Does science actually admit "design"?

[DogmaHunter]

Concerning origins... sort of, yes.

Now it concerns origins (of life, the cosmos, ...)
It used to concern other things as well, which today ARE understood.

I'm sure that there are things that we'll never understand. But it can't be for lack of trying!
You won't know, until you try. And when you fail, you try again. And again. And again.
And then some.

That's how you make progress...

Not by stuffing "god" into every knowledge gap and asserting it to be not knowable.
That's just trying to "explain away" a mystery by appealing to an even bigger mystery.

Or, as the saying goes: "you can't explain the unexplained with the inexplicable".

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

When your position is that "it can't be understood", then you won't be working harder. That's the point. Asserting that it "can't be understood", is just throwing in the towel and giving up.

Working harder to understand, means that you assume that it CAN be understood.

But, you believe your evidence is interpreted 100% accurately...

I believe no such thing.

Not me.

Because you live in an age where those things are already understood.

 

[tas8831]

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).

It would be very helpful is you would stop simply ignoring parts of other people's posts that you apparently do not think you can massage to make fit your paradigm.

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

You started a thread implying that you had 'studied' anatomy and such and concluded creation/design.

When asked for an actual example/explanation, you dodged and ducked.

Yet here you are, in essence, re-iterating that which you were unable to support the past time you indicated this.

That YOU, a retired, religious, creationist with no knowledge of anatomy or biology (by your own admission) economist, see "design" everywhere, is not due to your study or knowledge, it is due to your a priori programming.

But do tell us about the exquisite and beautiful design of the dung beetle. The tapeworm. Vibrio cholerae.

Or this:

"The [female hyena's] [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] is enormously elongated to form this fully erectile pseudopenis through which they urinate, copulate and give birth...It's the only female mammal that has no external vaginal opening..."​

I have read that the female often has to chew off the end of this organ to give birth.

Exquisite and beautiful, you said...

 

[Halbhh]

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 think it's not going to be possible to prove God exists through science.

Because if we could, that would invalidate much of the Bible, which is not about simple observation of mere factual information, but about gaining faith. Read and see -- the scripture is to aid us to come to a powerful ability to trust, "faith".

Something vastly more valuable for living in eternity than mere factual information about geology, genetics, etc.

Easy proof would preclude, preempt faith. It's not faith to know that you have a car. It's a mere fact, requiring zero faith.

Easy proof would work against faith, the true goal.

Not only is there never going to be any easy proof, but if there was, it would need to be removed (and perhaps at times it has been!) in order to conform to the necessity of building the real value that matters, faith.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

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.



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


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.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You started a thread implying that you had 'studied' anatomy and such and concluded creation/design.

When asked for an actual example/explanation, you dodged and ducked.

I said I rummaged through "Gray's Anatomy". Great designs in there.

 

[inquiring mind]

I think it's not going to be possible to prove God exists through science.

or disprove

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I said I rummaged through "Gray's Anatomy". Great designs in there.

So you lied.

 

[tas8831]

I said I rummaged through "Gray's Anatomy". Great designs in there.

Provide a few examples.

Then explain how they represent grand designs/creations.

I have a Gray's, too. I also have about 5 anatomy textbooks, both undergraduate and graduate, on the shelves just behind me. So feel free to be as technical as you are able to be.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I think it's not going to be possible to prove God exists through science.

Because if we could, that would invalidate much of the Bible, which is not about simple observation of mere factual information, but about gaining faith. Read and see -- the scripture is to aid us to come to a powerful ability to trust, "faith".

Something vastly more valuable for living in eternity than mere factual information about geology, genetics, etc.

Easy proof would preclude, preempt faith. It's not faith to know that you have a car. It's a mere fact, requiring zero faith.

Easy proof would work against faith, the true goal.

Not only is there never going to be any easy proof, but if there was, it would need to be removed (and perhaps at times it has been!) in order to conform to the necessity of building the real value that matters, faith.

The debate centers around the evidence of creation, not faith.

Romans 1:20
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

"They" are the atheistic scientists.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Provide a few examples.

Then explain how they represent grand designs/creations.

I have a Gray's, too. I also have about 5 anatomy textbooks, both undergraduate and graduate, on the shelves just behind me. So feel free to be as technical as you are able to be.

If you don't see design there I can't help you.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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."

Notice when they talk of natural selection they talk of it as if it is a thinking being. For example, a bird does not know it needs a new beak shape to eat food, but the production of that new beak shape is talked about as if it was a planned event.

They cant get away from design, because design is inherent in everything.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So you lied.

I'm a 'quick study'. I don't have to stay up nights agonizing over things like a college student cramming for an exam. Just a cursory perusal confirms elaborate, purposeful design.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Notice when they talk of natural selection they talk of it as if it is a thinking being. For example, a bird does not know it needs a new beak shape to eat food, but the production of that new beak shape is talked about as if it was a planned event.

They cant get away from design, because design is inherent in everything.

And deliberate purpose.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The debate centers around the evidence of creation, not faith.

Romans 1:20
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

"They" are the atheistic scientists.

Yes, we understand that everything is made from invisible energy, that God is Energy/Mind. That Energy is in all and all things are from it, and will return to it.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

And deliberate purpose.

Yes, that's another thing they can't avoid.

 

[tas8831]

So you lied.

From his 'How to choose' thread:

"If you study human, animal, and plant anatomy, with an open mind, you will likely believe in creation. "

IMPLICATION: the poster had done so and concluded creation.

"Sorry. I looked at the evidence and became incredulous because of the unbelievable claims of evolution. So where do I fit in? "

Later admitted to not knowing much about biology. Hmmm...

Ran out of time - off to work.

I will find more later.

 

[tas8831]

I'm a 'quick study'. I don't have to stay up nights agonizing over things like a college student cramming for an exam. Just a cursory perusal confirms elaborate, purposeful design.

The lack of instrospection - and the massive Dunning-Kruger effect - are strong in this one.

 

[tas8831]

Yes, that's another thing they can't avoid.

Where did the Asian and African comer from in the first place, since Adam and Eve were nearly identical middle easterners?

You avoid that big time.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Because you live in an age where those things are already understood.

What do we really understand? We dont even know what magnetic field or electric fields are. We just know how to calculate their effects on things. We dont really know what gravity is, and we surely dont understand the atomic structure yet or what things are really made of. But one day we will, and then all excuses will be removed. Romans 1:20

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Where did the Asian and African comer from in the first place, since Adam and Eve were nearly identical middle easterners?

You avoid that big time.

For one, what makes you think they were middle Easteners?

For another what makes you think they were nearly identical? Adam was created perfect, i.e. every racial genome already existed within him. Half was used to create Eve. Therefore we start with two non-identical beings. Each with half of a perfect genome. The two shall become one flesh (i.e. a new life)

But I am sure you have already forgotten that over 100 breeds of dogs were brought about from one wolf stock. How easily evolutionists forget this when they question how humans can do the same thing to themselves they did with dogs. Yet wonder in awe how a mere 12 to 15 races came about, while claiming to understand how 100 breeds of dogs happened..... I find this selective memory, astonishing....

I don't avoid it, you just refuse to remember dogs every time you ask.