The Undesigned Designer

Speedwell · May 30, 2017

JDD_III said:
Why is the addition of "Designer" to one of many of God's names gratuitous? If God does exist, and He created all things, by definition He is the Designer. So why is this gratuitous?

Because God already has plenty of names. It was a joke, son.

The OP was implying that when one concludes design versus random chance that the design position (God) is one from ignorance. I was arguing the opposite by using a word to describe the positive nature of God as being discussed with reference to things around us, thus entirely appropriate to use the word Designer.

There is quite a difference between a rock and a watch. A watch has been purposefully designed and assembled in complexity. A rock used as a hammer has been repurposed rather than designed. Had you taken that rock and tied a stick to it to create a hammer, then that would appear as evidently designed hammer, rather than a repurpose of an existing material.

Yes, the rock tied to a stick is evidently man-made and I would be justified in inferring a designer. In the case of the plain rock, I would not necessarily be able to infer design, but the purpose (whether you put "re" in front of it or not) the design is still real, it is just not detectable. With regard to your watch, functional complexity is not, by itself, a sufficient basis to infer design. Unless, of course, you want to argue that everything is designed, infused with telos by divine agency whether man-made or naturally occurring, but that is really not ID any more.

TagliatelliMonster · May 31, 2017

Kenny'sID said:
While the other unproven end is not only imposed but already there unfairly leaving out the other side. Both unproven, teach one, teach the other, or teach none.

lol! You have a very strange definition of "fair"...

No, it's not "unfair" that we only allow actual scientific models in science textbooks after they have faced the harsh scrutiny of the scientific process and came out of it standing tall and solid.

It's not "unfair" that we do not allow religious faith based beliefs in science textbooks that don't even stand up to a little scientific scrutiny.

You are basically demanding that your particular personal faith-based belief system is allowed to cheat this entire process and have it go straight to the textbook, without first going through the exact same process that all other ideas in science need to go through - including evolution.

As should any good christian. What's with this always missing the other side should have the same rights?

You have the exact same rights as anyone else in the secular society that you live in.
Again you have it backwards.... it is YOU who is demanding special rights.

Gene Parmesan · May 31, 2017

Kenny'sID said:
I keeping thinking that some of you are completely incapable of paying attention. Evolution has not been proven a fact so at best we have two unproven sides as I indicated, teach both or none and stop stating your side is proven by the almighty never wrong science, when science makes no decisions whatsoever....people decide what science says.

The Theory of Evolution will never be proven as a fact. A scientific theory is a way of explaining the things we observe. A successful theory does not go on to become a fact. To attempt to denigrate the ToE as "not been proven a fact" is to not understand what a scientific theory is.

Gene Parmesan · May 31, 2017

JDD_III said:
I see where you are coming from but you are taking the analogy too far.

The point I am making is when you assess the materials around you and see a machine within that context of complexity, you assess it to make a decision on whether or not it could be designed or not. It is a logical decision process. I cannot attach an equation to that - some have tried to do so to describe bits of information where chance becomes improbable to explain - but you make a logical conclusion.

You may say this is not scientific but we do it all the time in science. In biology in particular you cannot usually prove things with equations, but you make a logical assertion. For example, you insert a protein Y into a cell and you observe phenomenon X. You knock said protein-transcribing gene out of a cell and you lose phenomenon X. You therefore make a logical conclusion that protein Y plays a role in phenomenon X. You haven't done anything "scientific" or formulated a ma to say so, you have inferred based on the evidence. This is what we do when we detect design. We will ask ourselves can this object be explained by the surrounding material we can test and observe. If not, we might conclude design.

Likewise, can cellular machinery be explained by natural things around? People would say yes, but no one has demonstrated it. That was the point of Behe's irreducible complexity argument which is still a valid one today. People may disagree with it, but it provides evidence for design.

Again, remember what evidence is and what it isn't.

I do apologize, but I'm going to press this a little more. The watchmaker analogy says we can identify design by contrasting it against that which is not designed. This is not a method you can use to detect that everything is designed because there is nothing to contrast it against.

ximmix · May 31, 2017

Kenny'sID said:
While the other unproven end is not only imposed but already there unfairly leaving out the other side. Both unproven, teach one, teach the other, or teach none.

There isn't just one other side to teach, all religions have their own creation myths that should be given equal time in science class. Teach one, teach them all...

JDD_III · May 31, 2017

Gene Parmesan said:
I do apologize, but I'm going to press this a little more. The watchmaker analogy says we can identify design by contrasting it against that which is not designed. This is not a method you can use to detect that everything is designed because there is nothing to contrast it against.

I understand this argument.

