What is "design" and how to detect it

DogmaHunter · Sep 8, 2015

Hi,

As it came up, once again, in another thread, I'ld like to invite the ID crowd here once more to define what they exactly mean by the term "design", how it can be objectively detected and what the null hypothesis is.

It is my understanding that they use the loaded version of the word "design". As in, "being done by an actual designer". Some conscious entity. Not some process.

For example, I could speak about the "design" of this snowflake:

But I wouldn't be talking about the type of "design" that the ID crowd talks about when they use the word "design".

How to objectively detect this "design" (being the type of "design" that ID'ers refer to)?

How to define it, in such a way that it can be differentiated from "non-design" or "natural design"?

So, let's settle this once and for all. (although i'm not getting my hopes up - but you never know, right? I'm an optimist I guess).

Regards

bhsmte · Sep 8, 2015

DogmaHunter said:
Hi,

As it came up, once again, in another thread, I'ld like to invite the ID crowd here once more to define what they exactly mean by the term "design", how it can be objectively detected and what the null hypothesis is.

It is my understanding that they use the loaded version of the word "design". As in, "being done by an actual designer". Some conscious entity. Not some process.

For example, I could speak about the "design" of this snowflake:

View attachment 163066

But I wouldn't be talking about the type of "design" that the ID crowd talks about when they use the word "design".

How to objectively detect this "design" (being the type of "design" that ID'ers refer to)?

How to define it, in such a way that it can be differentiated from "non-design" or "natural design"?

So, let's settle this once and for all. (although i'm not getting my hopes up - but you never know, right? I'm an optimist I guess).

Regards

Good luck!

Chriliman · Sep 8, 2015

Those who do not believe in an intelligent designer who actually has a plan for all the design we see in our universe shouldn't use the word "design" because of the implications it has. Instead, they should use words like shape and form and then realize they have no explanation for why anything is shaped or formed the way they are because if they actually had an explanation then we would know why everything is shaped or formed the way it is. But if there is an explanation as to why things are shaped or formed the way they are then there is a plan or reason for why anything exists.

If you never use the word "design" then you won't get anybody asking you "well why is it designed that way?", a terrible answer to this question is "Well maybe "why" is the wrong question." There has to be a "Why?" or maybe a "Who?", otherwise it's all pointless.

If you instead use words like shape and form then you might be able to figure out why things are shaped and formed in the way they are, but this still leads to intention or intelligence behind the shapes and forms we see.

If the universe wasn't precisely fine tuned in the way that it is, then we would never be able to even observe it. There appears to be a fine tuner and it would be this fine tuner that you have to thank for your ability to observe His fine tuning.

Maybe stop using the word "design" and see if you can explain anything about the universe and not be lead back to the word "design".

DogmaHunter · Sep 8, 2015

Chriliman said:
Those who do not believe in an intelligent designer who actually has a plan for all the design we see in our universe shouldn't use the word "design" because of the implications it has. Instead, they should use words like shape and form and then realize they have no explanation for why anything is shaped or formed the way they are because if they actually had an explanation then we would know why everything is shaped or formed the way it is. But if there is an explanation as to why things are shaped or formed the way they are then there is a plan or reason for why anything exists.

As I said in the OP, I can perfectly talk about the design of sand ripples, about the design of snowflakes, about the designs that are evolved through genetic algorithms.

None of these things require any "planning" or "intention". But we can still call them "designs". The thing that "designed" them, just aren't conscious entities with intentions. They are rather blind processes acting upon things subject to the laws of nature.

What I'm looking for in this thread is an objective definition of the loaded version of the word "design" as ID'ers use it.

The "design" that is intentional and purposefully produced by a conscious "designer".

When I say that there is "design" in life. Then I mean "natural design", produced by the processes of evolutionary biology.

But when an ID'er say that there is "design" in life, then that person means more something like "artificial design". The result of a consious entity virtually sitting behind a desk and comming up with a "design" much like an architect draws the plans for a house.

The "natural" type of design doesn't really require a definition. It's just "patterns" that emerge from natural processes. These can be observed and demonstrated.

The "artificial" type of design... not so much. But ID'ers claim to be able to detect it.
I'm asking "how?".

If you never use the word "design" then you won't get anybody asking you "well why is it designed that way?", a terrible answer to this question is "Well maybe "why" is the wrong question." There has to be a "Why?" or maybe a "Who?", otherwise it's all pointless.

