Does science actually admit "design"?

[OldWiseGuy]

Good. Now you're beginning to get it. Nobody can disprove intelligent design (intention).

It's a start, anyway. Now, how can you prove intelligent design (intention)? The presence of mere design (functional arrangement of components) won't do it. With man-made objects intelligent design is inferred from the presence of evidence of human manufacturing techniques; tool marks, refined or man-made materials, etc. What about natural objects?

Purposeful design is obvious and is the default observation. It's up to science to disprove it, not for the creationist to prove it.

 

[Speedwell]

Purposeful design is obvious and is the default observation. It's up to science to disprove it, not for the creationist to prove it.

Purposeful design is an unfalsifiable proposition, Science can't disprove it.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Purposeful design is obvious and is the default observation. It's up to science to disprove it, not for the creationist to prove it.

Just claiming your own beliefs as 'obvious' and 'the default observation' is not valid. It's a dodge to avoid having to provide evidence for your own theories. Because you don't have any.

It's an admission of failure on your part.

The true default is to not believe in any explanation as to how the variety of life happened until we have evidence supporting hypotheses. Like we have for evolution. The default is: we don't know. However, due to hundreds of years of science we do know: evolution.

Purposeful design is an unfalsifiable proposition, Science can't disprove it.

Science works with evidence. Evidence that life has developed in a way that makes no sense if we posit a competent intelligent designer argues against intelligent design. For example, intelligent design proponents and creationists need to explain the laryngeal nerve of the giraffe. It makes perfect sense in terms of evolution guided by natural selection and other naturalistic purposes. ID proponents and creationists need to answer: Why would an intelligent designer do that?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Google the formation of stars and planets for a starting place....

OR, and here's a cockamamie idea... how about you show us evidence for stars and planets being designed with purpose and reason instead of just telling me to go and look for it myself?

 

[pshun2404]

OR, and here's a cockamamie idea... how about you show us evidence for stars and planets being designed with purpose and reason instead of justhe telling me to go and look for it myself?

I agree that IS a cockamamie idea....

Yes the undemonstrable IS the idea it was purposeful with reason or intent. The point was that the "HOW" these laws and principles came to be is purely a matter of one's belief (the way we interpret these phenomenon). Now though I believe it I did not say they ARE from some purpose or for a reason (hence by intent) I said it is equally plausible as one possibility. So I do not have to PROVE what cannot be proven and since it may not be so it is therefore falsifiable.

It is equally cockamamie to assume that laws and such principles consistent everywhere in the universe came about on their own or after or during the process of formation and would equally and adequately have to be demonstrated as it could also possibly be incorrect.

 

[pshun2404]

Just claiming your own beliefs as 'obvious' and 'the default observation' is not valid. It's a dodge to avoid having to provide evidence for your own theories. Because you don't have any.

It's an admission of failure on your part.

The true default is to not believe in any explanation as to how the variety of life happened until we have evidence supporting hypotheses. Like we have for evolution. The default is: we don't know. However, due to hundreds of years of science we do know: evolution.



Science works with evidence. Evidence that life has developed in a way that makes no sense if we posit a competent intelligent designer argues against intelligent design. For example, intelligent design proponents and creationists need to explain the laryngeal nerve of the giraffe. It makes perfect sense in terms of evolution guided by natural selection and other naturalistic purposes. ID proponents and creationists need to answer: Why would an intelligent designer do that?

What makes you assume that IF there is such a being that they would not use or create the process of evolution as one the means by which to bring about change?

Also as far back as the fossil record allows we only see Giraffes with long necks (no half way from shorter necks resulting in the ones we see today).

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Just claiming your own beliefs as 'obvious' and 'the default observation' is not valid. It's a dodge to avoid having to provide evidence for your own theories. Because you don't have any.

It's an admission of failure on your part.

The true default is to not believe in any explanation as to how the variety of life happened until we have evidence supporting hypotheses. Like we have for evolution. The default is: we don't know. However, due to hundreds of years of science we do know: evolution.



Science works with evidence. Evidence that life has developed in a way that makes no sense if we posit a competent intelligent designer argues against intelligent design. For example, intelligent design proponents and creationists need to explain the laryngeal nerve of the giraffe. It makes perfect sense in terms of evolution guided by natural selection and other naturalistic purposes. ID proponents and creationists need to answer: Why would an intelligent designer do that?

Actually you are correct. Most people don't know, and don't care find out (who wants to spend hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars learning about evolution).

How else would an unconscious instant visceral vocalization signal reach the vocal chords if the laryngeal nerve didn't pass near the heart?

 

[pshun2404]

That is the proposition you are trying to prove. You can't use it as a premise in your argument.

No I am not. Why would I try to prove that which is already accepted by most (ex. the plan already innate in a gene is to code for a specific protein which leads to or assists in the formation or maintenance or function of a related but separate system, function, or organelle).

I am merely pointing out that such a predisposed function would not develop after the result. An effect is never greater than its cause. Therefore it is an equally plausible consideration.

Besides...you are professed Anglican. Do you not believe in God, the maker of heaven and earth like you publicly declare when you profess "the creed"?

