How does accepting design improve our understanding of biology?

[xianghua]

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

and they work because they were made by a designer.

 

[xianghua]

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

but why to copy nature in the first place? because we know that its the result of great design and therefore we search for more solution by looking at nature. on the other hand: if nature was not the result of design we dont need to search anything. this is why no one search for technological solution by looking at rocks and clouds.

another example is the junk DNA case.

 

[Speedwell]

and they work because they were made by a designer.

You have been trying to fool us with that equivocation fallacy for over a year. It hasn't worked yet. Why do you think it ever will?

 

[DogmaHunter]

and they work because they were made by a designer.

no, they demonstrably work regardless of their origins

 

[pitabread]

but why to copy nature in the first place?

Because we can.

because we know that its the result of great design and therefore we search for more solution by looking at nature.

"Great design" is entirely ambiguous in this context and still doesn't imply that it's the result of an intelligent design.

this is why no one search for technological solution by looking at rocks and clouds.

Of course we do. We utilize non-organic materials and phenomena all the time. Everything from using natural minerals to harnessing things like fire or electricity. The computing device you are using right now is a result of technological advances made possible by first studying the natural world.

But we can still harness natural materials or phenomena for our benefit without assuming they originally resulted from an intelligent designer.

 

[xianghua]

Because we can.

but why should we do it? if this is just the work of a natural process, why we should search for design solution in nature at all? we should think about design solution alone since we are intelligent and nature isnt.

Everything from using natural minerals to harnessing things like fire or electricity

we using nature components but as far as i aware we dont mimic inanimate nature.

 

[pitabread]

but why should we do it?

Again, because we can.

we should think about design solution alone since we are intelligent and nature isnt.

Simply asserting that we shouldn't copy nature because we don't accept intelligent design isn't a good argument. It's like saying unless I think my car was assembled by a bunch of magical fairies in the land of Narnia, I shouldn't drive it. It's just nonsensical.

Furthermore the point of this thread is to ask how accepting design (as in intelligent design) improves our understanding of biology. Thus far you haven't provided any real examples of that.

we using nature components but as far as i aware we dont mimic inanimate nature.

Sure we do. Using fire and electricity are two such examples. Those are naturally occurring phenomena that we've learned to generate ourselves.

And if we hadn't done so, we wouldn't be able to have this conversation right now.

 

[Speedwell]

but why should we do it? if this is just the work of a natural process, why we should search for design solution in nature at all? we should think about design solution alone since we are intelligent and nature isnt.

It depends on what you mean by "design." Which of the two meanings of "design" are you trying to fool us with now?

 

[pitabread]

Despite the repeated claims from creationists on this forum that "design" somehow offers a superior alternative to evolutionary biology, this thread's been awful quiet...

 

[Ophiolite]

but why should we do it? if this is just the work of a natural process, why we should search for design solution in nature at all?

Because nature has had millions of years to develop effective solutions and human engineers don't like to do too much overtime, especially at weekends.

 

[pitabread]

 

[AV1611VET]

How does accepting design improve our understanding of biology?

By giving us templates to work with.

If you want to reverse engineer God's creation, then do so.

You'll improve your understanding of it in the process.

But don't reverse engineer it, then put it back together and say it was done some other way.

That's not giving credit where credit is due.

 

[pitabread]

By giving us templates to work with.

If you want to reverse engineer God's creation, then do so.

You'll improve your understanding of it in the process.

But don't reverse engineer it, then put it back together and say it was done some other way.

That's not giving credit where credit is due.

This is the same argument xianghua tried making earlier. However, one doesn't need to accept "design" (in terms of intelligent design) to study life and figure out how it works.

Giving "credit" is irrelevant here.

 

[AV1611VET]

This is the same argument xianghua tried making earlier. However, one doesn't need to accept "design" (in terms of intelligent design) to study life and figure out how it works.

Giving "credit" is irrelevant here.

I promise you -- science will NEVER be able to analyze what God created in Genesis 1.

Not unless God takes them back in time to 4004 BC to show them, Himself.

NEVER.

All we can do is work inside a rotting apple and make improvements here and there.

Any scientific assessments as to how the apple looked BEFORE it began to rot is outside of science's comprehension.

No matter how much they want to think otherwise.

 

[pitabread]

I promise you -- science will NEVER be able to analyze what God created in Genesis 1.

Not unless God takes them back in time to 4004 BC to show them, Himself.

NEVER.

All we can do is work inside a rotting apple and make improvements here and there.

Any scientific assessments as to how the apple looked BEFORE it began to rot is outside of science's comprehension.

No matter how much they want to think otherwise.

That's nice. I don't care.

This doesn't answer the question I posed in the OP.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's nice. I don't care.

This doesn't answer the question I posed in the OP.

Ya -- what's confusing you?

Templates? reverse engineering? the Fall?

Like you never heard those terms before?

Or maybe it's your "I don't care" attitude that's keeping you from fully understanding?

 

[pitabread]

Ya -- what's confusing you?

It's not confusion. Rather it's that you haven't linked the idea of studying life forms to a requisite belief in those life forms being created by an intelligent source.

If you can't demonstrate that link, then I don't see the necessity of belief that life was deliberately designed and created in this scenario.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's not confusion. Rather it's that you haven't linked the idea of studying life forms to a requisite belief in those life forms being created by an intelligent source.

If you can't demonstrate that link, then I don't see the necessity of belief that life was deliberately designed and created in this scenario.

I shouldn't have to.

Didn't you say this?

If we accept that biological organisms are the result of deliberate design,

Deliberate design placed a template (Adam) on the earth.

Now go study him with your tools.

You can't, you say?

Looks like you're SOL* then.

Science is myopic.

* short on luck

 

[pitabread]

I shouldn't have to.

That's the point of this thread. If you can't, then you can't.

No harm, nobody else has either.

Didn't you say this?

It's setting a premise for argument's sake. But if one wishes to make a conclusion based on that premise, one needs to demonstrate a logical link to that conclusion.

One does not need to believe that life forms are intelligently designed to study life forms. Ergo, that is obviously not a reason to believe in intelligent design.

The question is that if I did accept intelligent design, how would that improve my understanding of biological life? It's a given we're going to be studying it either way.

 

[AV1611VET]

The question is that if I did accept intelligent design, how would that improve my understanding of biological life? It's a given we're going to be studying it either way.

First of all, let's not play Arab phone.

You said DELIBERATE DESIGN.

Not INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

I don't want people mistaking me for supporting ID; which, in my opinion, is a tool of the Devil.

Second, what you're asking is akin to saying:

"If I accept a dollar bill as something that is designed, how would that improve my understanding of money?"

The dollar bill is the template.

You can't improve on it.

But consider the template no longer in existence, so now you have to study a "flawed template."

A second (or third or fourth) generation template that is close to the original, but ... well ... flawed.

If you want to know what the original template looked like, study the template you have, then try and picture it much, Much, MUCH better than anything you've ever seen.

Our current template can fall 30 feet and be killed.

The original template could fall 30 miles and enjoy the trip.