On Intelligent Design...

[SkyWriting]

Over the years, I've heard a lot of proponents of intelligent design argue that certain aspects of reality point to the idea that an entity of extreme intelligence (god) created the entire universe and everything in it...from the biggest galaxy, to the smallest rock...and all life everywhere.
My question to anyone holding such a belief would be...what distinguishes design from un-designed?

Bad design
Bad design is like noise. Like clutter. It can be frustrating, dull, or annoying. It may be as bad as actually ugly, or simply unremarkable and therefore not worthy of someone’s attention.

This is hijacked, but amusingly appropriate.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The fact that there is information in DNA that guides processes. This information existed before human intelligence.

The most common sense understanding is that information can only come from intelligence, therefore, the fact that information existeded before human intelligence clearly suggests a higher intelligence as the source for the information found in DNA. This higher intelligence designed the DNA and encoded it with information to perform functions.

This is a powerful explanation for why we see information and design in things not created by humans. However, those who do not believe in God will go to great lengths to complicate this simple explanation and try to contrive some other explanation that removes the need for a higher intelligence for reasons unknown(most likely personal reasons)

I'm not sure what "information" you're referring to...but if you're speaking about DNA in general it's true that we organize it into information.

The fact that we are able to look at genes or DNA and figure out what those genes or DNA do in the process of a life's development doesn't mean that something "wrote" that information. In fact, there are lots of aspects to dna that would suggest it isn't "written" by some intelligence.

 

[Ana the Ist]

In Only A Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul Kenneth R. Miller shows that the goal of the Intelligent Design movement is to change the definition of science and in the process undermine or destroy science.

There is the letter of a theory, philosophical system, worldview, etc., and then there is the spirit of it.

I do not see what it accomplishes to split hairs over the letter of a theory, philosophical system, worldview, etc. when the spirit of it is something completely different.

Not sure what you're getting at here LOVE, could you elaborate on who is "splitting hairs" and what they're splitting them over?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Bad design
Bad design is like noise. Like clutter. It can be frustrating, dull, or annoying. It may be as bad as actually ugly, or simply unremarkable and therefore not worthy of someone’s attention.

This is hijacked, but amusingly appropriate.

This is definition of design I'm going for here...

"purpose, planning, or intention that exists or is thought to exist behind an action, fact, or material object."

I don't see a whole lot of purpose or planning in something like "clutter"...so I don't think it would fit any definition of design.

Where did you get this definition of "bad design"?

 

[pat34lee]

The fallacy of special pleading was committed in bold:

So, are you saying that nature is undesigned, or God was designed?

This is why I like the first cause argument better anyway.

 

[Davian]

In the real world we use real world tools.
Real world tools could not reproduce
supernatural <snip>

I do not know what you mean by that word. Provide a positive ontology for "supernatural", so that we can agree upon whatever it is you are taking about.

 

[Davian]

Now...please list the natural forces that determine a system or design that matter will come alive.
List these and we will know if matter will ever design itself and become live systems. Please do list them all.
1.
2.
3.
4.

Indeed. If "science" can't prove its case, credit will go to the Great Pumpkin. Or, pixies. How about one of those "gods"? Do we have evidence for any of those?

 

[pat34lee]

In Only A Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul Kenneth R. Miller shows that the goal of the Intelligent Design movement is to change the definition of science and in the process undermine or destroy science.

People love to tie evolution to science to quiet detractors when they
are not the same. Even if evolution were a type of science, true science
would survive its passing, just as it did with all false theories of the past.

 

[pat34lee]

In fact, there are lots of aspects to dna that would suggest it isn't "written" by some intelligence.

Not really. Have you ever solved cryptograms? DNA is far more complex than any code
devised by man. For anyone to study how it works and deny it is proof of an intelligent
creator is not science, it is foolishness based only on the need to deny God in any form.

 

[Davian]

The fact that there is information in DNA that guides processes.

Explain how this works. Skip no details.

This information existed before human intelligence.

You mean, before humans evolved?

The most common sense understanding is that information can only come from intelligence, therefore, the fact that information existeded before human intelligence clearly suggests a higher intelligence as the source for the information found in DNA. This higher intelligence designed the DNA and encoded it with information to perform functions.

The only "intelligence" that I am aware of is a product of a brain. As a brain is biology, how could a brain be around to provide this intelligence to create DNA prior to the existence of DNA? You are not making any sense.

This is a powerful explanation for why we see information and design in things not created by humans.

I do not see design in things not created by humans. What criteria are you using to detect "design"?

However, those who do not believe in God will go to great lengths to complicate this simple explanation and try to contrive some other explanation that removes the need for a higher intelligence for reasons unknown

The lack of robust, testable evidence for "gods", presented in a testable, falsifiable hypothesis. Now you know the reasons.

(most likely personal reasons)

Mind-reading hat fail.

Mind-Reading Hat

• Davian
• Jul 30, 2015

Maybe it helps if you shave your head. Have you tried that?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Not really. Have you ever solved cryptograms? DNA is far more complex than any code
devised by man. For anyone to study how it works and deny it is proof of an intelligent
creator is not science, it is foolishness based only on the need to deny God in any form.