This doesn't follow and reeks of a combo of a teleological fallacy + an emotional plea.

If you instead use words like shape and form then you might be able to figure out why things are shaped and formed in the way they are, but this still leads to intention or intelligence behind the shapes and forms we see.

Why?
What intelligence or intention sits behind the design of a snowflake or the design of sand ripples? And how do you know?

What is the difference between "natural design" and "artificial design"?

If the universe wasn't precisely fine tuned in the way that it is, then we would never be able to even observe it. There appears to be a fine tuner and it would be this fine tuner that you have to thank for your ability to observe His fine tuning.

Only if you hold an a priori belief that the universe exists so that you could exist.
Which is the teleological fallacy...

Maybe stop using the word "design" and see if you can explain anything about the universe and not be lead back to the word "design".

Instead of playing semantic games with the word "design", perhaps just try to answer my question.....

How to differentiate "natural design" from "artificial design" in an objective manner?
And what is the null hypothesis?

Chriliman · Sep 8, 2015

DogmaHunter said:
As I said in the OP, I can perfectly talk about the design of sand ripples, about the design of snowflakes, about the designs that are evolved through genetic algorithms.

None of these things require any "planning" or "intention". But we can still call them "designs". The thing that "designed" them, just aren't conscious entities with intentions. They are rather blind processes acting upon things subject to the laws of nature.

What I'm looking for in this thread is an objective definition of the loaded version of the word "design" as ID'ers use it.

The "design" that is intentional and purposefully produced by a conscious "designer".

When I say that there is "design" in life. Then I mean "natural design", produced by the processes of evolutionary biology.

But when an ID'er say that there is "design" in life, then that person means more something like "artificial design". The result of a consious entity virtually sitting behind a desk and comming up with a "design" much like an architect draws the plans for a house.

The "natural" type of design doesn't really require a definition. It's just "patterns" that emerge from natural processes. These can be observed and demonstrated.

The "artificial" type of design... not so much. But ID'ers claim to be able to detect it.
I'm asking "how?".

This doesn't follow and reeks of a combo of a teleological fallacy + an emotional plea.

Why?
What intelligence or intention sits behind the design of a snowflake or the design of sand ripples? And how do you know?

What is the difference between "natural design" and "artificial design"?

Only if you hold an a priori belief that the universe exists so that you could exist.
Which is the teleological fallacy...

Instead of playing semantic games with the word "design", perhaps just try to answer my question.....

How to differentiate "natural design" from "artificial design" in an objective manner?
And what is the null hypothesis?

A basic switch in assumptions can make a huge difference in making sense of the universe. You base you're beliefs about the world on the assumption that evolution is true, even though recent evidence suggests evolution is not true. I base my beliefs on observations of evidence, not on the assumption that evolution is true. This leads to the realization that the universe was designed which makes many things I observe in the universe make sense.

It makes sense to start with intelligence beyond our own intelligence which can explain this universe, rather than start with nothing or multiple universes to explain the universe. The reason it makes sense to start with intelligence is because we know intelligence exists, we do not know if multiple universes exist.

crjmurray · Sep 8, 2015

Boop.

Strathos · Sep 8, 2015

DogmaHunter said:
As I said in the OP, I can perfectly talk about the design of sand ripples, about the design of snowflakes, about the designs that are evolved through genetic algorithms.

None of these things require any "planning" or "intention".

So no one had to program the genetic algorithm?

DogmaHunter · Sep 9, 2015

Chriliman said:
A basic switch in assumptions can make a huge difference in making sense of the universe. You base you're beliefs about the world on the assumption that evolution is true,

No, I do not. I don't hold a priori beliefs. I side with evolution because that's where the evidence points to.

Theists have a priori beliefs. I don't.

even though recent evidence suggests evolution is not true.

Right, right, suuuure....

Let's assume in this thread that evolution is false, before it gets derailed into oblivion.

Now try to answer the question of the OP.

This leads to the realization that the universe was designed which makes many things I observe in the universe make sense.

How does it lead to that "realization", exactly?

How does one objectively detect the loaded version of "design"?

It makes sense to start with intelligence beyond our own intelligence which can explain this universe

Que?

How does that make sense? Do you know what is "sensible" in advance?
What justifies this assumption?

, rather than start with nothing or multiple universes to explain the universe.

So, you base all this on a false dichotomy and an argument for ignorance?

The reason it makes sense to start with intelligence is because we know intelligence exists, we do not know if multiple universes exist.

