The Undesigned Designer

[TagliatelliMonster]

On the contrary, the very fact that we CAN find things out, and the things we find out are based on logic and laws point to a designer.

How so?

Give me your BEST example, if that makes it easier. Which thing specifically points to a "designer" in your opinion and why?

If everything was haphazard and senseless, that would seem more like the universe had no designer and just "happened".

So?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, you are pointing out that the argument "that we can know and find out about the universe, therefore it must not have a designer" is ridiculous.

That is indeed ridiculous. What's more, is that that is NOT AT ALL what he said.

Here's what he DID say: "Some people think that because we don't fully understand how life, the universe and everything came about, it must have been designed by a designer"

He wasn't talking about why certain people do not conclude a designer... he was talking about the exact opposite: reasons why people DO conclude a designer.

Vice versa, you are pointing out that "since we can not know everything about the universe, it must have a designer" is a dumb argument for Creation. I don't accept this fallacy, anyway.

Yet, it is what designer arguments always boil down to.
Gods are typically stuffed in places where ignorance rules at that particular time.
As we learn more, these "gap fillers" are replaced by actual explanations.

The current incarnation of these "sophisticated" designer arguments, places a designer in the gap of the origin of life and the origin of the universe. 2 things that currently remain unknown.

And whenever these arguments get questioned, an extremely typical fall-back response is some variation of "well, how else would you explain it?" - which a classic tell for the incredulity fallacy.

I am saying, since we CAN know some things about the universe and it works on laws and logic, then our knowledge points to a Creator.

You keep saying that.
Care to actually support it?

I can look at a house and certainly not know how it was made, but the simple fact that it works as a system and follows a plan, lets me know there must have been an architecht.

Because you know what buildings are.

I am saying if we could not figure out anything, or if the universe made no sense at all- like a random, haphazard pile of sticks that did not function as a system, I would think "this chaos has no Creator."

That's a false argument. I see no reason why a natural universe would necessarily have to be senseless, inconsistent and/or total chaos.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

if he internal he dont need a designer.

I think you mean "eternal".

I could respond simply by saying: "pretty big if" and "there could just as well be an eternal multi-verse or some such" (whatever "eternal" means, off course).

we know that nature have a beginning so its not the same situation.

No, not "nature". Rather: space-time.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because they actively lobby to impose their religious beliefs upon a secular society.

When did it become secular?

 

[Speedwell]

When did it become secular?

It always has been. The US was founded as a secular republic without an establishment of religion.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

When did it become secular?

When the constitution was drafted.

 

[brinny]

Some people think that because we don't fully understand how life, the universe and everything came about, it must have been designed by a designer. This is a basic fallacy, known as the fallacy of personal incredulity. The irony is that it is never applied to the supposed designer itself. All sorts of special pleadings are employed to try and argue that the undesigned designer is an exception to the "logic" that is being used.

Until we find out more, what is so unacceptable about admitting that we don't fully know or understand?

And yet, there it is.

We don't know.

It is what it is.

We are quite finite.

We "die".

I suppose, since we ARE so finite, we are not able to even discuss the "infinite" with any definitive-ness.

Are we?

 

[Barry Desborough]

When did it become secular?

America? At its founding.

 

[Kenny'sID]

With Mike Pence and Betsy DeVos threatening to wreak havoc in science education in the States, I'm very bothered. Read this to see where I'm coming from. Veritas: ERV FAQ: Aren't you just a plagiarist? Why don't you attribute your sources? And who are you anyway?

So you are saying you only want your side of this taught?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Because they actively lobby to impose their religious beliefs upon a secular society.

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.

Any good patriot should oppose such activity.

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

 

[Speedwell]

So you are saying you only want your side of this taught?

There aren't two sides. Only one side qualifies as actual science, which is what should be taught in science class.

 

[JDD_III]

Your assertion to this OP is that a Designer is an inference due to negative data, or lack of evidence - or as you say, ignorance.

This demonstrates you have neither understood the data and/or what constitutes evidence. I assert you simply do not accept the evidence that exists, that points to a designer.

If we look in our own lives how we distinguish design, it is part of your human logical process of reasoning. If you went into a desert and saw a watch on the floor, you would not consider that this was the result of chance or natural causes from the natural materials around you. Rather, you would infer this was an object that someone had made. You can see the appearance of design and the evidence for purpose, or teleology and it is overwhelmingly convincing to you.

Furthermore, scientific principles infer a Designer. When we look at the fine-tuning of the universe and the laws that govern this universe (laws actually imply law-giver, but I digress...) you see unprobabilistic means to explain the existence of the universe by chance. Occam's razor would indicate the simplest explanation is the best and the simplest explanation is that the probability to achieve such fine-tuning indicates this was not by chance.

