How We Detect Design

[bhsmte]

No they were not, the court offered no opinion whether of not ID was true or false. The question was whether or not ID is religious:

The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. John E. Jones III​

The Lemon Test was used to determine if teaching ID violates the establishment clause:

The Establishment Clause prohibits government from making adherence to a religion relevant in any way to a person's standing in the political community. Government can run afoul of that prohibition…[by] endorsement or disapproval of religion. Endorsement sends a message to nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.

The proper inquiry under the purpose prong of Lemon, I submit, is whether the government intends to convey a message of endorsement or disapproval of religion (Endorsement Test)

​

I don't disagree with that, I have never teaching creationism in the public schools. It's profoundly religious, religious doctrine must be sought earnestly for them to have any meaning at all.

Yes, since the judge determined that ID was clearly not scientific, he concluded that it was creationism in a very bad disguise.

If it was deemed to be legit science, it wouldn't have been religion.

A six-week trial over the issue yielded "overwhelming evidence'' establishing that intelligent design "is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory,'' said Jones, a Republican and a churchgoer appointed to the federal bench three years ago.

http://www.livescience.com/3998-judge-rules-intelligent-design-taught-class.html

 

[SkyWriting]

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

As long as you keep thinking, we're good.

 

[MikeEnders]

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".

Classic blunder by materialist Darwinist attacking ID - confusing patterns with functional designs. the best examples of ID are not patterns (think checker boards) but functional designed complex machines (think clocks). When you can come up with an analogy where we find a machine and can't tell if it was designed or not then you would be cooking with gas but your present example is just fumes

Meanwhile for darn sure if an alien spacecraft comes crashing to earth (no matter how advanced beyond our understanding and strange it is) not a one of you will be saying anything else but that its proof there is other intelligent life in the universe.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Classic blunder by materialist Darwinist attacking ID - confusing patterns with functional designs. the best examples of ID are not patterns (think checker boards) but functional designed complex machines (think clocks). When you can come up with an analogy where we find a machine and can't tell if it was designed or not then you would be cooking with gas but your present example is just fumes

Meanwhile for darn sure if an alien spacecraft comes crashing to earth (no matter how advanced beyond our understanding and strange it is) not a one of you will be saying anything else but that its proof there is other intelligent life in the universe.

Excellent post.

 

[bhsmte]

Classic blunder by materialist Darwinist attacking ID - confusing patterns with functional designs. the best examples of ID are not patterns (think checker boards) but functional designed complex machines (think clocks). When you can come up with an analogy where we find a machine and can't tell if it was designed or not then you would be cooking with gas but your present example is just fumes

Meanwhile for darn sure if an alien spacecraft comes crashing to earth (no matter how advanced beyond our understanding and strange it is) not a one of you will be saying anything else but that its proof there is other intelligent life in the universe.

Sounds cool.

Can you define what ID is for us and provide a test to determine if ID is present, that is falsifiable?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

If ID and IC aren't obvious then obvious should be removed from the dictionary. (Is that too harsh?)

 

[bhsmte]

If ID and IC aren't obvious then obvious should be removed from the dictionary. (Is that too harsh?)

If they were obvious, we would have a workable definition of them and a test to determine if they were present or not.

 

[[serious]]

I'll take a crack at it.

First off, let's define terms:
1. Natural, Abiotic
Undesigned: Formed by non biotic processes.

2. Biotic
Non-human design: Formed by biotic systems other than humans
Human designed: Created by us

3. Non-terrestrial
Supernatural design: formed by forces outside of those which follow natural laws
Extraterrestrial: formed by organisms originating apart from earth.

Now, Let's start adding some detail about these.

Human creations may be readily identified by categorization into known groups of human created things. For example, rectangular hollow objects ranging in size from inches to feet may be identified as the known human creation: "boxes".

For biotic design, human or non, tracing the energy used in the formation of the structure will be able to be traced, at least in part, to energy emitted by the sun and used to create sugars by plants.

Natural abiotic structures are those produced apart from actions as described above, but following natural laws.

As far as extraterrestrial design, we would have to identify a living organism with no earth origin and build identifying systems based on that. We would not necessarily be able to identify an extraterrestrial creation without first identifying an extraterrestrial. We will set this category aside.

As far as supernatural design, one would have to rule out anything resulting from natural laws. I'm not sure of a good way of doing that. It should be noted that "currently unexplained" is insufficient to rule out natural laws. As a first draft, I'd be willing to accept "based on well established natural laws at familiar scales, statistically unlikely to occur within the lifespan of the universe, discounting events only notable due to the fact that they occurred, or events subject to the weak anthropic principle" For example, quantum tunneling of a bowling ball through the floor without damage to the floor would qualify, but the specific order of all randomly shuffled decks of cards in a casino (which while improbable, would only be notable by virtue of occurring at some point) would not. Likewise, since the observation of a universe capable of supporting life capable of observation wouldn't count since the observation can only occur in such a universe.

So our metric would work as follows:
1. Is it a known category of human creation? Yes: Human creation. Else:
2. Is it biological matter, or a known product of biological matter? Yes: Biotic creation. Else:
3. Does it violate well established natural laws on the scales those natural laws are commonly observed? Yes: suspected supernatural origins. Else:
4. Natural abiotic origins

 

[Smidlee]

As far as extraterrestrial design, we would have to identify a living organism with no earth origin and build identifying systems based on that. We would not necessarily be able to identify an extraterrestrial creation without first identifying an extraterrestrial. We will set this category aside.

