The Problem With Calling Things Designed.

[Kahalachan]

People tend to call things designed or created. If we say the universe is designed, naturally, we can assume a designer.

But are we using the right words, such as design or creation?

Design implies taking parts and making a different whole out of those parts. We find materials and ways to use them.

The universe is complex. This is probably a better word to use. Something that is complex doesn't need a complicator. It is just a complex process.

Thunderstorms are complex and don't need a Thor to start it.


My point of this thread, is that "complexity" is probably a more agreeable term for both sides. Agree?

 

[Jig]

People tend to call things designed or created. If we say the universe is designed, naturally, we can assume a designer.

But are we using the right words, such as design or creation?

Design implies taking parts and making a different whole out of those parts. We find materials and ways to use them.

The universe is complex. This is probably a better word to use. Something that is complex doesn't need a complicator. It is just a complex process.

Thunderstorms are complex and don't need a Thor to start it.


My point of this thread, is that "complexity" is probably a more agreeable term for both sides. Agree?

I don't think you get it. That IS why IDers call things designed. They do assume a designer. Design is the correct term to use.

 

[Elduran]

I don't think you get it. That IS why IDers call things designed. They do assume a designer. Design is the correct term to use.

I think part of the issue is that IDists tend to assume a designer, then use that assumption to try to evidence the designer, which is somewhat circular. The correct method would be to work out what a good test for a designer is, and this is where problems arise. IDists like Dembski think that complexity is design, but as shown in simple snowflakes, complexity can arise naturally in minutes, let alone billions of years.

Their other foundation is that of irreducible complexity. The problem here is their lack of research into the area. Until recently their prime example was the human eye, but they got shown (rather embarrassingly) at the Dover trial that there had actually been abundant research into the evolutionary mechanisms of the eye, and the claim of irreducibility was pretty much groundless at that point.

Coming back to the OP, I think that using terms like "designed" or "created" is a bit of a throwback to how we have historically described things rather than their scientific descriptions. After all, until only a couple of centuries ago, everything was assumed to have been designed/created, so our language takes that belief into account even though science has since moved on.

 

[Jig]

I think part of the issue is that IDists tend to assume a designer, then use that assumption to try to evidence the designer, which is somewhat circular. The correct method would be to work out what a good test for a designer is, and this is where problems arise.

That is your opinion. There is no way you can prove that IDers assume a designer before they see the evidence. I can say the same for evo's.

IDists like Dembski think that complexity is design, but as shown in simple snowflakes, complexity can arise naturally in minutes, let alone billions of years.

To me it sounds like you haven't read much of Dembski's work. Dembski doesn't think all complexity is design, he spends plenty of time detailing "specified complexity". Maybe you missed that part.

Their other foundation is that of irreducible complexity. The problem here is their lack of research into the area. Until recently their prime example was the human eye, but they got shown (rather embarrassingly) at the Dover trial that there had actually been abundant research into the evolutionary mechanisms of the eye, and the claim of irreducibility was pretty much groundless at that point.

The definition of irreducible complexity is solid. If it can be proven in nature, design exists. It doesn't surprise me that many of Behe's examples go unheard and still unanswered. I still laugh at the attempt at explaining the evolution of blood coagulation. However, I'd expect to see such a fierce reaction when a thoery is in crisis.

 

[Elduran]

That is your opinion. There is no way you can prove that IDers assume a designer before they see the evidence. I can say the same for evo's.

It's simple enough to demonstrate really. There's no evidence for the irreducible complexity that ID proponents almost invariably hinge their entire arguments on, so the only thing to fall back on is an assumption that evolution can't do the job as a naturalistic process, which is nothing more than a glorified argument from incredulity.

Then there are comments like Behe's from the Dover trial where he claimed that scientifically speaking, ID was as valid as astrology. Now, does astrology have anything other than an assumption that it works as a foundation? No. Why would Behe make a comparison like that under oath if ID had anything more substantial to back it up? Simple answer: he wouldn't. After Behe managed to admit this sort of information, Dembski refused to testify. We can come up with a few reasons why he wouldn't have wanted to, despite the fact that he had been quoted as saying that if evolution and ID ever went to trial, the scientific theory (i.e. evolution) would be destroyed. However, it essentially boils down to Dembski realising that his evidence wasn't good enough to fool anyone at that trial, especially after such claims as "no evidence for the development of 'irreducibly complex' features" had been shown to be utter lies during Behe's testimony.

To me it sounds like you haven't read much of Dembski's work. Dembski doesn't think all complexity is design, he spends plenty of time detailing "specified complexity". Maybe you missed that part.

I read some of Dembski's work before and after Dover. I found nothing of any real substance to it. Complexity can arise naturally, there's evidence of that, so complexity in and of itself is not compelling enough to warrant the assumption that an intangible designer plays with DNA during the evolutionary process.