No. We know that humans exist.

DogmaHunter · Sep 9, 2015

Strathos said:
So no one had to program the genetic algorithm?

No one programs or creates the designs that are created by the algorithm.
Just like no one is creating the ice crystals in a freezer.

Let's stick to the topic, shall we?

Jimmy D · Sep 9, 2015

Hopefully I'm not derailing the thread but I've always wondered about the mechanism of intelligent design. To me ID always conjures up images of a bearded deity bent over an old fashioned technical drawing desk, pencil in hand, obviously this isn't the case so how does it work?

I could just about get on board with some sort of theistic evolution where some entity could get the ball rolling and let creation unfurl naturally from the first basic cellular life. To me though this doesn't seem tally with the literal interpretation of the bible which a lot of IDers seem to champion.

So how would it work?

A quick scan of Genesis and how Eve is created suggests quite a poorly thought out plan as God has to borrow a bit of Adam to make him the suitable 'helper' he couldn't find from the animals. Why does he need to do this if he's already been perfectly designed? Had his reproductive system been designed beforehand with no thought on how it would be used?

Chriliman · Sep 9, 2015

DogmaHunter said:
No, I do not. I don't hold a priori beliefs. I side with evolution because that's where the evidence points to.

So if the evidence begins to point to evolution as being false, then you will follow it?

DogmaHunter said:
Let's assume in this thread that evolution is false, before it gets derailed into oblivion.

Okay, then try to watch this video as objectively as possible and see if you don't begin to think that dinosaurs could possibly be only thousands of years old.

DogmaHunter said:
Now try to answer the question of the OP.

The answer to the OP is that one must consciously deny the extremely apparent intentional design behind everything in the universe.

DogmaHunter said:
How does it lead to that "realization", exactly?

Just requires some deep honest thought.

DogmaHunter said:
How does one objectively detect the loaded version of "design"?

There comes a point when one has to realize they can't be perfectly objective and at some point we just have to rely on what makes sense and what is most logical.

DogmaHunter said:
So, you base all this on a false dichotomy and an argument for ignorance?

If you're honestly objective with the evidence and with yourself, then you'll realize what's really going on in this universe.

DogmaHunter said:
No. We know that humans exist.

We also know that humans would not exist if the universe wasn't finely tuned in the way that it is.

Also, since you don't consider atheism to be a belief system then you should be more than willing to consider some information that would show how atheism is wrong. Again when watching this video try to remain honestly objective.

I feel the reasons/evidence to at least begin seriously considering that the universe was intelligently designed are obvious and clear. I'll leave it up to you to make your own honest judgments.

DogmaHunter · Sep 9, 2015

Chriliman said:
So if the evidence begins to point to evolution as being false, then you will follow it?

Off course, why wouldn't I?

Okay, then try to watch this video as objectively as possible and see if you don't begin to think that dinosaurs could possibly be only thousands of years old.

I don't like to waste my time with such nonsense.
Instead, I'll ask you this question: why is this posted on youtube and not front page news in every life science journal?

Why don't you direct me to an actual publication in an actual professional journal?
Things like "dino's are only a couple thousand years old" isn't just about biology. It's also about physics (it would mean that we don't know how atoms work, decay specifically). And a few other fields as well.

Things like this turn plenty of fields in science upside down. Why didn't this happen?

I know in advance what the answer is though.... Because the vid has a religious agenda and is filled with the usual creationist nonsense: misrepresentations of science, unjustified assumptions, pseudo-science disguised as real science and other such drivel.

If the information contained in the clip is based on actual sound data and is not the usual mumbo-jumbo, then you wouldn't need to point me to this youtube video to bring it to my attention. You wouldn't even have to point me anywhere to bring it to my attention. I would already know about it. Because it would be front page news. It would be bigger then E=mc². It would be bigger news then the work of Einstein, Faraday and Newton combined.

Instead though, what happened is literally nothing.

The answer to the OP is that one must consciously deny the extremely apparent intentional design behind everything in the universe.

You are just restating your claims here, with different words.

Please try to answer the question.....

How does one objectively detect artificial design?

"It appears designed" is the opposite of objective.

Just requires some deep honest thought.

I gave it some deep honest thought and drew a different conclusion.
Now what?

Again, please stop dancing around and just detail step by step how one can objectively determine if "artificial design" is present or not.

Why is this so hard?

