How We Detect Design

[The Cadet]

Everything was designed by God.

In that case we have absolutely no way of determining between something designed by God and something not designed by God. In other words, to go back to Paley's analogy, you're walking along a beach made of watches, yourself a watch, and you pick up one specific watch and say "that looks designed".

 

[AV1611VET]

In that case we have absolutely no way of determining between something designed by God and something not designed by God.

That's because entropy gets in the way.

Otherwise, I could say, "If the universe is falling apart, then it wasn't designed by God."

But the universe is falling apart, and we have to look to another Source (the Bible) to tell us God designed & created it.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

In that case we have absolutely no way of determining between something designed by God and something not designed by God. In other words, to go back to Paley's analogy, you're walking along a beach made of watches, yourself a watch, and you pick up one specific watch and say "that looks designed".

God designed the universe and everything in it. We design and build things from the stuff that God designed and made. It all comes down to interpretation of the evidence. I see purposeful design, especially in living organisms.

 

[bhsmte]

I originally posted (a slightly modified version of) this in the "Evolution/Creation on Trial" thread, but I feel it's perhaps worth its own thread, as the discussion of "is X designed" comes up a lot, and is clogging up no less than two different threads I'm involved in here. Let's move it here, eh?

There's an important problem when considering design. Attempts to call something "designed" necessarily fall back on comparisons to design by humans. We see this in every argument made, and even when it is not explicitly stated, it is there, as we as humans have experienced almost no other form of design.

So where's the problem with this? Simple. Our "design"? Part of nature. We, humans, are part of nature. This distinction we make between our design and natural processes is entirely artificial, and while it is a useful one to make in some scenarios (anthropology, for example), it's an utterly confusing one in the context of evolution and abiogenesis. What's more, because virtually our only reference point for design is "our design", what we really end up distinguishing is "natural processes" and "natural processes".

Here's the essence of what I'm getting to. This complex machine?

Made by nature.

So what does this mean? It means in essence that in discerning "design" among things like this, what we are distinguishing is not "design vs nature". It's "designed by X vs. not designed by X". This completely shifts the issue, and offers us actual useful ways of modeling and discussing it. So how do we determine whether a certain entity designed something?

This is a non-trivial problem when it comes to humans. Some landscapes designed by professional architects will be designed explicitly to parallel naturally occurring landscapes. Certain naturally occurring structures look like they were carved by human tools, despite simply being the product of natural erosion. And we generally know what humans are capable of throughout history, what the hallmarks of human design are, and in many cases, we can go back and say, "Ah, that's who designed that, there's their signature".

In other words, we can objectively recognize specified design by looking at what we know organism X has designed, and then comparing the object we have with what we know occurs outside the purview of organism X and what we know organism X can and does do. Notice how this is necessarily dependent on the organism! If we were to look for evidence of beaver design, we would not use the same set of objects for our comparisons as if we were to look for evidence of bumblebee design, nor human design. In the case of human design, we have a wide and deep range of things to look at, and to compare to. We have language as a fairly clear distinguisher - something that non-human processes could produce only as a bizarre coincidence and which humans produce all the time. We have metalworking as a distinguisher. We have clayworking and pottery. And so on, and so forth.

This sort of methodology is fairly robust and can be judged by objective criteria. Indeed, it's this sort of method used by various flavors of zoologists to determine what kind of animal made a particular kind of nest.

But now we're presented with an object you claim was designed. By a different designer. One whose signature we do not know; one whose capabilities we are unaware of; one whose hallmarks are unclear, and one whose very existence is based largely on the claim that a particular object must have been designed by this designer. I'm sorry, that's not good enough. That's not how we recognize human design. That's not how we recognize any sort of specified design.

So what do we know your designer has designed? What do we know your designer can do? What have we established that this designer has designed? We haven't even established this designer's existence yet? Well, shoot.