The fact that Dembski's work on ID has led to the rest of his department issuing a statement saying that they do not share his views or support his work in the least is also very telling, as most scientific establishments are very supportive of any work that might lead to either discoveries, inventions or explanations. Add to that the issue of Dembski silencing any of his critics in the online community he runs by simply deleting their comments and banning them from the forum indicates that he's not in the least bit interested in discussing his evidence with skeptics, just in glorifying himself to his exiting followers.

The definition of irreducible complexity is solid. If it can be proven in nature, design exists. It doesn't surprise me that many of Behe's examples go unheard and still unanswered. I still laugh at the attempt at explaining the evolution of blood coagulation. However, I'd expect to see such a fierce reaction when a thoery is in crisis.

The definition itself may well be solid, but the examples are utter bunk.

Some further bits of amusement about Dover from wikipedia:

While testifying at the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed papers supporting his claims that complex molecular systems, like the bacterial flagellum, the blood-clotting cascade, and the immune system, were intelligently designed nor are there any peer-reviewed articles supporting his argument that certain complex molecular structures are "irreducibly complex." [3]

"As expert testimony revealed, the qualification on what is meant by "irreducible complexity" renders it meaningless as a criticism of evolution. (3:40 (Miller)). In fact, the theory of evolution proffers exaptation as a well-recognized, well-documented explanation for how systems with multiple parts could have evolved through natural means."

"By defining irreducible complexity in the way that he has, Professor Behe attempts to exclude the phenomenon of exaptation by definitional fiat, ignoring as he does so abundant evidence which refutes his argument. Notably, the NAS has rejected Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity..." (Page 75)

Emphasis mine in the next one.

"...on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fiftyeight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not "good enough." (23:19 (Behe))." (Page 78)

All in all, Dover was more than enough of an embarrassment for the ID movement, and by all rights it should have given up its claims at that point.


You mentioned you could say the same for evolutionists, I'd be quite interested in seeing that.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

IMHO, the worst part of the ID movement is their notion of God. If one were to believe Dembski, the activities of the most powerful being in the universe are mainly consisting of puzzling together minor proteins.

 

[Ondoher]

That is your opinion. There is no way you can prove that IDers assume a designer before they see the evidence. I can say the same for evo's.

No you can't.

To me it sounds like you haven't read much of Dembski's work. Dembski doesn't think all complexity is design, he spends plenty of time detailing "specified complexity". Maybe you missed that part.

Dembski's definition of specified complexity boils down to "functional" when applied to biology.

The definition of irreducible complexity is solid.

And useless. He has failed to make a valid argument that IC systems cannot evolve.

If it can be proven in nature, design exists.

It can't even be tested, much less proven.

It doesn't surprise me that many of Behe's examples go unheard and still unanswered.

Name one. They've all been debunked. Even the mousetrap, an actual designed object.

I still laugh at the attempt at explaining the evolution of blood coagulation.

Then you probably failed to understand it.

However, I'd expect to see such a fierce reaction when a thoery is in crisis.

People have been proclaiming that evolution is a theory in crisis for over a hundred years. And yet it is still the central, unifying paradigm of modern biology.

 

[70judge]

That is your opinion. There is no way you can prove that IDers assume a designer before they see the evidence. I can say the same for evo's.




To me it sounds like you haven't read much of Dembski's work. Dembski doesn't think all complexity is design, he spends plenty of time detailing "specified complexity". Maybe you missed that part.



The definition of irreducible complexity is solid. If it can be proven in nature, design exists. It doesn't surprise me that many of Behe's examples go unheard and still unanswered. I still laugh at the attempt at explaining the evolution of blood coagulation. However, I'd expect to see such a fierce reaction when a thoery is in crisis.

this video does exactly that. it takes behes arguments apart one at a time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

 

[Chalnoth]

this video does exactly that. it takes behes arguments apart one at a time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

Yeah, that was a great talk. And then there are huge problems with even the way these things are put forward.

First of all, the theory of evolution predicts that we will see systems that have specified complexity and look as if they are irreducibly complex.

Secondly, these arguments are all arguments from incredulity, "I don't know how it happened, therefore it didn't."

Thirdly, these arguments also have the logical fallacy of false dilemma. If you will note, the crux of each argument is simply that evolution is wrong. That is all that they are trying to show. They aren't substituting any new mechanisms whatsoever. this is the logical fallacy of false dilemma, "You're wrong, therefore I am right." The problem with this is that there are pretty much always more than two different explanations to any phenomenon. Just stating that evolution is wrong without substituting a new explanation leads to fallacious reasoning.

 

[nvxplorer]

Design implies purpose. Paley's watch is a good example. A watch is designed for the purpose of telling time. We can philosophize all we want, but we cannot show a purpose behind the existence of the universe. This is where the design inference fails.

 

[billwald]

>I still laugh at the attempt at explaining the evolution of blood coagulation.

Why do historical events need to be explained?

 

[Chalnoth]

>I still laugh at the attempt at explaining the evolution of blood coagulation.

Why do historical events need to be explained?

To gain insight into the decisions we should make in the future.

 

[ReverendDG]

That is your opinion. There is no way you can prove that IDers assume a designer before they see the evidence. I can say the same for evo's.
How is it opinion? thats what they say!