In another words you wouldn't believe in something without an eyewitness which would knock out a lot of so called science. Thus you don't believe an spacecraft is ID that is superior to man's technology without eye witness account of the designers.

 

[bhsmte]

I'll take a crack at it.

First off, let's define terms:
1. Natural, Abiotic
Undesigned: Formed by non biotic processes.

2. Biotic
Non-human design: Formed by biotic systems other than humans
Human designed: Created by us

3. Non-terrestrial
Supernatural design: formed by forces outside of those which follow natural laws
Extraterrestrial: formed by organisms originating apart from earth.

Now, Let's start adding some detail about these.

Human creations may be readily identified by categorization into known groups of human created things. For example, rectangular hollow objects ranging in size from inches to feet may be identified as the known human creation: "boxes".

For biotic design, human or non, tracing the energy used in the formation of the structure will be able to be traced, at least in part, to energy emitted by the sun and used to create sugars by plants.

Natural abiotic structures are those produced apart from actions as described above, but following natural laws.

As far as extraterrestrial design, we would have to identify a living organism with no earth origin and build identifying systems based on that. We would not necessarily be able to identify an extraterrestrial creation without first identifying an extraterrestrial. We will set this category aside.

As far as supernatural design, one would have to rule out anything resulting from natural laws. I'm not sure of a good way of doing that. It should be noted that "currently unexplained" is insufficient to rule out natural laws. As a first draft, I'd be willing to accept "based on well established natural laws at familiar scales, statistically unlikely to occur within the lifespan of the universe, discounting events only notable due to the fact that they occurred, or events subject to the weak anthropic principle" For example, quantum tunneling of a bowling ball through the floor without damage to the floor would qualify, but the specific order of all randomly shuffled decks of cards in a casino (which while improbable, would only be notable by virtue of occurring at some point) would not. Likewise, since the observation of a universe capable of supporting life capable of observation wouldn't count since the observation can only occur in such a universe.

So our metric would work as follows:
1. Is it a known category of human creation? Yes: Human creation. Else:
2. Is it biological matter, or a known product of biological matter? Yes: Biotic creation. Else:
3. Does it violate well established natural laws on the scales those natural laws are commonly observed? Yes: suspected supernatural origins. Else:
4. Natural abiotic origins

And what conclusion would this lead to for you?

 

[bhsmte]

In another words you wouldn't believe in something without eye witness which would knock out a lot of so called science.

Eye witnesses lie and or could be confused. Physical evidence does not lie, it is what it is.

 

[Smidlee]

Eye witnesses lie and or could be confused. Physical evidence does not lie, it is what it is.

Physical evidence doesn't claim anything so it's a no brainer it's impossible for it to lie. Physical evidence can mislead human beings to believe in a lie. Would you believe in a scientific experiment where there were no eyewitnesses?

 

[bhsmte]

I believe eye witnesses that corroborate the physical evidence.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Sounds cool.

Can you define what ID is for us and provide a test to determine if ID is present, that is falsifiable?

Design is the evidence. Design is seen and admittedly seen by materialist and theists alike and there is no evidence that shows that evidence to be an illusion.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Eye witnesses lie and or could be confused. Physical evidence does not lie, it is what it is.

The physical evidence is for design. So if physical evidence doesn't lie, how is that it is called a lie or an illusion?

 

[bhsmte]

Fail!

If the physical and objective evidence is for design, then one should have no problem defining what ID is and providing a test, that is falsifiable, to determine if ID is present.

Good luck.

 

[crjmurray]

Design is the evidence. Design is seen and admittedly seen by materialist and theists alike and there is no evidence that shows that evidence to be an illusion.

So, no.

 

[Oncedeceived]

So, no.

Design is the default position, it is the physical evidence. If it is not actual design as it appears to be, then it is the person claiming it is not actual design that we have as evidence to provide evidence that shows it is an illusion.

 

[[serious]]

In another words you wouldn't believe in something without an eyewitness which would knock out a lot of so called science. Thus you don't believe an spacecraft is ID that is superior to man's technology without eye witness account of the designers.

All observed spacecraft are manmade. If I saw a space craft, my first reaction would be to group it as a spacecraft, a type of known man made device. If it were a style of spacecraft I didn't recognize, I'd still assume it was man made. After all, I probably couldn't pick the ISS out of a lineup:

And if you think you could, you should realize that is not the iss, it's a proposed commercial space station.

Now, if I saw non-humans exiting said craft, then we would have identified extraterrestrial life, and have a basis for building a metric for identifying extraterrestrial structure in the future.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Yes, since the judge determined that ID was clearly not scientific, he concluded that it was creationism in a very bad disguise.

If it was deemed to be legit science, it wouldn't have been religion.

A six-week trial over the issue yielded "overwhelming evidence'' establishing that intelligent design "is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory,'' said Jones, a Republican and a churchgoer appointed to the federal bench three years ago.

http://www.livescience.com/3998-judge-rules-intelligent-design-taught-class.html

And the first court based it's decision on blatantly falsified and fabricated information. I expect nothing less in this one

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man

"The fossil was introduced as evidence by Clarence Darrow in defense of John Scopes during the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial."

And we both know the decision will not stand on appeals. And an honest person would revoke the decision of the first court, being based on false and misleading evidence. Court adjourned.