Look, if you want to provide some alternative objective way of determining whether something is designed or not, or whether something is designed by a particular entity or not, then by all means, let's hear it! Thus far, I have heard of no other robust mechanism to distinguish design from non-design, particularly without any established work of the designer in question. But you need to provide this mechanism, and it needs to be robust and testable. We should be able to take your mechanism and demonstrate with reasonable surety that things we know are designed (by a certain thing) are designed (by that certain thing), and things we know are not designed (by a certain thing) are not designed (by that certain thing). Make any sense?


@stevevw @Oncedeceived

It would appear, those who subscribe to ID, detect it with their eyes and a psychological need to believe it is ID.

When they can define design in a scientific way and come up with test to determine this design is present, that is falsifiable, then I will take it seriously.

Until then, their eyes and their need to conclude what they do, will suffice, for them.

 

[SkyWriting]

That's because entropy gets in the way.

Otherwise, I could say, "If the universe is falling apart, then it wasn't designed by God."

But the universe is falling apart, and we have to look to another Source (the Bible) to tell us God designed & created it.

So when the Beatles sang "It's getting bet-ter all the time.."
they were not referring to current scientific theory?

 

[Smidlee]

Although seriously, "irreducible complexity" doesn't get us to "therefore design" unless "therefore design" is baked straight into the definition. An irreducible complex system, according to Behe, is: "Irreducible complexity is just a fancy phrase I use to mean a single system which is composed of several interacting parts, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to cease functioning." None of this prevents any other function within the organism. In fact, the bacterial flagellum, Behe's favorite hobby horse, can be shown to evolve gradually over numerous steps, with each step producing an advantage to the organism. Not until very late in the process do any of these 42 unique proteins shape up to act like a flagellum, but beforehand they simply serve other useful roles in the organism.

Behe likes to counter by pointing out how unlikely this is, but he's looking at it backwards, and ignoring the countless other paths the organism could have took; acting as though his numerator is 1 when in fact is quite a lot larger than that.

There's no case to be made that irreducible complexity disproves evolution. But there's even less of a case to be made that it indicates design. What about irreducible complexity necessitates design and disallows alternative explanations?

Your video is not peer reviewed. (At the end of your video the statement "Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution" is not scientific but a religious statement.) Darwinist love to refer to N.J.Matzke paper as if it's proved Behe IC wrong but it's doesn't. His logic is totally flawed since intelligence is required to rearrangement a number of parts to preform different functions. The parts themselves is only a faction of information needed to build IC systems. The individual part (chips) of the computer requires information but also put them in the right place on a circuit board requires more information. Yeah that's not enough to build a computer since the boards has to connected right with other hardware again another level of complexity. Again this is not enough information as you also need software to run the hardware. N.J.Matzke will only deceive the simple minded who doesn't understand the different level of information required for IC systems. Behe as a biochemist has a more understanding of the complex task.

Not only has Behe IC not been falsified but has been reinforced by development biologist who has found the interconnecting of dGRN as something like a circuit board. There is no way around that living systems are IC and the evidence is getting stronger in other fields than biochemistry.

It's the evolutionist like Miller who is working backward.

 

[SkyWriting]

(At the end of your video the statement "Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution" is not scientific but a religious statement.)

This covers Biology centuries 8 to 16 with no direct mention of evolution.
HISTORY OF BIOLOGY

 

[mark kennedy]

This covers Biology centuries 8 to 16 with no direct mention of evolution.
HISTORY OF BIOLOGY

No mention of Mendelian Genetics either

 

[SkyWriting]

No mention of Mendelian Genetics either

Or "iphone 6". How did they manage?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Nope.
Ford autos are made somewhere and designed by somebody. China, Japan, or the US....I dunno.

Peach-a-rines are Peach & Tangerine hybrids designed somewhere by somebody. Grown....I duuno where.

So, do you doubt that those "somebodies" are human?
Why not?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Hand built auto's are rare. Most are created by robotic assembly.
Your analysis fails to pinpoint the source.
You cannot see into the past.