There comes a point when one has to realize they can't be perfectly objective and at some point we just have to rely on what makes sense and what is most logical.

Please stop making up excuses and dancing around the issue...
Please explain how one can objectively detect artificial design in a system.

If you are presented with a thing and are asked if it is designed, what steps do you go through to formulate your answer? What specifications must it have? What specifications can't it have? What is the null hypothesis?

If "ID" is to be seen as science and not religion, then those questions must be answered.

I'm just trying to understand here....
ID'ers consistenly ramble on about how "design is present", yet nobody seems to be able to explain how they detect this "design". Which leads me to conclude that it's no more or less then confirmation bias. Based on a priori religious beliefs and logical fallacies.

Show me wrong. Explain how one can objectively detect this "design".

If you're honestly objective with the evidence and with yourself, then you'll realize what's really going on in this universe.

I tried and didn't conclude what you concluded.
So please explain step by step how you came to your conclusion.

We also know that humans would not exist if the universe wasn't finely tuned in the way that it is.

Yes, if things were different then things would be different.
Are you surprised to live in a universe in which you can actually exist?

Also, since you don't consider atheism to be a belief system then you should be more than willing to consider some information that would show how atheism is wrong.

How can a thing that is NOT a belief system be "wrong"?
There are no claims in atheism. There is nothing in atheism to be wrong about...

Being an atheist just means that one is not convinced that the claims of theism are correct. I can't be wrong about "not being convinced".

Again when watching this video try to remain honestly objective.

Please try to make your own arguments here. I'm in a discussion with YOU, not with a youtube clip.

I feel the reasons/evidence to at least begin seriously considering that the universe was intelligently designed are obvious and clear. I'll leave it up to you to make your own honest judgments.

I'm still waiting on a proper methodology to detect artificial design in a system...

So far, the only things you have given me were:
- it's "obvious"
- it "appears" to be the case

Try a real reason.

Also try to stay on topic. This thread is not a debate thread on evolution.

This thread is just a simple question for cdesign proponentsists: how does one objectively detect "artificial design"? How does one go about differentiating it from "non-design"? What is the null hypothesis? How can "artificial design" be falsified?

If there is no working methodology on how to detect design... what does that say about the claims of ID?

Strathos · Sep 9, 2015

DogmaHunter said:
No one programs or creates the designs that are created by the algorithm.
Just like no one is creating the ice crystals in a freezer.

Let's stick to the topic, shall we?

My point is that you can accept that the ToE and God as Creator are not mutually exclusive.

Strathos · Sep 9, 2015

BTW if those are the Ica stones in the clip, those are known fakes and their creator even admitted it.

GrowingSmaller · Sep 9, 2015

So what is not designed, and how do we detect that? Maybe they are defined a priori, as either designed or not, and theres no defeasibility either way (relating to evidence that would rule either option out). Its just an attitude we take towards "stuff".

Likewise what has not evolved - and does not evolve? Didnt the majority of particles become extinct in the frst few m/s of the cosmos, or whatever?

Whats the difference between a "fit" bird and a "fit" cloud? Each lasts for a while according to the laws of nature, and then dies away. Some last longer than others. Whats the big deal?

DogmaHunter · Sep 10, 2015

Strathos said:
My point is that you can accept that the ToE and God as Creator are not mutually exclusive.

That's nice.

But this thread is about how ID'ers can objectively detect artificial design.

Strathos said:
BTW if those are the Ica stones in the clip, those are known fakes and their creator even admitted it.

It featured those Ica stones?
LOL!!! That is hilarious!

DogmaHunter · Sep 10, 2015

GrowingSmaller said:
So what is not designed, and how do we detect that?

Why do you ask a negative question?
You're asking the question backwards.

It's not "non-design" that needs to be demonstrated.
You need to show the presence of something. Not the absence of something.

Maybe they are defined a priori, as either designed or not, and theres no defeasibility either way (relating to evidence that would rule either option out). Its just an attitude we take towards "stuff".

Well, ID'ers certainly disagree with that.

Likewise what has not evolved - and does not evolve? Didnt the majority of particles become extinct in the frst few m/s of the cosmos, or whatever?

Errr.... evolution is a process of biology.

Whats the difference between a "fit" bird and a "fit" cloud?

Your comparision does not make sense.
Fitness is a well-defined term in biology. This definition is not applicable to non-biological things.

Each lasts for a while according to the laws of nature, and then dies away

A cloud doesn't "die", because a cloud is not alive.