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Why does the nerve make perfect sense via evolution but not creation?

The nerve follows a sensible path in fish which do not have necks. However, as necks developed, the nerve's route becomes less and less sensible. Once you get to a giraffe, then the nerve travels all the way from the brain down to the heart, loops around an artery, and back up to the larynx.

If we propose evolution, then this makes complete sense as gradual evolution can allow the neck and nerve to evolve together, becoming longer together. It's not an optimal solution, but one accessible through slow tiny changes.

If we have a competent intelligent designer, then there is no reason for not re-routing the nerve so that it doesn't have to take the route. Either by designing the giraffe that way in the first place if we're talking about the animals being created as is. Or, if the designer is guiding evolution, then at some time in the process causing a mutation that re-routes the nerve.

We compare theories by looking at their predictive power. Evolution predicts that we should find suboptimal 'design' of this sort. Things which can be reached through incremental modification but which aren't optimal because certain plausible leaps haven't happened. If we didn't find these, it would argue against evolution.

How does intelligent design explain evidence such as the routes of this nerve in fish -> giraffes? If it doesn't, then this shows that evolution has, in this case, superior predictive power.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The nerve follows a sensible path in fish which do not have necks. However, as necks developed, the nerve's route becomes less and less sensible. Once you get to a giraffe, then the nerve travels all the way from the brain down to the heart, loops around an artery, and back up to the larynx.

If we propose evolution, then this makes complete sense as gradual evolution can allow the neck and nerve to evolve together, becoming longer together. It's not an optimal solution, but one accessible through slow tiny changes.

If we have a competent intelligent designer, then there is no reason for not re-routing the nerve so that it doesn't have to take the route. Either by designing the giraffe that way in the first place if we're talking about the animals being created as is. Or, if the designer is guiding evolution, then at some time in the process causing a mutation that re-routes the nerve.

We compare theories by looking at their predictive power. Evolution predicts that we should find suboptimal 'design' of this sort. Things which can be reached through incremental modification but which aren't optimal because certain plausible leaps haven't happened. If we didn't find these, it would argue against evolution.

How does intelligent design explain evidence such as the routes of this nerve in fish -> giraffes? If it doesn't, then this shows that evolution has, in this case, superior predictive power.

Revisit my post. I edited it with a different question.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Also as far back as the fossil record allows we only see Giraffes with long necks (no half way from shorter necks resulting in the ones we see today).

Not true. What about Samotherium major?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

How does intelligent design explain evidence such as the routes of this nerve in fish -> giraffes? If it doesn't, then this shows that evolution has, in this case, superior predictive power.

Do fish have a functioning laryngeal nerve?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I agree that IS a cockamamie idea....

Yes the undemonstrable IS the idea it was purposeful with reason or intent. The point was that the "HOW" these laws and principles came to be is purely a matter of one's belief (the way we interpret these phenomenon). Now though I believe it I did not say they ARE from some purpose or for a reason (hence by intent) I said it is equally plausible as one possibility. So I do not have to PROVE what cannot be proven and since it may not be so it is therefore falsifiable.

It is equally cockamamie to assume that laws and such principles consistent everywhere in the universe came about on their own or after or during the process of formation and would equally and adequately have to be demonstrated as it could also possibly be incorrect.

So why did you say "We know these did not develop themselves with no purpose or reason for their development." if there is no evidence for that claim?

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Do fish have a functioning laryngeal nerve?

They have a functioning fourth branch of the vagus nerve. It's called by a different name.

 

[tas8831]

Just claiming your own beliefs as 'obvious' and 'the default observation' is not valid. It's a dodge to avoid having to provide evidence for your own theories.

That is his M.O. He cannot even try to support any of his assertions. IOW - typical creationist.

 

[tas8831]

How else would an unconscious instant visceral vocalization signal reach the vocal chords if the laryngeal nerve didn't pass near the heart?

LOL!

No wonder you think 'design' is obvious in anatomy - you don't know squat about anatomy!

 

[OldWiseGuy]

They have a functioning fourth branch of the vagus nerve. It's called by a different name.

So there's really no comparison with the giraffe's laryngeal nerve?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

LOL!

No wonder you think 'design' is obvious in anatomy - you don't know squat about anatomy!

Is that all you've got?

 

[tas8831]

"Help meet" simply mean helper , not mate (and is a masculine noun in Hebrew). Only Eve, Adam's own kind could be his mate.

This does not make any sense given the context, but hey - literalists got to engage in whatever mental gymnastics they have to.

The animals were made before Adam was made.

Not according to Genesis II:

7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

8 And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

9 And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

...

18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.


Funny that creationists insist Genesis is history, yet when we look at what the bible says, it is suddenly...

The event was a metaphorical reenactment of the creation of Lucifer....

LOL!

Thanks for the laugh.

 

[Speedwell]

Besides...you are professed Anglican. Do you not believe in God, the maker of heaven and earth like you publicly declare when you profess "the creed"?

Absolutely. I just don't believe in ID or that it can be demonstrated by the presence of functional complexity in living organisms.