I think it is incredibly hilarious that you are objecting to the OP by arguing that you can't know if cars were made by humans or not.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Not only has Behe IC not been falsified but has been reinforced by development biologist who has found the interconnecting of dGRN as something like a circuit board. There is no way around that living systems are IC and the evidence is getting stronger in other fields than biochemistry.
It's the evolutionist like Miller who is working backward.

The argument from complexity is nothing but a logical fallacy called "the argument from ignorance". Adding "irreducible" to it, only confirms to truth of that statement.

What it really means is "i don't how it can be so therefor it can't be".
It's an appeal to the lack of knowledge, an appeal to negative evidence. An appeal to.... ignorance.

And then, it is followed up by injecting a priori unfalsifiable beliefs: god-did-it.

So, 'what it really means' then becomes: "I don't know how this can be, so therefore it can't be - yet it is, so god dun it cuz god can do anything".

It's very juvenile, really.

 

[DogmaHunter]

This covers Biology centuries 8 to 16 with no direct mention of evolution.
HISTORY OF BIOLOGY

What point are you trying to make here?

From the link:

Science's siesta: 8th - 15th century

In the profoundly Christian centuries of the European Middle Ages the prevailing mood is not conducive to scientific enquiry. God knows best, and so He should - since He created everything. Where practical knowledge is required, there are ancient authorities whose conclusions are accepted without question - Ptolemy in the field of astronomy, Galen on matters anatomical.

A few untypical scholars show an interest in scientific research. The 13th-century Franciscan friar Roger Bacon is the most often quoted example, but his studies include alchemy and astrology as well as optics and astronomy. The practical scepticism required for science must await the Renaissance.

 

[Smidlee]

The argument from complexity is nothing but a logical fallacy called "the argument from ignorance". Adding "irreducible" to it, only confirms to truth of that statement.

What it really means is "i don't how it can be so therefor it can't be".
It's an appeal to the lack of knowledge, an appeal to negative evidence. An appeal to.... ignorance.

And then, it is followed up by injecting a priori unfalsifiable beliefs: god-did-it.

So, 'what it really means' then becomes: "I don't know how this can be, so therefore it can't be - yet it is, so god dun it cuz god can do anything".

It's very juvenile, really.

"God did it" is not an explanation of how God did it but to give glory to our Creator. I'm so thankful I'm free to glorify God. IC is not an argument of ignorance but simply an argument from common sense. Common sense tells us if I remove the spark plug wires from the hood of my car I'm not going to be driving anywhere. Computers are IC not because we are ignorance of how they could evolve but because of we know.

You are the one who trying to use "ignorance" as evidence of evolution. Living system are IC is a fact as developmental biologist have discovered. It's the same I don't know how to make my computer from ground up but I can know through plain common sense that it's IC.

 

[SkyWriting]

What point are you trying to make here?

At the end of the video, the statement "Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution"
is not accurate. About a century of biological knowledge exists presumably in chaos.

Here is a good question. How may scientists admitted they were working in Chaos
before they had an evolutionary framework to work with?

 

[SkyWriting]

We should be able to take your mechanism and demonstrate with reasonable surety that things we know are designed (by a certain thing) are designed (by that certain thing), and things we know are not designed (by a certain thing) are not designed (by that certain thing). Make any sense?

Nature reaches for maximum entropy.
What exactly is the heat death of the universe

Anything not found in a state of maximum entropy such
as order, systems, intelligence, and life, is the result
of an outside cause acting on the system.

The father any matter reaches beyond it's natural state
of uselessness, and inertness, the greater the
indication of intelligence and resulting design.

 

[DogmaHunter]

At the end of the video, the statement "Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution"
is not accurate. About a century of biological knowledge exists presumably in chaos.

Has it ever occured to you that the statement rather means: "Nothing in biology we currently know about makes sense except in light evolution"?