Some last longer than others. Whats the big deal?

I don't know, because I have no idea why you think any of this is relevant to the OP.

I'm asking ID'ers to give me a methodology on how to objectively detect design - as they claim to be able to do.

Strathos · Sep 10, 2015

DogmaHunter said:
It featured those Ica stones?
LOL!!! That is hilarious!

Like I said, it just looked like the from the thumbnail. I didn't actually watch the video so I could be wrong.

GrowingSmaller · Sep 10, 2015

Ok you win. See the last comment. (ETA Sorry maybe I am defending theiistic evolution, rather than ID itself. Not used to these debates on the topic of C and E).

Well there's natural selection as the cause, the scientific view. But what if I ask please give a null hypothesis that what we call "natural" is in fact natural (i.e. there is no providential guidance).

Question. Why is naturalism the "default position" - as if its "given" without further thought or logic?

Ok, thats not what the OP asks for, but its relevant.

For the scientist can be accused of circular reasoning. (i.e. if it exists its in x, y, z a form its therefore natural, and its natural because it exists in x, y or z a form).

"Loopy" metaphysics.

Ok, methodological naturalism is the scientific way, but that doesnt mean science is therefore without its "dogmas" or "church dogmatics".

I personally believe in scientific reasoning, but I am open to faith and all sorts of wierd scenarios as possible alternatives to the official scientific story. Known philosophically as "skeptical alternatives". Thats not actually that "unscientific", rather its based on a fact relating to the human epistemnological finitude we all share. Do deny that is to get your anthropology wrong.

So biology, physics etc, are all grounded in, well, limited mankind.

I think that Sam Harris, the king of atheists would agree. He calls for the label scientific thinking to be expanded to include all rigorous and logically disciplined thinking.

Wikipedia said:

Intelligent design

Click to expand...

Wikipedia said:
(ID) is the pseudoscientific view that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

So, theres no null hypotheses for ID at one level anyway, and theres no null hypothesis for naturalism either. They are both based in interpretations, groundwork rather than up-building, and our limits are well known.

Theres an infinite set of interpretations of science itself. None of these can be varified or falsified. All consistent with the data available. An angel caused it. Two angels, three angels etc. A billion and thirty two, thee, four etc...

Jimmy D · Sep 10, 2015

GrowingSmaller said:
Ok you win. See the last comment. (ETA Sorry maybe I am defending theiistic evolution, rather than ID itself. Not used to these debates on the topic of C and E).

Well there's natural selection as the cause, the scientific view. But what if I ask please give a null hypothesis that what we call "natural" is in fact natural (i.e. there is no providential guidance).

Question. Why is naturalism the "default position" - as if its "given" without further thought or logic?

Ok, thats not what the OP asks for, but its relevant.

For the scientist can be accused of circular reasoning. (i.e. if it exists its in x, y, z a form its therefore natural, and its natural because it exists in x, y or z a form).

"Loopy" metaphysics.

Ok, methodological naturalism is the scientific way, but that doesnt mean science is therefore without its "dogmas" or "church dogmatics".

I personally believe in scientific reasoning, but I am open to faith and all sorts of wierd scenarios as possible alternatives to the official scientific story. Known philosophically as "skeptical alternatives". Thats not actually that "unscientific", rather its based on a fact relating to the human epistemnological finitude we all share. Do deny that is to get your anthropology wrong.

So biology, physics etc, are all grounded in, well, limited mankind.

I think that Sam Harris, the king of atheists would agree. He calls for the label scientific thinking to be expanded to include all rigorous and logically disciplined thinking.

So, theres no null hypotheses for ID at one level anyway, and theres no null hypothesis for naturalism either. They are both based in interpretations, groundwork rather than up-building, and our limits are well known.

Theres an infinite set of interpretations of science itself. None of these can be varified or falsified. All consistent with the data available. An angel caused it. Two angels, three angels etc. A billion and thirty two, thee, four etc...

A simple 'no' would have sufficed.

What is "design" and how to detect it

Code Monkey

Newbie

Everything I need to be joyful is right here

Code Monkey

Everything I need to be joyful is right here

The Bear. Not The Bull.

No one important

Code Monkey

Code Monkey

Well-Known Member

Everything I need to be joyful is right here

Code Monkey

No one important

No one important

Muslm Humanist

Code Monkey

Code Monkey

No one important

Muslm Humanist

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency