Does science actually admit "design"?

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Sorry. I changed that comment before I posted it. I don't know how comments are viewable before they are even posted.

It's a timing thing with the website. There's also the thing where you get e-mails with the original comment, but you don't get the edited version. So I'll answer you edited comment below along with your reply to my previous comment too.

Air and food both enter through the mouth, but go down different tubes that are separated/controlled by the glottis/epiglottis. Clever design.

And yet humans can still easily choke on food that has gone down in to the throat. That's not clever design.

It is pretty obvious. You don't need a weatherman to tell you which way the wind is blowing.

"It's pretty obvious" is one of the single most idiotic and vapid comments that can be used to handwave away any legitimate criticism. It's not answer because if it was obvious, I wouldn't be bloody asking you!

 

[OldWiseGuy]

And yet humans can still easily choke on food that has gone down in to the throat. That's not clever design.

Such choking is not a very big problem anywhere in the world. Also the system is much more complex than just breathing and swallowing.

"It's pretty obvious" is one of the single most idiotic and vapid comments that can be used to handwave away any legitimate criticism. It's not answer because if it was obvious, I wouldn't be bloody asking you!

I'm not trying to convince you, I'm just stating my opinion on the matter.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Such choking is not a very big problem anywhere in the world.

I have a very distinct feeling that you're lying here and you simply don't know.
From the National Safety Council website on choking:
"According to Injury Facts 2017, choking is the fourth leading cause of unintentional injury death. Of the 5,051 people who died from choking in 2015, 2,848 were older than 74.

Food is often responsible for choking incidents in the elderly. Living alone, and having dentures or difficulty swallowing can increase risk."

I'm not trying to convince you, I'm just stating my opinion on the matter.

No, you specifically started a thread asking "does science actually admit design?", and not once in this thread have you ever said "This is just my opinion".

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I have a very distinct feeling that you're lying here and you simply don't know.
From the National Safety Council website on choking:
"According to Injury Facts 2017, choking is the fourth leading cause of unintentional injury death. Of the 5,051 people who died from choking in 2015, 2,848 were older than 74.

Food is often responsible for choking incidents in the elderly. Living alone, and having dentures or difficulty swallowing can increase risk."

If the cause of choking was a poorly designed system there would be millions of such deaths. I have a constriction in my throat that causes difficulty in swallowing certain foods, so I'm careful when eating these. I also have to crush certain pills and mix them with applesauce to get them down. No problems, and I'm an older person, 78 this month.

No, you specifically started a thread asking "does science actually admit design?", and not once in this thread have you ever said "This is just my opinion".

What is your opinion on the matter, without regard to mine?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If the cause of choking was a poorly designed system there would be millions of such deaths. I have a constriction in my throat that causes difficulty in swallowing certain foods, so I'm careful when eating these. I also have to crush certain pills and mix them with applesauce to get them down. No problems, and I'm an older person, 78 this month.

I don't get what you're saying. Just because we don't know how many people die worldwide from choking, you think it's a non-issue? Am I right in my thinking?

What is your opinion on the matter?

I think that if you're going to suggest something as extraordinary like anatomy shows design, then you have to show actual evidence for that claim apart from you just saying "It's obvious".

 

[Mr Darcy]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that that is just you defining it as such. But it is meaningless imo.


What does that mean?
What do you mean with "worship"?

There is an almost tangible reverence for "science". To be fair, it is usually young guys either in, or just out of college. At the end of the day, "science" is just a word you will find in the dictionary with specific meanings.

This definition is as good as any other: "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment"

It's when one argues that "science" is the salvation of man that it gets a bit creepy. The salvation of man is the death and resurrection of Christ. Science can work in harmony with that, but without that, science is a very malevolent "god". The "worship" of science is what gave us eugenics.

 

[Mr Darcy]

I'm pretty sure he means something like this:

View attachment 225541

I don't think this is very common among scientists, but hey, what do I know?

Not at all. It's not that overt. It is really more of a belief that man's salvation lies with the human intellect.

And where it really breaks with Christianity, is that the "religion of science" sees "mankind" as a single unit, or "hive". Individuals have no value. Christianity teaches the exact opposite.

It's why I use the analogy of the ant hill regarding science.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

There is an almost tangible reverence for "science". To be fair, it is usually young guys either in, or just out of college. At the end of the day, "science" is just a word you will find in the dictionary with specific meanings.

This definition is as good as any other: "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment"

It's when one argues that "science" is the salvation of man that it gets a bit creepy. The salvation of man is the death and resurrection of Christ. Science can work in harmony with that, but without that, science is a very malevolent "god". The "worship" of science is what gave us eugenics.

I think that you really need to get out in to the world and talk to people, since no-one actually reveres science as you say they do.
And 'the worship of science is what gave us eugenics'? What basis do you have to make that claim?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I don't get what you're saying. Just because we don't know how many people die worldwide from choking, you think it's a non-issue? Am I right in my thinking?