That's pure speculation about the motives of every geneticist.

How much do you know about DNA and genetics? I'm no expert, but I feel like I can back my statement up.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Indeed. If "science" can't prove its case, credit will go to the Great Pumpkin. Or, pixies. How about one of those "gods"? Do we have evidence for any of those?

No...but I'm sure you already knew this...so why ask?

Why would "credit" go to some made-up explanation?

 

[Davian]

No...but I'm sure you already knew this...so why ask?

Why would "credit" go to some made-up explanation?

Creationist methodology; start with the conclusion that you have come to, and work your way backwards from there...

 

[DogmaHunter]

If everything in reality is designed then there must be an eternal designer(God). If this is the case then there wouldn't be anything "undesigned" except for God himself because He's always existed eternally.

Your premis that "nature" is the same as "undesign" is a flawed premis if all reality is designed by God. There simply is no reason to think anything is undesigned except for God Himself.

That is some seriously flawed logic......

In reality, there is no reason to think that anything in nature is designed...
Not the other way round.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Ill say everything created in reality is designed. Reality itself is God, therefore reality is undesigned as you have said. Everything created in reality is designed, the reality of God is not designed or created because it is eternal.

How have you determined that god is eternal and doesn't require being designed?
And if this god can be that way, why can't the universe itself be that way?

If you take a creator away and just say reality is eternal you've stripped all explanatory power away for why we perceive design in our reality.

No. In reality, we keep the exact same explanatory power.
Because saying "god did it" doesn't actually explain ANYTHING.

Instead your choosing to ignore the design

What "design"?

simply because it implies a creator and leave yourself with no other explanation.

Positing a "creator" through special pleading and an appeal to ignorance, is not an explanation at all.

I guess some are happy with that.

I guess some are happy with special pleading and appeals to ignorance.

The rest of us, more intellectually honest and reasonable folks, are happy with "i don't know" when we don't actually know, instead of just making stuff up.

 

[DogmaHunter]

"Designed" or "Created" is suggested when the likelihood of natural development is very small.

For example:
Why does rock want to become alive?
What properties do minerals (plus water) have that promote the development of life?
What advantage does life have over nonliving materials?

What are the odds?

Ow.... so it's an argument from incredulity?

Does this, btw, also mean that if I win a jackpot that had 1 chance in a trillion, that my winning must have been "designed"?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Thank you for illustrating my example.

So are there natural forces that would cause a tree to fall? Ever?
If so please list these forces and we can determine if the tree will ever fall.

Now...please list the forces that determine that matter will come alive.
List these and we will know if rocks will ever live. List them all.

motion forces
thermal
electrical
physical
meta-physical
etc.

It's called chemistry.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Can I ask - is it unreasonable to consider that nature designed it's own laws - or how did those laws originate?

The laws of nature are just our description of how reality works.
They aren't discovered under a rock. They aren't prescriptive. They are descriptive.

They are about how matter and energy behave in a space-time continuum. If things are going to exist, they are going to exist in a certain way and the space-time they exist in is going to have some properties.

What we call the "laws of nature" are no more then those "certain ways" and its "properties" and how they relate to eachother.

You seem to be confusing it with "laws" like in a lawbook, as if they need to be written down or something. That's, off course, a rather ridiculous notion.

Whilst I do believe that God is The Creator ..... I am reluctant to confine my understanding to one particular label, e.g. Creationism, Intelligent Design etc. For many years I was a YEC and was anti - science ....... but it was actually science that put an end to my YEC stance!

Good for you.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The answer to how we determine if something is designed or not is by looking at the thing in question and viewing the clear evidence of design.

This doesn't make sense as an answer to the question on how design is detected.
You basically answered with "well, you look at it and then detect the design".

The equivalent of your non-answer would be like:
"How do you fly a plane?"
"Well, you just go sit in the cockpit and then fly it".

Perhaps you would like another shot at answering the question?

We can also view the evidence of design

What "evidence of design"? What does "evidence of design" look like? How do you differentiate it from "evidence of natural phenomena"?

and say to ourselves "maybe it's not designed" then continue with that belief, as you have done. However, no matter how long we continue with that belief, the evidence will and has continued to support the belief that everything in our reality is designed for a specific purpose.

How, exactly? You know... which is what you were asked. You continue to provide us with non-answers. Please try to be clear.

Believing that the evidence suggests undesign when it continues to support the belief of design, is ignorant.

How does it support design? What would the evidence look like if it supported natural forces instead?

Let's try this again... ignore the rest of my post if you want and just answer these question:

1. Give me your BEST example of "evidence of design".
2. Explain HOW that example is "evidence of design" (ie: don't just assert it, EXPLAIN it)
3. Explain how this evidence should be different in order to no longer support design, but support natural forces instead.

Looking forward to your answers.....

 

[DogmaHunter]

I don't think so. There must be a primary cause that made everything else.
That is not special pleading but simple fact.

Since time, matter, energy and space were all created at some point, the
creator has to be outside all of them.

*Something* triggered the big bang, sure, I can agree to that.

However, you insisting that that "something" HAD to be a sentient mega-complex being like the god you worship, is something that is not in evidence. At all.

In fact, it is extremely unlikely that this is the case.