Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
SETI funding ends up being more about developing deep space communications technologies (using astronomical tools) .. as opposed to what you're inferring it ends up being used for.As opposed to what? taxing us to fund SETI?
snowflakes look designed , they aren’t . Their shapes are a predictable result of the shape of the water molecules, temperature, wind speed, and air humidity . You think living organisms look designed because they’re a little more complex chemical factories than snowflakes. God-did-it is a belief and as of right now there is no scientific way to test to see if thatbelief is accurate . Belief has nothing to do with science
Your observations aren't taken seriously because they are based on emotional reaction.
There is no paradox if you're willing to re-orient your view away from the base assumption of philosophical Realism.I understand your point. I am trying to point out the paradox of natural vs. intelligent design.
No .. 'design' is not a thing' (or object) .. its a process. Understanding 'design' is acquisition of knowledge experienced from having undertaken that process.R.J. Aldridge said:Perhaps I am playing games with definitions, but when someone says that there is no way to detect intelligent design in biological organisms, the truth is, the only way to detect design, intended or not, is by understanding what goes into intelligently designing a system. Our understanding of design is the only tool available for us to judge the functionality of biological systems.
We don't use 'intelligent design' ... we undertake the process defined by humans. Again, 'design' is not something that exists independently from those who undertake it .. we own what design means at any given time .. and not 'the universe' (the latter of which is a testable object .. and not a process .. as an example).R.J. Aldridge said:It is the only thing we know of in this universe that has been verified to produce such complex, interdependent systems, but if we use such abilities to understand nature, those who use intelligent design are apparently unscientific.
The way we detect "design" as functional arrangement of components is by observing a functional arrangement of components. We need not understand a priori how that arrangement has been brought about.
Randomly distributed variation followed by selection can also create such systems.
Intelligent Design is "unscientific" only because at this point it is nothing but an unfalsifiable assertion which contributes nothing to our understanding of nature. Unfalsifiable propositions are by definition unscientific.
Heres the thing, a single fin on the top or bottom I think would help keep the fish straight given the movement of the tail. But then at some point two identical fins, or fin nubs have to show up with bilateral symmetry and then evolve symmetrically with nerves wiring up to the vertebrae and then the brain and finally the cognitive function to control those two fins fluidly. Until that last step, to me, it would seem that they are going to slow the fish down and misdirect it's motion until they can be cognitively controlled. So it's more than just a gene that controls a "make this here" there is a novel "make these", and the "here" is actually a bilateral position, and then there is all the other things that seem to need a physical process to push them ahead of random acquisition.As far as the original post . Early fish like organisms had a single fin running down the center on top or bottom . The genes that controlled that make-this-here just turned on in two areas rather than in just one central area. It evolved because having left and right fins made it easier to steer . You can see this in the fossil record too.
The way ID Proponents do it is to assume two different definitions of "design" in that sentence, making it an equivocation fallacy. "The way we observe intentional creation is to observe functional organisation." Do you see why that is problematic?I think you could clarify this point a little more because it works for me as well. The way we detect "design"(insert definition of design) is by observing (insert definition of design). Your argument is the same argument that is used by ID proponents.
But ID proponents do not. ID was originally created to discredit the theory of evolution in order to rehabilitate biblical creationism. They have no answer as to how the designer gets the design into the designed object and don't really care very much about it.Also, the "how" question is precisely what science tries to discover.
It works well enough that engineers use so-called "genetic algorithms" based on the same kind of randomly distributed variation and selection process as employed in evolution to let their computers autonomously design new complex semiconductor circuits.Although I disagree, I understand your point in relation to evolutionary biology. Philosophically, however, I have a hard time attributing design to randomness. If randomness is responsible for complex life that is capable of creating designs, randomness is the ultimate designer.
It is unfalsifiable because you can claim that anything at all is intentional and I can't disprove it. In that sense I can say that the entire universe is "designed" (that is, intentionally created) including the fully naturalistic theory of evolution and you can't disprove my assertion. And, in fact, that is what I believe. I do not believe that God needs to tinker with genetic molecules in order to infuse all life with divine Telos.I don't know if ID falls into the category of "unfalsifiable". We can at least understand intelligent design when it is the result of human effort. because we understand what it takes to design a system, it is hard not appreciate nature when viewed through that lens.
They're based on observation, not emotion. I'm particularly fascinated by the way injuries heal.
I think the question you raise is a good one. Can we apply our experience of what we produce, our experiential knowledge of design, to biological systems themselves, and ultimately to nature itself?
Gears can be the product of design. How do you know they need to be?what about gears? we know that gears are a product of design:
(image from Creature with Interlocking Gears on Legs Discovered)
Like I said, if you could really demonstrate what you claim, call up the Discovery Institute and they'll put you on staff.
what about gears? we know that gears are a product of design:
(image from Creature with Interlocking Gears on Legs Discovered)
So you assert that there is no natural process capable of producing functional structures like that? That even God himself is incapable of creating such a process?Clearly a product of design.
So you assert that there is no natural process capable of producing functional structures like that? That even God himself is incapable of creating such a process?
But you deny that God could create a process which would produce those gear-like structures and insist that He must have done it directly.All processes are created by God, or allowed by God to be created by man.
But you deny that God could create a process which would produce those gear-like structures and insist that He must have done it directly.
Nothing, exactly.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?