Does science actually admit "design"?

[OldWiseGuy]

But you just read a book with an a priori assumption. That's not studying!

What do you mean by 'studying'?

 

[DogmaHunter]

You mean I didn't probe it for it's evolutionary development. Actually anatomy books don't go into evolution very much. They mainly describe how the body works. The elegance of it all makes evolution unlikely, considering what must occur for it to happen at all.

How reality works, is not dependend on what you in your ignorance consider to be "unlikely" though.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

A "quick study" gets it pretty quickly.

No it doesn't.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What do you mean by 'studying'?

Devoting ACTUAL time and attention to a source or multiple sources to learn or understand something.
A quick read of an anatomy book is not studying it.

 

[Halbhh]

"Speedwell hates Jesus" is an insult, not an ad hominem.

"Speedwell's argument is wrong because the logic is faulty and he hates Jesus" is a criticism followed by an insult, not an ad hominem.

"Speedwell's argument is wrong because he hates Jesus" is an ad hominem.

Someone saying anything like that, we should pray for, because Christ told us to pray for those that attack us.

 

[Ophiolite]

A "quick study" gets it pretty quickly.

In the context of study, "quick" means: superficial, lacking in breadth and depth, simplified, simplistic, cursory, inadequate, indifferent, etc.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

A "quick study" gets it pretty quickly.

As I was perusing the topic of argumentum ad absurdum I came across a term I'd never heard before but that fits me perfectly in regard to this topic....the "evidence of the senses". Reading about anatomy confirms to me, through what I 'sense', that we were indeed purposefully designed and made in our present form.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

In the context of study, "quick" means: superficial, lacking in breadth and depth, simplified, simplistic, cursory, inadequate, indifferent, etc.

I'm surprised that this term is unknown to you.

a quick study Meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary

 

[Speedwell]

A "quick study" gets it pretty quickly.

As I was perusing the topic of argumentum ad absurdum I came across a term I'd never heard before but that fits me perfectly in regard to this topic....the "evidence of the senses". Reading about anatomy confirms to me, through what I 'sense', that we were indeed purposefully designed and made in our present form.

Can you state that as a falsifiable proposition?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Devoting ACTUAL time and attention to a source or multiple sources to learn or understand something.
A quick read of an anatomy book is not studying it.

I read slowly and carefully, digesting information as I go.

 

[Mr Darcy]

How reality works, is not dependend on what you in your ignorance consider to be "unlikely" though.

Or in one's intelligence.

I remember saying to a guy that was actually really smart that though he may be the smartest one here, we are all basically ants on the ant hill. And though he may be the smartest ant, he's still just an ant.

 

[Halbhh]

I read slowly and carefully, digesting information as I go.

I like that! I read that way often, especially in the Bible, often very slowly, as needed. Also, I want to be sure to read without prejudice. I want to be sure no doctrine is talking over the Word. Instead, I want any doctrine I have in mind to be silent, silent.

So I can listen. It's such an amazing blessing what He has done, giving all these Words to us!

 

[Ophiolite]

I'm surprised that this term is unknown to you.

a quick study Meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary

I accept your correction and provide my amended statement. Corrections in blue.

In the context of study as conducted by OldWiseGuy, based upon his comments on this site, and the evidence reasonably inferred from those comments, "quick" means: superficial, lacking in breadth and depth, simplified, simplistic, cursory, inadequate, indifferent, etc.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Can you state that as a falsifiable proposition?

It's entirely falsifiable.

My senses once told me not to invest in an IPO when my 'thrift' organized as a full service bank and was seeking capital. I could have tripled my money in three months but chose to play it safe. The bank made huge building loans and eventually fell victim to the housing crisis and went bankrupt (the initial offering was $11, grew to $34 in three month, then fell to less than $10 when the downturn happened). It wasn't my sense that the bank would fail, but that if I made a tidy profit I would be tempted to leave my money at risk, and thereby risk my longer-term plans. I did the right thing, based on my senses.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I like that! I read that way often, especially in the Bible, often very slowly, as needed. Also, I want to be sure to read without prejudice. I want to be sure no doctrine is talking over the Word. Instead, I want any doctrine I have in mind to be silent, silent.

So I can listen. It's such an amazing blessing what He has done, giving all these Words to us!

True. There is a rich harvest of knowledge by careful reading, meditation, researching words, etc. Often a picture emerges from 'between the lines' as well. I think God hides stuff that way, but blesses the diligent student with understanding eventually.

Proverbs 25:2
"It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter."

 

[Speedwell]

It's entirely falsifiable.

My senses once told me not to invest in an IPO when my 'thrift' organized as a full service bank and was seeking capital. I could have tripled my money in three months but chose to play it safe. The bank made huge building loans and eventually fell victim to the housing crisis and went bankrupt (the initial offering was $11, grew to $34 in three month, then fell to less than $10 when the downturn happened). It wasn't my sense that the bank would fail, but that if I made a tidy profit I would be tempted to leave my money at risk, and thereby risk my longer-term plans. I did the right thing, based on my senses.

I don't care about banks. What evidence would falsify your proposition that human beings were intelligently designed?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I accept your correction and provide my amended statement. Corrections in blue.

In the context of study as conducted by OldWiseGuy, based upon his comments on this site, and the evidence reasonably inferred from those comments, "quick" means: superficial, lacking in breadth and depth, simplified, simplistic, cursory, inadequate, indifferent, etc.

That's your inference.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I don't care about banks. What evidence would falsify your proposition that human beings were intelligently designed?

None that I can think of. My point is that my senses serve me well.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I don't care about banks. What evidence would falsify your proposition that human beings were intelligently designed?

What would prove it? A self-repair mechanism designed to correct the very mechanism claimed to be the cause of no intelligent design?

 

[Halbhh]

I don't care about banks. What evidence would falsify your proposition that human beings were intelligently designed?

I was thinking about this question you asked someone else there for a moment. Consider -- even if God simply made physics (the key to all of nature), alone, and then all the Universe unfolded even to this day from that physics, like a flower from a seed (and this is indeed how I think about 99.99999...something% of the Universe has functioned, including much about our Earth), then still this is still an 'intelligent design' -- even either way, with or without interventions (though I hypothesize interventions in the course of life and Earth is reasonably likely; for instance, I think He chose the asteroid that hit 66 million years ago , to be of a certain size, not too little, not too big -- just a guess, but it's my guess.).

We cannot prove nor disprove several of some various differing possible answers, really, so far as I can see. There are many ways to guess about details not specified in Genesis chapter 1, many theories that can fit the scripture perfectly, and no way to prove nor disprove quite a few of them. Neither do they matter for faith. Faith is instead about believing in God, not a particular theory of creationism against other theories of creationism. God would be able to do extraordinary things, even something so amazing (if He choose) as creating a Universe to look older than it is, creating light traveling towards Earth as if emitting vastly longer ago (in that scenario) than it's actual age. Even that cannot be disproved. So, it's potentially just....what music do you prefer. No choice among these matters to authentic faith, which is instead what Christ said in the New Testament in particular, to believe in Him, risen, and to come again!