As a contrast, what if an alien ship landed on this planet. How would you detect that it was designed if it looked like nothing ever man-made from this earth? How would you detect that it was not a natural formation of unknown origin from elsewhere in the universe?

Speedwell · May 31, 2017

JDD_III said:
I understand this argument.

As a contrast, what if an alien ship landed on this planet. How would you detect that it was designed if it looked like nothing ever man-made from this earth? How would you detect that it was not a natural formation of unknown origin from elsewhere in the universe?

That's a good question. The answer is that it might not be possible.

JDD_III · May 31, 2017

Speedwell said:
That's a good question. The answer is that it might not be possible.

And yet I quite strongly suspect, with a high degree of certainty, that the vast majority of the scientists in the world would conclude that this was an alien spacecraft.

Speedwell · May 31, 2017

JDD_III said:
And yet I quite strongly suspect, with a high degree of certainty, that the vast majority of the scientists in the world would conclude that this was an alien spacecraft.

Speculation. But there is plenty of science fiction in which the aliens are carried around inside an organic entity, either special-grown or domesticated. Absent the aliens themselves, how would you tell?

Kenny'sID · May 31, 2017

ximmix said:
There isn't just one other side to teach, all religions have their own creation myths that should be given equal time in science class. Teach one, teach them all...

Alright, you tell them that....works for me.

Kenny'sID · May 31, 2017

Gene Parmesan said:
A successful theory does not go on to become a fact.

Tell me about it.

Gene Parmesan said:
The Theory of Evolution will never be proven as a fact. A scientific theory is a way of explaining the things we observe.

So even though it is tested, and the explanation proves to be cut and dried, it still doesn't become a fact?

I just don't buy comments like that. It's like the one, science proves nothing, when in fact it does. It's just a twist often used to evade problem the evolutionist might encounter.

Is there any scientific theory on earth that is a fact then? Anything that is not a scientific theory? Are we saying gravity for instance, once a theory, has not become fact?

An example of why I think as I do...I mentioned "science proves nothing", a popular, and ridiculous view in my view.

Lets take for instance, a man that is very smart, we give him all the books he needs to find out something he doesn't know. In this case he doesn't know what happens to paper once it is burned with fire, he has no idea what fire does to anything at this point

So before he does any practical tests, he is asked to figure out ahead of time what happens to the paper. He developed a theory that it dries out, the gasses dissipate, leave a certain % of solids that turns to a powder form, let just call it ash for the moment.

That's his theory. Then he fires up the paper and the theory becomes fact.

Speedwell · May 31, 2017

Kenny'sID said:
Is there any scientific theory on earth that is a fact then? Anything that is not a scientific theory? Are we saying gravity for instance, once a theory, has not become fact?

No, facts are facts; theories are tested explanations of facts. Gravity is a fact--go jump off a building and see--it's always been a fact, even in the absence of scientific theories, of which there have been several.

Lets take for instance, a man that is very smart, we give him all the books he needs to find out something he doesn't know. In this case he doesn't know what happens to paper once it is burned with fire, he has no idea what fire does to anything at this point

So before he does any practical tests, he is asked to figure out ahead of time what happens to the paper. He developed a theory that it dries out, the gasses dissipate, leave a certain % of solids that turns to a powder form, let just call it ash for the moment. That's his theory.

That would be an hypothesis, not a theory

Then he fires up the paper and the theory becomes fact.

No, that's the point at which his hypothesis becomes a theory.

Kenny'sID · May 31, 2017

TagliatelliMonster said:
No, it's not "unfair" that we only allow actual scientific models in science textbooks after they have faced the harsh scrutiny of the scientific process and came out of it standing tall and solid.

Clearly you will never get the fact that I feel if it isn't proven, it isn't the "scientific" model you claim. It's still opinion and claims, just as you see the other side, and no one here has or can prove otherwise.
Yet some of you to this day, feel you can forget that fact together. I'm not going to convince you you've been duped, so at the very least realize it's still only a theory and stop jumping past that in debate. BTW, you aren't the only one who does that.

Actually I made that clear with "the other unproven end". If you disagree and feel evolution is proven, that's the only real disagreement we have, and I'd guess that's nothing new.

And yes, it is fair, until you or any one else can prove otherwise.

I really do wish you would save me the time and reason these things out before jumping the gun.

Kenny'sID · May 31, 2017

Speedwell said:
No, facts are facts; theories are tested explanations of facts. Gravity is a fact--go jump off a building and see--it's always been a fact, even in the absence of scientific theories, of which there have been several.That would be an hypothesis, not a theory
No, that's the point at which his hypothesis becomes a theory.