I don't think much about it.

I think that if you're going to suggest something as extraordinary like anatomy shows design, then you have to show actual evidence for that claim apart from you just saying "It's obvious".

Creation is as obvious to me as evolution is to others. Millions believe in evolution despite knowing nothing about it. They can no more explain it to me than I can explain my belief to them.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I don't think much about it.

Please try and answer my question next time.
Repeating: I don't get what you're saying. Just because we don't know how many people die worldwide from choking, you think it's a non-issue? Am I right in my thinking?

Creation is as obvious to me as evolution is to others. Millions believe in evolution despite knowing nothing about it. They can no more explain it to me than I can explain my belief to them.

But creation ISN'T obvious to everyone else, that's why simply saying "It's obvious" is a stupid cop-out answer.
And if you know that you can't explain it, why even pretend to try and take the time to explain it? Aren't you just wasting your time and everyone else's?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Not at all. It's not that overt. It is really more of a belief that man's salvation lies with the human intellect.

And where it really breaks with Christianity, is that the "religion of science" sees "mankind" as a single unit, or "hive". Individuals have no value. Christianity teaches the exact opposite.

It's why I use the analogy of the ant hill regarding science.

So true. Even evolution involves "populations", not individuals, and while staying with the group has it's benefits it's the individual that is largely responsible for his/her success or failure in life. There's a saying, "Don't go with the crowd because the crowd is always wrong."

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Please try and answer my question next time.
Repeating: I don't get what you're saying. Just because we don't know how many people die worldwide from choking, you think it's a non-issue? Am I right in my thinking?

You're correct, it's a non-issue for me.

But creation ISN'T obvious to everyone else, that's why simply saying "It's obvious" is a stupid cop-out answer.
And if you know that you can't explain it, why even pretend to try and take the time to explain it? Aren't you just wasting your time and everyone else's?

When I look at a diagram of an organ or organism and learn how it functions I see purposeful, elegant design. What more can I say?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You're correct, it's a non-issue for me.

So really, you're really being quite stupid with that line of logic. It's a proven fact that people choke on food because our main tube for breathing is shared with our main eating tube. That's not elegant design. That's incredibly shoddy design. The fact that choking is even a fact shows that's a shoddy design.

When I look at a diagram of an organ or organism and learn how it functions I see purposeful, elegant design. What more can I say?

Then why go and say that science admits design when it's only you who sees design?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So really, you're really being quite stupid with that line of logic. It's a proven fact that people choke on food because our main tube for breathing is shared with our main eating tube. That's not elegant design. That's incredibly shoddy design. The fact that choking is even a fact shows that's a shoddy design.

Perhaps you should have yours altered before you choke to death. Science can do wonders these days.

Then why go and say that science admits design when it's only you who sees design?

I posed a question, based on a science article that suggested design. Do you believe that OldWiseGuy is the 'only' one on earth that sees design?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Perhaps you should have yours altered before you choke to death.

But I can't do that without major invasive surgery which would see me inserting two separate tubes.

I posed a question, based on a science article that suggested design.

No, all you did was show that you didn't understand what was written in the article. HINT: "To say the eye is for seeing is to invoke intention" is not saying that the eye was designed for seeing, it's saying that human nature makes us see design in things that aren't.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

But I can't do that without major invasive surgery which would see me inserting two separate tubes.

If they can turn a penis into a vagina I'm sure they can help you.

No, all you did was show that you didn't understand what was written in the article. HINT: "To say the eye is for seeing is to invoke intention" is not saying that the eye was designed for seeing, it's saying that human nature makes us see design in things that aren't.

The author was telling why they just can't recognize purposeful design, because that would put the "ghost", a (horrors) Creator into the picture.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If they can turn a penis into a vagina I'm sure they can help you.

Not really the same kind of deal.

The author was telling why they can't assign purposeful design, because that would put the "ghost", a (horrors) Creator into the picture.

Because there's no scientific evidence of a Creator!

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Because there's no scientific evidence of a Creator!

Science has pretty narrow parameters in this regard.

Well, I'm off to my woodshop. I've inherited the ability to create things from my Father (I'm the image and likeness of Him), and I'm creating a dresser for the guestroom (no other creature creates stuff like man does).

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Science has pretty narrow parameters in this regard.

Well, I'm off to my woodshop. I've inherited the ability to create things from my Father (I'm the image and likeness of Him), and I'm creating a dresser for the guestroom (no other creature creates stuff like man does).

A VERY BAD comparison.
Science works with what can be seen and tested to the best of the human experience. A deity, of any order, is an extra-human being. It is outside of our scope to experience and thus science can't test for it.
If you can give us a test to show that any deity, let alone the God of the Bible, exists, then go for it. You'll get an instant Nobel Prize.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Of course it can. Religion reveals why people do the things they do.

No it doesn't.
Psychology or neuroscience might, though.

Unless you're talking about behaviour motivated by religion, off course.
Like burning witches or flying planes into buildings ;-)