Does science actually admit "design"?

[OldWiseGuy]

Based on your post, I shall be trying this at the weekend with my son.

If you can choose an open area with a hard surface or a body of still water so the sound isn't impeded as it travels from your son to you. I think you will need at least two full blocks distance between you and him. A good test would be to make a loud sharp sound rather than voice. You can easily see a hammer striking a frying pan better than mouth movements, but the resulting delay would be the same.

Speed of sound = 1200 ft/sec
Speed of light = 186,000 mile/sec

A sound made 1200 feet (four football fields away) from you takes a full second to reach you while the image of the source of that sound reaches you instantly.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

But, again, I'll say this to answer the OP's question: NO, science DOESN'T admit designer as per something designed by a designer.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

But, again, I'll say this to answer the OP's question: NO, science DOESN'T admit designer as per something designed by a designer.

So science admits design but no designer?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So science admits design but no designer?

Not at all.

 

[tas8831]

It looks like 'the aorta sends motor impulses to the larynx via the RLN' genius is ignoring me.

Always seems that the most pompous of the Dunning-Kruger types end up ignoring requests for them to put their money where their mouths are.

 

[Ophiolite]

So science admits design but no designer?

I think you already know this, but are just playing dumb:

When scientists speak of design in nature it has a different meaning from that intended when talking of human design. In the context of natural design, it references the way in which the anatomical structure, or biochemistry, or metabolic cycles, or behvioural patterns, etc. form a cohesive suite of 'elements'. It is a shorthand way of conveying a general concept.

Confusion between the two forms does not occur among those who have studied the matter. Nor should it occur among those who have had it explained to them. When it does, we are led to suspect deliberate obfuscation or deficient intellectual effort.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I think you already know this, but are just playing dumb:

When scientists speak of design in nature it has a different meaning from that intended when talking of human design. In the context of natural design, it references the way in which the anatomical structure, or biochemistry, or metabolic cycles, or behvioural patterns, etc. form a cohesive suite of 'elements'. It is a shorthand way of conveying a general concept.

Confusion between the two forms does not occur among those who have studied the matter. Nor should it occur among those who have had it explained to them. When it does, we are led to suspect deliberate obfuscation or deficient intellectual effort.

So natural designs things, albeit accidently.

 

[Speedwell]

So natural designs things, albeit accidently.

Right. Using the same kind of process now used in industry to design things: random variation and selection.

 

[Ophiolite]

So natural designs things, albeit accidently.

Nature designs things - yes, but there is nothing accidental about natural selection.

I know you have been told that before, yet you keep repeating it. Now, is it proper to keep recycling the same faulty misunderstanding when you have been corrected on it? I cannot see any justification for that. Please stop it.

 

[SkyWriting]

I have no problem talking about the "design" of life.
I avoid using those words in settings like this forum, because I know that creationists will jump on it like dishonest hawks and immediatly add "baggage" to that term and say that "design requires a designer!!!", while that isn't true at all.

There's a difference between natural design and artificial design.

A snowflake is natural design.
A car engine is artificial design.

Complex living systems are also natural design. The result of the process of evolution.

It is, what evolution does.... It shapes/designs reproducing systems that compete for limited resources with respect to fitness.

That is what the process does.

Most likely that 'Natural design" is a result of massive intelligence since
good design does not manifest itself in a vacuum, or as a result of thermal energy.

 

[SkyWriting]

Nature designs things - yes, but there is nothing accidental about natural selection.

I know you have been told that before, yet you keep repeating it. Now, is it proper to keep recycling the same faulty misunderstanding when you have been corrected on it? I cannot see any justification for that. Please stop it.

People like to remain in their own opinions and change slowly.
After a few years of not knowing how influence works, you'll see.
And I was JUST about to like your first sentence too.

 

[SkyWriting]

It seems that the concept and recognition of purposeful design has been deliberately hidden in the language of evolutionary science.

Naturally.

The goal is to exclude supernatural influence and find natural reasons for everything.

 

[Speedwell]

Naturally.

The goal is to exclude supernatural influence and find natural reasons for everything.

LOL! It's the Atheist Conspiracy!

 

[SkyWriting]

LOL! It's the Atheist Conspiracy!

No.....that's the plain stated goal of science, to find the cause for any effect.
It's not conspiracy, it's the intent.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Naturally.

The goal is to exclude supernatural influence and find natural reasons for everything.

How can it be a goal when there is no way include supernatural influence in science in the first place?
Me thinks the gentleman doth protest too much.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Most likely that 'Natural design" is a result of massive intelligence since
good design does not manifest itself in a vacuum, or as a result of thermal energy.

Why?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Naturally.

The goal is to exclude supernatural influence and find natural reasons for everything.

No.

The goal is to explain things in testable ways with supporting evidence.
The supernatural isn't testable, nore supportable.

Don't blame science for it being impossible to differentiate the "supernatural" from the imaginary and/or the non-existant.

The second you can demonstrate the existance of the supernatural AND that it actually plays a role in any phenomenon, is the second that science will happily include it as a factor.

Until that day, why would it?
We might just as well include undetectable, undemonstrable graviton fairies in the theory of gravity. Same merrit.

 

[SkyWriting]

No.

The goal is to explain things in testable ways with supporting evidence.
The supernatural isn't testable, nore supportable.

Don't blame science for it being impossible to differentiate the "supernatural" from the imaginary and/or the non-existant.

The second you can demonstrate the existance of the supernatural AND that it actually plays a role in any phenomenon, is the second that science will happily include it as a factor.

Until that day, why would it?
We might just as well include undetectable, undemonstrable graviton fairies in the theory of gravity. Same merrit.

Usually you can come up with something in opposition to my posts.
You're slipping.

 

[SkyWriting]

SkyWriting said: ↑
...good design does not manifest itself in a vacuum, or as a result of thermal energy.

Why?

Excellent question!

 

[SkyWriting]

How can it be a goal when there is no way include supernatural influence in science in the first place?
Me thinks the gentleman doth protest too much.

Why you thinks I am protesting? I arnst not.