How does accepting design improve our understanding of biology?

[pitabread]

Since my other thread on this subject seems to have resulted in nothing but arguments for theology, here is a new one to focus on the ramifications of accepting design specific to biology.

If we accept that biological organisms are the result of deliberate design, how does this help our understanding of biology? Does it lead to any particular avenues for biological research? Does it give us an new biological applications?

In a nutshell, what does it do for our understanding and use of biological science?

(Part of the reason I started this is plenty of creationists/ID advocates on this thread have claimed "design" is somehow superior to the current theory of evolution. Yet, they tend to be elusive in describing what that actually means. So this is a chance for anyone who believes life forms have been deliberately designed to explain exactly how this impacts or helps our understanding of biology. Bonus points for answers that are sufficiently specific.)

 

[xianghua]

Since my other thread on this subject seems to have resulted in nothing but arguments for theology, here is a new one to focus on the ramifications of accepting design specific to biology.

If we accept that biological organisms are the result of deliberate design, how does this help our understanding of biology? Does it lead to any particular avenues for biological research? Does it give us an new biological applications?

In a nutshell, what does it do for our understanding and use of biological science?

(Part of the reason I started this is plenty of creationists/ID advocates on this thread have claimed "design" is somehow superior to the current theory of evolution. Yet, they tend to be elusive in describing what that actually means. So this is a chance for anyone who believes life forms have been deliberately designed to explain exactly how this impacts or helps our understanding of biology. Bonus points for answers that are sufficiently specific.)

if design is true then many suppose "vestigial traits" arent realy vestigial. appendix, junk DNA etc. there are many medical implications about this.

if design is true then the suppose "bad design" isnt realy bad. and we will have a better understanding about biology. on the other hand: how evolution can help in a medical research?

 

[Steve Petersen]

 

[pitabread]

if design is true then many suppose "vestigial traits" arent realy vestigial. appendix, junk DNA etc. there are many medical implications about this

Such as?

Also keep in mind that with respect to things like vestigial traits, that doesn't necessarily mean that such a trait is inherently useless. Only rather that it appears to have lost/reduced its original function.

See here: CB360: Function of vestigial organs.
Here: CB360.1: Appendix
And, here: CB130: Uses of junk DNA

If you're going to make any arguments along these lines, make sure they're in line with current understanding of vestigial organs, junk DNA, etc, and how that understanding would change under the "design" paradigm.

if design is true then the suppose "bad design" isnt realy bad.

So? How does classifying something as good or bad design really help our understanding of biology? I'm not sure how that's even relevant.

and we will have a better understanding about biology.

But how will our understanding be better? Be specific.

on the other hand: how evolution can help in a medical research?

This thread isn't about evolution. Let's stick to what design can do for biology.

 

[pitabread]

View attachment 226726

Oh I know, I fully expect this thread to become a train-wreck in short order. But we'll see, who knows maybe I'll be surprised.

 

[Ophiolite]

So? How does classifying something as good or bad design really help our understanding of biology? I'm not sure how that's even relevant.

[DEVIL'S ADVOCATE MODE]This is straightforward. If what we currently perceive as bad design is actually good design, then this means it has functionalities we have either failed to recognise, or whose benefits we have inaccurately assessed.
In that case our understanding of the organs, tissues, systems, metabolisms etc. that are being studied, is incomplete and inaccurate. Dismissing apparent bad design as bad design reduces the chance we will conduct further investigation to identify why the design is as it is. This will delay biological understanding. [/DEVIL'S ADVOCATE MODE]

Creationists need all the help they can get, as their arguments appear poorly designed. That said, I think my points are sufficiently sound to merit consideration.

 

[xianghua]

Such as?

Also keep in mind that with respect to things like vestigial traits, that doesn't necessarily mean that such a trait is inherently useless. Only rather that it appears to have lost/reduced its original function.

ok, take the appendix for unstance. as f ar as i know in the past doctors just removed this organ because it been consider as a useless organ. now we know that it actually has several important rules. so if we go back in time, under the design scenario we can argue that this is a wrong conclusion to remove this organ without an important reason.

So? How does classifying something as good or bad design really help our understanding of biology? I'm not sure how that's even relevant.

first: we then know more about biology and why organ x is design that way. second: we can now able to make better technology for instance by mimicking what we see in nature (birds wings structure for instance or spider web etc).

 

[tas8831]

ok, take the appendix for unstance. as f ar as i know in the past doctors just removed this organ because it been consider as a useless organ.

Please provide evidence that the appendix was ever just removed for no real reason, because it was considered useless.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

if design is true then many suppose "vestigial traits" arent realy vestigial. appendix, junk DNA etc. there are many medical implications about this.

if design is true then the suppose "bad design" isnt realy bad. and we will have a better understanding about biology. on the other hand: how evolution can help in a medical research?

You're asking that question? Really?
About you answer the question about how design improves our understanding of biology.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

ok, take the appendix for unstance. as f ar as i know in the past doctors just removed this organ because it been consider as a useless organ.

So I guess you have never heard of appendicitis then?

 

[DogmaHunter]

ok, take the appendix for unstance. as f ar as i know in the past doctors just removed this organ because it been consider as a useless organ. now we know that it actually has several important rules. so if we go back in time, under the design scenario we can argue that this is a wrong conclusion to remove this organ without an important reason.

My mom had hers removed when she was young (it kind of half exploded and either it got removed or she would have died). But she doesn't seem to be missing it...

So tell me, what is so important about the appendix, that apparantly isn't all that revelevant to my mother who's just turned 78 and has excellent health?

first: we then know more about biology and why organ x is design that way. second: we can now able to make better technology for instance by mimicking what we see in nature (birds wings structure for instance or spider web etc).