You do realise that today, we have a lot more knowledge about biologogy then during the "siesta of science" called medieval times, right?

What we know about biology TODAY makes no sense except in light of evolution.
We didn't know about those things during the previous centuries.

During which time, FYI, we couldn't make sense of it either, which is why it took so long for people to realise that germs make you sick instead of demons...

Here is a good question. How may scientists admitted they were working in Chaos
before they had an evolutionary framework to work with?

How many scientists knew about DNA before knowing about DNA?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Anything not found in a state of maximum entropy such
as order, systems, intelligence, and life, is the result
of an outside cause acting on the system.

yeah... in case of life, it is called the sun.

You know... that enormous ball of nuclear infurnus that feeds the earth (and everything on it) with workable energy, 24/7.

The father any matter reaches beyond it's natural state
of uselessness, and inertness, the greater the
indication of intelligence and resulting design.

I think it's more a case of "the more ignorance that reigns, the more supernatural claims are made".

 

[DogmaHunter]

"God did it" is not an explanation of how God did it but to give glory to our Creator

Ok. Then what is the actual explanation - and how does it lead to your god of choice?

IC is not an argument of ignorance but simply an argument from common sense.

It's funny, because the argument from "common sense" is actually an argument from ignorance by definition....

"common sense" is nothing more then the total sum of knowledge you have and working from there.

Before relativity, the argument of "common sense" would lead you to believe that time is a constant everywhere at any speed to any observer.

Before quantum mechanics, the "argument of common sense" would lead you to believe that objects can't be in 2 places at once.

Common sense only allows you to draw conclusions within the context of that which you actually know. It can't tell you things about stuff you do NOT know.

If you don't know how resistance works on falling objects, common sense would not lead you to accept that a feather and a hammer will fall at the same speed in a vacuum.

Common sense tells us if I remove the spark plug wires from the hood of my car I'm not going to be driving anywhere. Computers are IC not because we are ignorance of how they could evolve but because of we know.

Yes. The difference, off course, being that we actually know how cars are made.
You don't know how life is made. You have a couple of a priori faith based beliefs about it, but that is not knowledge.

Plus that there are actually sensible evolutionary pathways to get to such "IC" structures.

You are the one who trying to use "ignorance" as evidence of evolution.

Such as?

Living system are IC is a fact as developmental biologist have discovered.

Again, just because there is a structure ABC that can't perform its current function without A or B or C, does not mean that it was created that way. Nore does it mean it always was that way.

"IC" implies that it is "impossible" to get to such a structure naturally.
And therein lies the problem. That word "imposible". How do you demonstrate that?
Well, simply by pointing out that there is no known mechanism that can produce it (for the sake of the argument, i'll assume that there idd is no such known mechanism).

THAT, right there, is the argument from ignorance.

"we don't know, therefor it does not exist".

No, that's not how it works.
Instead: "we don't know so.......... we don't know." Period.

What Behe does (with many words to obfuscate it, off course) is: "we don't know so.....god."

It's the same I don't know how to make my computer from ground up but I can know through plain common sense that it's IC.

Only because you actually know enough about how electronics work and how they are made.

You don't know such things about life. You merely have a faith-based belief about it. Which is irrelevant.

 

[ChetSinger]

...There's an important problem when considering design. Attempts to call something "designed" necessarily fall back on comparisons to design by humans. We see this in every argument made, and even when it is not explicitly stated, it is there, as we as humans have experienced almost no other form of design...

Hmmm. The apostle Paul wrote 2,000 years ago that God's power can be perceived by looking at the creation. In other words, his design should be obvious to us.

Is that still true? I think it is.

I think one example is the relationship, in cells, between the DNA and the chemicals that act upon it. DNA repair and replication depend on proteins, whose construction specifications are in that very same DNA. And because even the simplest cell performs about 200 necessary functions, this relationship is multiplied about 200 times. So which came first, the DNA or the proteins?