To me it sounds like you haven't read much of Dembski's work. Dembski doesn't think all complexity is design, he spends plenty of time detailing "specified complexity". Maybe you missed that part.
quote from dembski:
"no intelligent agent who is strictly physical could have presided over the origin of the universe or the origin of life." - William Dembski
this goes to show you that not only does he believe its a deisgner, but god, not only that but he changes his answer to fit the audence if you believe he doesn't think everything is designed

The definition of irreducible complexity is solid. If it can be proven in nature, design exists. It doesn't surprise me that many of Behe's examples go unheard and still unanswered. I still laugh at the attempt at explaining the evolution of blood coagulation. However, I'd expect to see such a fierce reaction when a thoery is in crisis.

what? behe has been answered all of his stuff has been refuted, go read about the mouse trap example and the evidence for blood cascades and the immune system, they have all been answered.
odd i hear the old "theory in crisis" all the time, but from what i see the ToE is gaining!

more people are accepting it, they see it in action or see the effects of it
oh and do you ignore the bold face fact that in order for ID to be science you have to redefine science? behe even admited if ID is to be considered science so would astrology.
this is the gist of what ID wants to do: redefine science so they don't have to provide evidence for thier "theory"

 

[arensb]

People have been proclaiming that evolution is a theory in crisis for over a hundred years. And yet it is still the central, unifying paradigm of modern biology.

Likewise, the notion that evolution is in crisis has been the central unifying paradigm of creationism for a long time.

 

[shernren]

First of all, the theory of evolution predicts that we will see systems that have specified complexity and look as if they are irreducibly complex.

I hope you could unpack this a little, as I'm not sure how this is true. How does RM+NS predict IC?

 

[Chalnoth]

I hope you could unpack this a little, as I'm not sure how this is true. How does RM+NS predict IC?

Well, not irreducible complexity per se, just the appearance of it. Imagine a machine that has one part. This 'machine' could be a protein, or a set of tissues, or an organ, or whatever: just a piece of a biotic system that performs a function. A random mutation adds a second part to the machine, that allows it to operate for another task entirely. This new task turns out to be beneficial, and the machine gets optimized for this new purpose. As it gets optimized to the new purpose, the old purpose is lost through mutations and natural selection in the new direction, and removing the newer part doesn't allow it to function for the older purpose any longer. Thus it appears that if one of the parts is removed, the machine won't work.

This whole line of argument doesn't work, of course, because it doesn't take into account the fact that the machine will have changed since its last part was added, and so we can't expect it to work well if we manually remove the last piece that was added (assuming it was added long enough ago). So, instead we look for life forms that only make use of small sections of the complex machine.

 

[shernren]

Well, not irreducible complexity per se, just the appearance of it. Imagine a machine that has one part. This 'machine' could be a protein, or a set of tissues, or an organ, or whatever: just a piece of a biotic system that performs a function. A random mutation adds a second part to the machine, that allows it to operate for another task entirely. This new task turns out to be beneficial, and the machine gets optimized for this new purpose. As it gets optimized to the new purpose, the old purpose is lost through mutations and natural selection in the new direction, and removing the newer part doesn't allow it to function for the older purpose any longer. Thus it appears that if one of the parts is removed, the machine won't work.

This whole line of argument doesn't work, of course, because it doesn't take into account the fact that the machine will have changed since its last part was added, and so we can't expect it to work well if we manually remove the last piece that was added (assuming it was added long enough ago). So, instead we look for life forms that only make use of small sections of the complex machine.

Essentially, evolution predicts that old mechanisms will be co-opted for new purposes, and in the process some of these mechanisms will be modified so that they appear to be designed with IC for these new purposes?

 

[Dal M.]

That IS why IDers call things designed. They do assume a designer.

And yet...

There is no way you can prove that IDers assume a designer before they see the evidence.

So do IDists assume a designer or not? Keep in mind that "assume" and "conclude" are two entirely different things.

The definition of irreducible complexity is solid. If it can be proven in nature, design exists.

So if irreducible complexity demands a designer, who designed this?

 

[Maxwell511]

The correct method would be to work out what a good test for a designer is, and this is where problems arise.

A thing that exists solely for the benefit of another, maybe?

For example, computers are designed for the benefit of people. If people disappear computers will eventually disappear.

An example in biology maybe a predator prey relationship where if the predator dies out so does the prey.

Basically an external specified function that is required for existance, if the specified function is gone then the thing will eventually become non-existant.

 

[Kahalachan]

I don't think you get it. That IS why IDers call things designed. They do assume a designer. Design is the correct term to use.

Like someone said, it's circular.

Calling things complex allows for evolution or creation to debate on even ground, rather than giving creation an edge by calling things designed. Just as evolutionists shouldn't use random for an edge and especially because evolution is not a random process.

Something is complex and needed a strategic being to make it so complex and able to work. Something is complex and works based on millions of years of a non-sentient trial and error process.

We can both agree that DNA, humans, cells, biology, the ecosystem are all complex.