Yet "science" postulates that instead of this, there must be a near infinite number of universes that exist outside of our own and we are just lucky. I say "science" because the multiverse is not a testable hypothesis and admitted by many it may never be one. It is actually a hypothesis to get around design as the answer.

There is significant amount of positive evidence for a Designer - and the very fact that our universe is contingent with laws, logic, consciousness exists and everything boils down to information as implied by quantum mechanics all indicate that there must be something or someone or some force that exists outside of our universe that is non-contingent. That is certainly a valid interpretation of the data and evidence. Now you may choose to disagree with that interpretation, but do not assume that everyone who chooses to believe that interpretation is doing so out of a position of ignorance or for lack of evidence - this is certainly not the case.

 

[Speedwell]

Your assertion to this OP is that a Designer is an inference due to negative data, or lack of evidence - or as you say, ignorance.

This demonstrates you have neither understood the data and/or what constitutes evidence. I assert you simply do not accept the evidence that exists, that points to a designer.

If we look in our own lives how we distinguish design, it is part of your human logical process of reasoning. If you went into a desert and saw a watch on the floor, you would not consider that this was the result of chance or natural causes from the natural materials around you. Rather, you would infer this was an object that someone had made. You can see the appearance of design and the evidence for purpose, or teleology and it is overwhelmingly convincing to you.

If I look into my own life as to how I distinguish design, I base my conclusion on the presence of indications that the object was man made: tool marks, refined materials, etc. Without such indications I can come to no conclusion about the existence of a designer. "Design," the telos you refer to, is not directly detectable in an object. If I'm out camping and pick up a rock to pound in my tent stakes, I have "designed" a hammer. After I move on, you would be hard-pressed to find out which rock I had used. Even if I shape the rock for the purpose by banging it against another rock you might have a hard time picking it out--ask any paleontologist who is trying to find stone tools in a rockpile. In fact, what he is looking for are traces of human manufacture from which he may infer human design, and when he finds them he may still not be sure of the purpose of the object, what is was designed for.

Considering the watch of your example, I would infer a human designer not because of its functionality or its complexity but because it was obviously a product of human manufacture. If I could not conclude that the object was of human manufacture, then I could draw no inference one way or another about the existence of a designer.

Furthermore, scientific principles infer a Designer. When we look at the fine-tuning of the universe and the laws that govern this universe (laws actually imply law-giver, but I digress...) you see unprobabilistic means to explain the existence of the universe by chance. Occam's razor would indicate the simplest explanation is the best and the simplest explanation is that the probability to achieve such fine-tuning indicates this was not by chance.

Yet "science" postulates that instead of this, there must be a near infinite number of universes that exist outside of our own and we are just lucky. I say "science" because the multiverse is not a testable hypothesis and admitted by many it may never be one. It is actually a hypothesis to get around design as the answer.

There is significant amount of positive evidence for a Designer - and the very fact that our universe is contingent with laws, logic, consciousness exists and everything boils down to information as implied by quantum mechanics all indicate that there must be something or someone or some force that exists outside of our universe that is non-contingent. That is certainly a valid interpretation of the data and evidence. Now you may choose to disagree with that interpretation, but do not assume that everyone who chooses to believe that interpretation is doing so out of a position of ignorance or for lack of evidence - this is certainly not the case.

All you have done is gratuitously add "designer" to the names of God.

Intelligent Design as it is generally discussed here is rather different: it asserts that some (but by no means all) biological structures are incapable of being produced by a process of variation and selection but require the special intervention of a "designer." This, as I understand it, is the position of the Discovery Institute, the originator of the intelligent design movement, though they have yet to produce any satisfactory examples of such structures existing in nature.

 

[Sanoy]

The irony is that it is never applied to the supposed designer itself. All sorts of special pleadings are employed to try and argue that the undesigned designer is an exception to the "logic" that is being used.

It's not Irony, it's Logic. For one God exists "A Se", so expecting Him to have a designer would be misplaced. For another there cannot be an infinite regress of causes.

 

[JDD_III]

If I look into my own life as to how I distinguish design, I base my conclusion on the presence of indications that the object was man made: tool marks, refined materials, etc. Without such indications I can come to no conclusion about the existence of a designer. "Design," the telos you refer to, is not directly detectable in an object. If I'm out camping and pick up a rock to pound in my tent stakes, I have "designed" a hammer. After I move on, you would be hard-pressed to find out which rock I had used. Even if I shape the rock for the purpose by banging it against another rock you might have a hard time picking it out--ask any paleontologist who is trying to find stone tools in a rockpile. In fact, what he is looking for are traces of human manufacture from which he may infer human design, and when he finds them he may still not be sure of the purpose of the object, what is was designed for.

Considering the watch of your example, I would infer a human designer not because of its functionality or its complexity but because it was obviously a product of human manufacture. If I could not conclude that the object was of human manufacture, then I could draw no inference one way or another about the existence of a designer.