Humans have been mimicking nature in their technology since the beginning. I don't see how identifying "design" in nature helps with that. Or how it is only possible to do when accepting "design".

 

[xianghua]

My mom had hers removed when she was young (it kind of half exploded and either it got removed or she would have died). But she doesn't seem to be missing it...

So tell me, what is so important about the appendix, that apparantly isn't all that revelevant to my mother who's just turned 78 and has excellent health?

see here:

What is the function of the human appendix? Did it once have a purpose that has since been lost?

"For years, the appendix was credited with very little physiological function. We now know, however, that the appendix serves an important role in the fetus and in young adults"

Humans have been mimicking nature in their technology since the beginning. I don't see how identifying "design" in nature helps with that. Or how it is only possible to do when accepting "design".

but it will be more easy to find a solution to a technological problem if you assume that nature was designed by a supreme intelligent. if we assume nature just evolve then why we should believe that biological systems are so advance and why to bother and mimic them at all?

 

[DogmaHunter]

see here:

What is the function of the human appendix? Did it once have a purpose that has since been lost?

"For years, the appendix was credited with very little physiological function. We now know, however, that the appendix serves an important role in the fetus and in young adults"

Why didn't you quote this part:

In the past, the appendix was often routinely removed and discarded during other abdominal surgeries to prevent any possibility of a later attack of appendicitis; the appendix is now spared in case it is needed later for reconstructive surgery if the urinary bladder is removed. In such surgery, a section of the intestine is formed into a replacement bladder, and the appendix is used to re-create a 'sphincter muscle' so that the patient remains continent (able to retain urine). In addition, the appendix has been successfully fashioned into a makeshift replacement for a diseased ureter, allowing urine to flow from the kidneys to the bladder. As a result, the appendix, once regarded as a nonfunctional tissue, is now regarded as an important 'back-up' that can be used in a variety of reconstructive surgical techniques. It is no longer routinely removed and discarded if it is healthy.

So, biology plumbers use it as a spare part. Awesome.
Meanwhile, my mom is still fine... 60+ years without appendix. Just fine.
Excellent, actually, for a women her age.

but it will be more easy to find a solution to a technological problem if you assume that nature was designed by a supreme intelligent.

Why?
Perhaps give a practical example.

if we assume nature just evolve then why we should believe that biological systems are so advance and why to bother and mimic them at all?

We actually mimic evolution all the time. It is a highly efficient way of optimising designs so complex that genetic algorithms actually do a better job then humans...

Genetic algorithm - Wikipedia

And why mimic natural designs? Well, because they work....

 

[grasping the after wind]

Since my other thread on this subject seems to have resulted in nothing but arguments for theology, here is a new one to focus on the ramifications of accepting design specific to biology.

If we accept that biological organisms are the result of deliberate design, how does this help our understanding of biology? Does it lead to any particular avenues for biological research? Does it give us an new biological applications?

In a nutshell, what does it do for our understanding and use of biological science?

(Part of the reason I started this is plenty of creationists/ID advocates on this thread have claimed "design" is somehow superior to the current theory of evolution. Yet, they tend to be elusive in describing what that actually means. So this is a chance for anyone who believes life forms have been deliberately designed to explain exactly how this impacts or helps our understanding of biology. Bonus points for answers that are sufficiently specific.)

Design and evolution are not mutually exclusive concepts. I would say the vast majority of people I know believe that there is a design aspect to evolution as they tend to think that organisms mutate in response to environmental changes rather than organisms randomly mutate and some of those mutations by sheer coincidence make them more suited to thrive in a changed environment. So it is entirely possible to consider that there is designed evolution. Whether that is the case in reality or not is debatable but it seems to be a popular idea.

 

[Speedwell]

In that sense, "design" is an unfalsifiable proposition, which means it can't be disproven by science--enough for most Christians, except for those with a political agenda.

 

[grasping the after wind]

If one is to insist upon either design without any evolution or randomness only, one artificially truncates one's possible areas of inquiry. Rather than simply accepting one or the other and dismissing any evidence to the contrary if it does not conform to the view we have accepted , it behooves us to simply allow that either or both or neither could be the reality and accept whatever evidence there is to explain the biology we see in the world at face value.

 

[pitabread]

ok, take the appendix for unstance. as f ar as i know in the past doctors just removed this organ because it been consider as a useless organ.

No, appendixes are removed because they can and do lead to appendicitis, a potentially fatal condition. It is sometimes done as a preventative measure for that reason (similar to removing wisdom teeth).

I've actually dug into the medical literature in the past to see if I could find any examples of the appendix being removed because it was considered vestigial, but couldn't find anything to support that claim.

first: we then know more about biology and why organ x is design that way.

How does assuming that things are the result of design tell us why something was designed a particular way?

second: we can now able to make better technology for instance by mimicking what we see in nature (birds wings structure for instance or spider web etc).

You don't need to assume something was designed to copy it.

 

[pitabread]

but it will be more easy to find a solution to a technological problem if you assume that nature was designed by a supreme intelligent.

Explain how this is the case. Give a specific example.

(TBH, the only way I think this could be true is if you could figure out how a designer did something. But you won't find any IDists/creationists that can answer that one.)

 

[tas8831]

(TBH, the only way I think this could be true is if you could figure out how a designer did something. But you won't find any IDists/creationists that can answer that one.)

Indeed - they will often claim explicitly that they do not need to know.

 

[tas8831]

(TBH, the only way I think this could be true is if you could figure out how a designer did something. But you won't find any IDists/creationists that can answer that one.)

Indeed - they will often claim explicitly that they do not need to know.