The appearance of design

[laptoppop]

That's just a matter of word choice, laptoppop. When it's mentioned that they have to remind themselves it's not designed, they mean that it's not obvious that it isn't designed. But to a scientist in the field, given the knowledge that they have, the molecules do not appear designed. It's not denial. It's knowing that what an uneducated mind initially perceives is not necessarily the way things actually are.

If you're having trouble conceptualizing this, imagine you lived in the Middle Ages, as a peasant farmer. Having experience with meat and the spoilage thereof, you have come to the conclusion that maggots are born of old meat (the concept known nowadays as spontaneous generation). Hundreds of years later, it is discovered that, upon much closer inspection, maggots actually come from tiny eggs planted in the meat. This is the same sort of situation scientists deal with today.

I guess I'm just not comfortable describing the person who co-discovered DNA as uneducated, but that's just me. BTW -- appealing to educational elitism is not evidence for anything.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Yes, again - I thank you for the examples and want to look into them more. Since its not my typical area, its going to take longer. I'm not saying I can't get it -- just gotta take the time.

In terms of the pictures -- good question. Again, I do not have a rigorous definition at this time. Have you looked at the video with the cheesy music from the OP? The design of the molecular machines inside each and every cell is truly amazing. By anyone's definition -- it looks designed.

Is there any argument against the watchmaker argument other than asking for more rigor in the definition of design? So far, the argument strikes me as compelling on a common sense level -- but I admit I am predisposed towards it.

Are these motors more or less designed than say, a small pox virus?

Both are complex, both are beautiful in their own way, is there something that I can use to tell if one is designed and the other is not?

 

[laptoppop]

Well, I went back and reread every single post you have on this thread, and I did not see one that addresed, how you are defining designed.

I've sought this clarification for sometime, and as of yet, it has not been made clear to me what you mean by "design"--particullary who or what is designing.

A ripple in a pond looks designed to me, is this the design you keep referring back to?

Since this is a Christian forum, I am not addressing the "who" of design -- I'm assuming God.

As for the definition of "design" I went all over that with Shernren - don't feel like repeating myself.

 

[laptoppop]

Are these motors more or less designed than say, a small pox virus?

Both are complex, both are beautiful in their own way, is there something that I can use to tell if one is designed and the other is not?

Who said that viruses are not designed? I know -- its a hard thing to say, but both show evidence of organized structures.

And the molecular machines are much much much more than motors. I'm not talking about the cool motor for the bacteria flagellum -- but rather the cellular machines. Check out the video from the OP!

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Who said that viruses are not designed? I know -- its a hard thing to say, but both show evidence of organized structures.

And the molecular machines are much much much more than motors. I'm not talking about the cool motor for the bacteria flagellum -- but rather the cellular machines. Check out the video from the OP!

I'm not, I think everything was designed by God. I also think that evolution and other natural laws are what God used most of the time to design.

So since we all agree that things are designed, then this is pretty much a mute point here.

Why even bring the subject up?

 

[theIdi0t]

Since this is a Christian forum, I am not addressing the "who" of design -- I'm assuming God. As for the definition of "design" I went all over that with Shernren - don't feel like repeating myself.

So are you saying God designed the shape of every single snow flake?

Did God design all the variations of "kinds" after the time of the Ark?

Help me out here laptoppop, I'm trying to understand. I've been kind so far haven't I?

 

[shernren]

Is there any argument against the watchmaker argument other than asking for more rigor in the definition of design? So far, the argument strikes me as compelling on a common sense level -- but I admit I am predisposed towards it.

But the lack of rigor in defining "design" is precisely the problem. You can't claim that something looks designed until you define "designed"!

Let me construct a similar argument for you to show you what it looks like from our point of view.

=========

AfS: All life is sexy. Anything that is sexy could not have evolved. Therefore, life did not evolve.

CS: But how do you know that all life is sexy?

AfS: Why, that's obvious! I can name you many examples of life that are sexy. Madonna, for example. Keira Knightley. Wasps, with their wasps' waists. And crikey, aren't crocs -

CS: Well, if it's so obvious that life is sexy, then what is it about life that makes it sexy?

AfS: Well ... well - it's obvious! It's common sense that women are sexy! Do I need a definition to convince you of that?

CS: Well if you can't define when something is sexy, then how can you know? Or maybe you can show me the difference between something sexy and something not?

AfS: Well, since all life is sexy, I naturally can't show you anything that isn't sexy.

CS: That's convenient. Or, even if all life is indeed sexy, how do you know that sexy things can't evolve?

AfS: Well, because evolution can't produce sexy things!

CS: What if I showed you that evolution can produce sexy things?

AfS: Well, evolution doesn't produce sexy things!

CS: How do you know that?

AfS: Because I told you that it can't!

CS: But I just showed you that it can!

AfS: That doesn't show that it did!

CS: How do you know that it didn't?

AfS: Why do I feel all dizzy?

CS: Because you've just made a circular logic pirouette. With practice they'll become so natural to you that you won't feel the slightest discomfort.

=========

If you haven't already guessed, AfS is the "Argument from Sexiness", and CS is "Christian Skepticism". While this doesn't capture all that the design argument is, I hope you will get how frustrating the vagueness of "design" is to people who genuinely want to engage your position. I personally have a definition of design which I'm happy with but which doesn't look good at all for design proponents.

 

[shernren]

Since this is a Christian forum, I am not addressing the "who" of design -- I'm assuming God.

As for the definition of "design" I went all over that with Shernren - don't feel like repeating myself.

Nopes, you didn't, although I can't blame you. I put up some stuff in post #30 that you should see. (I'm guessing you missed it because it was the last post on page - I miss those all the time.)

 

[laptoppop]

Nopes, you didn't, although I can't blame you. I put up some stuff in post #30 that you should see. (I'm guessing you missed it because it was the last post on page - I miss those all the time.)

Sorry - I replied to 30 in post 32 - but didn't quote your post. Thanks again for the bacteria info - I've got to look into it.

 

[theIdi0t]

I guess we are on hiatus, or in other words the thread is dead, and I have yet to learn what "design" means.

Life in origins sometimes blows, just when you're having fun.

 

[notto]

Who said that viruses are not designed?

And each water molecule.
And each hydrogen atom.

Anything can be said to be apparently designed. The problem is that these apparent designs can occur naturally in nature without interaction from a designer.

That is why ID is not objective and is not a useful tool to science.

"That looks complicated" is not a valid framework for scientific study.

 

[shernren]

I guess we are on hiatus, or in other words the thread is dead, and I have yet to learn what "design" means.

Life in origins sometimes blows, just when you're having fun.

Ahh, come on. Not everybody is an under-challenged uni student. Most people who post here actually do useful stuff when they're not online.