate to a deity?

Sorry everybody, but there is no poll associated with this thread

For clarification purposes:
Design: purpose, planning, or intention that exists or is thought to exist behind an action, fact, or material object.

For our purposes: planning, or intention that exists behind a material object.
Thanks to TFY for the suggestion

I haven't read through the thread yet, but I would propose that a good design is one where it serves a clear purpose, all parts contribute to that purpose, it fulfills that purpose in the most efficient way possible and there are no superfluous parts.

A carton of milk, for example, does this. It keeps the milk fresh and unspoiled, it has information on the box so you know what's inside it, it tells you if it is safe to drink of not.

 

[Kylie]

Imo, that's one of the evidences, yes.

What if the very first living things had much fewer interdependant parts?

What if the very first organisms were simply just self-replicating molecules? If some molecules could self-replicate better than others, that's all that would be required for natural selection to take effect.

 

[ChetSinger]

I haven't read through the thread yet, but I would propose that a good design is one where it serves a clear purpose, all parts contribute to that purpose, it fulfills that purpose in the most efficient way possible and there are no superfluous parts.

A carton of milk, for example, does this. It keeps the milk fresh and unspoiled, it has information on the box so you know what's inside it, it tells you if it is safe to drink of not.

Interesting. Would you consider paintings and sculptures designed? Using the criterion I gave crjmurray they're not. Yet they are. What about your criteria?

 

[Kylie]

Interesting. Would you consider paintings and sculptures designed? Using the criterion I gave crjmurray they're not. Yet they are. What about your criteria?

Well, it comes down to what you would say the definition of the painting is.

If you work from the opinion that a painting is a representation of the artist's wishes, and that he makes it look the way he wants it to, by whatever method he chooses to use, then yes, it is designed.

 

[ChetSinger]

Well, it comes down to what you would say the definition of the painting is.

If you work from the opinion that a painting is a representation of the artist's wishes, and that he makes it look the way he wants it to, by whatever method he chooses to use, then yes, it is designed.

But is a painting "designed" using the criteria you originally gave?

 

[sandybay]

Criteria for determining design.

It's two problems really, once we have decided what design looks like we will need to decide who the designer was.
If it's like art where some people say "everything is art" it means there is no such thing as art, if everything in nature is designed then there is no such thing as designed because we have nothing to compare what is designed with what is not designed, how would we know? which brings us back to, no evidence therefore faith.

Why are we even trying to think logically when we talk about ID? or anything religious for that matter?
logic is redundant when it comes to religion.

 

[ChetSinger]

What if the very first living things had much fewer interdependant parts?

What if the very first organisms were simply just self-replicating molecules? If some molecules could self-replicate better than others, that's all that would be required for natural selection to take effect.

How could DNA have remained viable without repair mechanisms? How did the specifications for such repair mechanisms just happen to get encoded into that very same DNA? Myself, I think such interdependencies are evidence of engineering. Ymmv, of course.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

How could DNA have remained viable without repair mechanisms? How did the specifications for such repair mechanisms just happen to get encoded into that very same DNA? Myself, I think such interdependencies are evidence of engineering. Ymmv, of course.

Let's say we could find an evolutionary path to repair mechanisms. Would that convince you that we don't need design?

If not, at what point would you be convinced that we don't need design? Would every single thing have to have an evolutionary path demonstrated? Would even that convince you?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Why are we even trying to think logically when we talk about ID? or anything religious for that matter?
logic is redundant when it comes to religion.

There is little difference between ID (creationism) and evolution in the respect that upon close examination both (would have) occurred against odds so overwhelming as to be incalculable, with the caveat that only creation could have guided the process to the successful organisms we see today within the time span available.

In other words if the number of years available for evolution to take place were divided by the number of fortuitous processes necessary in order to produce those organism the changes would have to occur with machine gun rapidity and be completely successful the very first time.

 

[ChetSinger]

Let's say we could find an evolutionary path to repair mechanisms. Would that convince you that we don't need design?

If not, at what point would you be convinced that we don't need design? Would every single thing have to have an evolutionary path demonstrated? Would even that convince you?

My relationship with Christ isn't based upon what happened long ago, but upon what's happening right now. So I might be convinced to become a TE. But I'm not turning aside from the Lord. Because he's not just the Lord who designed our biosphere long ago, but the Lord who's living and working right now. As Jesus once said, "He is not the God of the dead, but of the living".

That being said, that "chicken-vs-egg" issue regarding DNA repair mechanisms is multiplied by about 200 times, even for simple cells. I'm not expecting a demonstration of the naturalistic assemblage of such a thing in my lifetime.

 

[sandybay]

There is little difference between ID (creationism) and evolution in the respect that upon close examination both (would have) occurred against odds so overwhelming as to be incalculable, with the caveat that only creation could have guided the process to the successful organisms we see today within the time span available.

In other words if the number of years available for evolution to take place were divided by the number of fortuitous processes necessary in order to produce those organism the changes would have to occur with machine gun rapidity and be completely successful the very first time.

Meaningless words designed to keep yourself believing, for what?

 

[dad]

Intelligent Design can take a hike.

Intelligent Design is a contradiction in terms.

I believe in Creationism, not Intelligent Design.

I thought they called it that because God is intelligent and He created things (designed them)? Do they deny creation?