I do realize that's all you can do since there is no other defense for this. Thing is, we all need to realize when in our desperation we post completely untrue things in defense, it wastes everyone time, in replies, reading and even your time posting. I understand a certain amount of that is going to happen, but some of it can be avoided so easily by not jumping the gun and reasoning out our comments to be.

Anther point, how can we belive anything one says if some of it is clearly made up? See why this is somewhat important?

Search Results
hy·poth·e·sis
hīˈpäTHəsəs/
noun
noun: hypothesis; plural noun: hypotheses
a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
"professional astronomers attacked him for popularizing an unconfirmed hypothesis"
synonyms: theory, theorem, thesis, conjecture, supposition, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, assumption; More

Speedwell · May 31, 2017

Kenny'sID said:
I do realize that's all you can do since there is no other defense for this. Thing is, we all need to realize when in our desperation we post completely untrue things in defense, it wastes everyone time, in replies, reading and even your time posting. I understand a certain amount of that is going to happen, but some of it can be avoided so easily by not jumping the gun and reasoning out our comments to be.

Anther point, how can we belive anything one says if some of it is clearly made up? See why this is somewhat important?

Search Results
hy·poth·e·sis
hīˈpäTHəsəs/
noun
noun: hypothesis; plural noun: hypotheses
a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
"professional astronomers attacked him for popularizing an unconfirmed hypothesis"
synonyms: theory, theorem, thesis, conjecture, supposition, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, assumption; More

Which confirms my definition of hypothesis--a proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for investigation. That's all your man had until he lit the paper on fire.

What am I "making up?"

pshun2404 · May 31, 2017

Don't be concerned, it is Barry himself who suffers from this fallacy.

Because he has found something difficult to understand, or is unaware of how it works, he makes out like it's probably not true.

Kenny'sID · May 31, 2017

Speedwell said:
Which confirms my definition of hypothesis--a proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for investigation. That's all your man had until he lit the paper on fire.

What am I "making up?"

I was clear in what you made up.

Speedwell · May 31, 2017

Kenny'sID said:
I was clear in what you made up.

No, you weren't. Since you accuse me of being a liar I expect you to be specific about it. Back your accusation up or back down.

Gene Parmesan · Jun 1, 2017

JDD_III said:
I understand this argument.

As a contrast, what if an alien ship landed on this planet. How would you detect that it was designed if it looked like nothing ever man-made from this earth? How would you detect that it was not a natural formation of unknown origin from elsewhere in the universe?

I can't say that I would know if it were designed or not. We do have our planet and our own design to contrast it against to at least come to some conclusions. It's a closer analogy to the watchmaker one in that it is something distinct among other things to contrast it with. This is not something you can do with the cosmos as we do not have access to "not cosmos" to contrast it against.

Gene Parmesan · Jun 1, 2017

Kenny'sID said:
So even though it is tested, and the explanation proves to be cut and dried, it still doesn't become a fact?

I just don't buy comments like that. It's like the one, science proves nothing, when in fact it does. It's just a twist often used to evade problem the evolutionist might encounter.

It's not an evasion. The theory definitely appeals to facts. What we observe in the fossil record, morphology, genetics, and so on and on...and on. The Theory of Evolution just gathers up all the data from all of the fields and tries to make it coherent as an overall explanation.

Kenny'sID said:
Is there any scientific theory on earth that is a fact then? Anything that is not a scientific theory? Are we saying gravity for instance, once a theory, has not become fact?

The Theory of Gravity attempts to explain the facts of gravity. So it is a fact that we refer to the force that keeps us mostly tethered to the Earth as gravity. Nobody disputes the force exists. The Theory of Gravity is a way of explaining why and how it happens...it's not meant to prove that it happens. So yeah, the Theory of Gravity won't go on to become the fact of gravity. It'll only become better at describing elements of gravity.

Kenny'sID said:
An example of why I think as I do...I mentioned "science proves nothing", a popular, and ridiculous view in my view.

Lets take for instance, a man that is very smart, we give him all the books he needs to find out something he doesn't know. In this case he doesn't know what happens to paper once it is burned with fire, he has no idea what fire does to anything at this point

So before he does any practical tests, he is asked to figure out ahead of time what happens to the paper. He developed a theory that it dries out, the gasses dissipate, leave a certain % of solids that turns to a powder form, let just call it ash for the moment.

That's his theory. Then he fires up the paper and the theory becomes fact.

So if you refer to the definition of hypothesis you posted, you'll see why this example is a hypothesis. After his experiment it is a fact that this kind of paper can burn under the right circumstances, yes. He can go on to develop a theory that explains exactly why it happened. Paper can burn: FACT. Explanation of why the paper can burn based on the data: THEORY.

I hope that helps to clarify what I meant.

The Undesigned Designer

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency