Intelligent Design

[TheBear]

(Yeah. I know. It's been done to death. I just wanted to focus on one aspect.)

To the ID proponents - How do you tell the difference between things designed and things not designed?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

There is no difference since everything is designed?

 

[Davian]

(Yeah. I know. It's been done to death. I just wanted to focus on one aspect.)

To the ID proponents - How do you tell the difference between things designed and things not designed?

From what I gather, it is done in the same way that one perceives colours. You look at it and you just know.

Of course, our perceptions are demonstrably faulty, but it seems that is all they have.

 

[selfinflikted]

Something that looks designed, is designed.

Something that doesn't look designed, isn't designed.

 

[HitchSlap]

I have never seen a ID'ist (cdesign proponentsist) A. define design, &/or B. what would falsify ID, and lastly, how to tell when something is not designed.

This is why ID will never be taken seriously.

 

[Loudmouth]

(Yeah. I know. It's been done to death. I just wanted to focus on one aspect.)

To the ID proponents - How do you tell the difference between things designed and things not designed?

I know I am not the intended audience, but if I may . . .

One of the aspects that we often ignore in these discussions is intent and motivation. What was the intent of the designer? What was the designer's motivation for producing that design?

Early stone tools might be a good example to use. Scientists argue back and forth about whether certain rocks are simply rocks, or if they were purposefully shaped as tools. One of the important aspects is determing what the design was intended for. If they think the intent is to use a rock as a cutting tool for plants, then they can look at specific faces to look for parallel striations that would indicate constant cutting in one direction.

If we start with the premises that life is designed (i.e. species designed separately and did not evolve), then we could only conclude that part of the intent and motivation of this design process was to fool us into thinking that life evolved. There are literally billions of different ways to design functioning species that would not look like evolution, so why, out of all of the billions of possibilities, would a designer choose the one way that would look like evolution? Obviously, the motivation was to fool us.

 

[Split Rock]

(Yeah. I know. It's been done to death. I just wanted to focus on one aspect.)

To the ID proponents - How do you tell the difference between things designed and things not designed?

The usual answer is either irreducible complexity or specified complexity. Neither one of which can be objectively measured.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I know I am not the intended audience, but if I may . . .

One of the aspects that we often ignore in these discussions is intent and motivation. What was the intent of the designer? What was the designer's motivation for producing that design?

Early stone tools might be a good example to use. Scientists argue back and forth about whether certain rocks are simply rocks, or if they were purposefully shaped as tools. One of the important aspects is determing what the design was intended for. If they think the intent is to use a rock as a cutting tool for plants, then they can look at specific faces to look for parallel striations that would indicate constant cutting in one direction.

If we start with the premises that life is designed (i.e. species designed separately and did not evolve), then we could only conclude that part of the intent and motivation of this design process was to fool us into thinking that life evolved. There are literally billions of different ways to design functioning species that would not look like evolution, so why, out of all of the billions of possibilities, would a designer choose the one way that would look like evolution? Obviously, the motivation was to fool us.

You are creating a false dichotomy. There is another option.

You have the wrong sequence of events. Design comes first. You seem to think that evolution is an either or position. Evolution does not mean that God did not design. We are looking back in history and determining what "might" have happened and how that might have happened.

There is no trying to fool people into believing that life evolved, it is that people believe that since life evolved it was not designed. The misinterpretation rests with man and his understanding or lack thereof in the way God designed.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The usual answer is either irreducible complexity or specified complexity. Neither one of which can be objectively measured.

Can the assumption that the complexity we see in the earliest life forms be shown to arise by natural means objectively?

 

[JayFern]

ID is just another con trick designed to keep gullible people believing in creationism.

ID says nothing, promises nothing and is devoid of anything understandable which is perfect for fooling the gullible.

 

[Loudmouth]

Can the assumption that the complexity we see in the earliest life forms be shown to arise by natural means objectively?

The first page and the burden of proof has already been shifted.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The first page and the burden of proof has already been shifted.

What? Claims made are required to be backed up, that doesn't give those that claim that life is explained satisfactorily by natural occurring phenomena are free ride from backing up their claims.

 

[Loudmouth]

You have the wrong sequence of events. Design comes first. You seem to think that evolution is an either or position. Evolution does not mean that God did not design. We are looking back in history and determining what "might" have happened and how that might have happened.

We are looking at the here and now, and those species fall into a nested hierarchy right now. This is happening right now. If species were designed separately and did not share common ancestry, it would take intent on the part of the designer to fit them into a nested hierarchy to make them look like they evolved from a common ancestor when in fact they didn't.

There is no trying to fool people into believing that life evolved, it is that people believe that since life evolved it was not designed.

That is how the ID proponents define the terms. Why is irreducible complexity supposed evidence for design? Because the ID proponents claim that it can't evolve. It is the ID supporters who have drawn these lines.

The misinterpretation rests with man and his understanding or lack thereof in the way God designed.

That method appears to be evolution through natural mechanisms from a universally shared ancestor.

 

[Loudmouth]

What? Claims made are required to be backed up,

Yep. The claim is that things are designed. You need to back up that claim instead of trying to shift the burden of proof to those who are skeptical of the claim.

 

[JayFern]

Can the assumption that the complexity we see in the earliest life forms be shown to arise by natural means objectively?

You start from the position that there is a God when there is no evidence for any Gods so why would you start there?

If we don't know how something happened making something up is beyond stupid because in the end we still won't know how it happened because the answer we made up is still not the answer because we made it up.
Can you see where I'm going with this?

 

[Oncedeceived]

We are looking at the here and now, and those species fall into a nested hierarchy right now.

We are looking back into history to place those species into a nested hierarchy created by us.

This is happening right now. If species were designed separately and did not share common ancestry, it would take intent on the part of the designer to fit them into a nested hierarchy to make them look like they evolved from a common ancestor when in fact they didn't.

False Dichotomy.

This also rests on what you mean by designed separately.

That is how the ID proponents define the terms. Why is irreducible complexity supposed evidence for design? Because the ID proponents claim that it can't evolve. It is the ID supporters who have drawn these lines.

They claim that the mechanisms known to science are not sufficient in creating the irreducible complexity seen in organisms. That doesn't mean that evolution hasn't happened too.

That method appears to be evolution through natural mechanisms from a universally shared ancestor.

It appears that there are working mechanisms that allow life to evolve.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yep. The claim is that things are designed. You need to back up that claim instead of trying to shift the burden of proof to those who are skeptical of the claim.

Why do you feel you are not required to provide evidence to back up yours?

 

[HitchSlap]

Once, "the lady doth protest too much, methinks."

 

[Loudmouth]

We are looking back into history to place those species into a nested hierarchy created by us.

False. We are looking at the species right now.

False Dichotomy.

Then show me how design of separately created species would accidently produce a nested hierarchy.

This also rests on what you mean by designed separately.

The same way that cars are designed separately, how buildings are designed separately, how computers are designed separately. You will notice that cars, buildings, and computers do not fall into a nested hierarchy, and it would take some effort on the part of the designers to make sure that they did fall into a nested hierarchy.

They claim that the mechanisms known to science are not sufficient in creating the irreducible complexity seen in organisms.

"By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution."--Micahel Behe

It is the ID supporters who are making the argument that evolution disproves design.

It appears that there are working mechanisms that allow life to evolve.

And here comes the Oncedeceived avoidance tapdance.

If all life evolved from a universal common ancestor through natural mechanisms, would this disprove design?

 

[Loudmouth]

Why do you feel you are not required to provide evidence to back up yours?

You are shifting the burden of proof once again.