All you have done is gratuitously add "designer" to the names of God.

Intelligent Design as it is generally discussed here is rather different: it asserts that some (but by no means all) biological structures are incapable of being produced by a process of variation and selection but require the special intervention of a "designer." This, as I understand it, is the position of the Discovery Institute, the originator of the intelligent design movement, though they have yet to produce any satisfactory examples of such structures existing in nature.

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?

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.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

If we look in our own lives how we distinguish design, it is part of your human logical process of reasoning. If you went into a desert and saw a watch on the floor, you would not consider that this was the result of chance or natural causes from the natural materials around you. Rather, you would infer this was an object that someone had made. You can see the appearance of design and the evidence for purpose, or teleology and it is overwhelmingly convincing to you.

In addition to @Speedwell 's reply, I'd like to to add that this scenario requires one to "distinguish design." That is to say that this analogy has you contrasting the watch with the desert. The watch is designed and the rest is not. So then to continue your analogy, what are you supposed to contrast EVERYTHING against? It's a false analogy.

You want us to acknowledge that a watch has a designer and the desert is not designed and thus that somehow illustrates that the desert and everything else is also designed. I mean no disrespect, but this seems likes nonsense.

 

[Kenny'sID]

There aren't two sides. Only one side qualifies as actual science, which is what should be taught in science class.

Of course there are, and one was here long before the so called "actual science" side. And only people qualify it as science...fallible people, people with agenda, and so forth.

Do people really buy the fact that just because you use the term "science" there can be no mistake about it? You're like, "what's wrong with everyone? science says it's true?". I guess it comes down to you bought it hook line and sinker so you're perplexed that everyone else won't automatically get on board....it's the only thing that makes sense to me anyway because you keep making the same assumption without proof. If not show us actual proof.

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.

In the end, all you are really saying is we decided it should be done this way, and for no good reason but that you allowed yourselves to be duped by the very thing you want to teach our kids. Don't you know that's how you got duped?

 

[JDD_III]

In addition to @Speedwell 's reply, I'd like to to add that this scenario requires one to "distinguish design." That is to say that this analogy has you contrasting the watch with the desert. The watch is designed and the rest is not. So then to continue your analogy, what are you supposed to contrast EVERYTHING against? It's a false analogy.

You want us to acknowledge that a watch has a designer and the desert is not designed and thus that somehow illustrates that the desert and everything else is also designed. I mean no disrespect, but this seems likes nonsense.

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.

 

[Speedwell]

Of course there are, and one was here long before the so called "actual science" side. And only people qualify it as science...fallible people, people with agenda, and so forth.

Do people really buy the fact that just because you use the term "science" there can be no mistake about it? You're like, "what's wrong with everyone? science says it's true?". I guess it comes down to you bought it hook line and sinker so you're perplexed that everyone else won't automatically get on board....it's the only thing that makes sense to me anyway because you keep making the same assumption without proof. If not show us actual proof.

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.

In the end, all you are really saying is we decided it should be done this way, and for no good reason but that you allowed yourselves to be duped by the very thing you want to teach our kids. Don't you know that's how you got duped?

I say that it is the only thing that belongs in science class because it is science and creationism is not--I am not saying that it belongs in science class because it is true and creationism isn't. As I have repeatedly explained, the main purposes of elementary science classes such as those taught in public schools is to introduce the students to scientific epistemology. On those terms alone creationism doesn't belong there.
You could use such an introduction yourself: scientific theories are never proven, are never "facts."

 

[JDD_III]

I say that it is the only thing that belongs in science class because it is science and creationism is not--I am not saying that it belongs in science class because it is true and creationism isn't. As I have repeatedly explained, the main purposes of elementary science classes such as those taught in public schools is to introduce the students to scientific epistemology. On those terms alone creationism doesn't belong there.
You could use such an introduction yourself: scientific theories are never proven, are never "facts."

Now this I could agree with - Creationism is essentially a giant miracle and therefore by definition not science nor can science ever prove it.

I don't want Creationism in the science classrooms I want bad science out of the science classroom for the same reasons teaching theism in science is highly criticized.

For example, teaching a God in science is thought as not an option as it is scientifically invalid due to the inability to test it.

Yet we see multiverse, dark matter, dark energy, abiogenesis...I could go on...all taught as "science". Yet by this definition most of these are either a) untestable and/or b) purely conjecture or inference to fit a current model.

So if we are to be consistent these should be in different classrooms to the science class as they teach poor scientific methods and suffer from the same problems teaching theism as science suffers from. Yet here we see the hypocrisy which only confirms the bias of the system against theism, shrouded in this idea that these other proposals such as multiverse are somehow not in the same league but are "scientific".

Science should accept that there are some questions it cannot address and leave that for philosophical reasoning or whatever, but that just does not happen.