What is "design" and how to detect it

[bhsmte]

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...

Who appointed Sam Harris "the king of atheists"?

Did I miss some ceremony?

 

[crjmurray]

Who appointed Sam Harris "the king of atheists"?

Did I miss some ceremony?

Yes, it was quite the event. They said the Darwin prayer, had a baby buffet, the whole shebang.

 

[The Barbarian]

Instead, I'll ask you this question: why is this posted on youtube and not front page news in every life science journal?

Because they aren't trolling for people who understand science.

 

[bhsmte]

Yes, it was quite the event. They said the Darwin prayer, had a baby buffet, the whole shebang.

Did Dawkins swear him in?

 

[crjmurray]

Did Dawkins swear him in?

Yeah and he was wearing one of those Shriner hats with moose antlers on it.

 

[The Barbarian]

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.

Because if we try to apply the rules of science to religion, we get gobblygook. And both militant anti-theists, and creationists have a common interest in making faith and science at odds with each other.

I always thought that atheists were kinda anarchistic; who knew they had a king? He rules by "absent right?"

 

[bhsmte]

Yeah and he was wearing one of those Shriner hats with moose antlers on it.

Cool!!!

 

[DogmaHunter]

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...

If you are going to insist on turning the topic around and rambling about off topic stuff, I'm kindly going to ask you to do it elsewhere.

Sorry, but it's getting a bit frustrating.

I created this thread with only one purpose: for ID'ers to tell me how they differentiate design from non-design.

No one has come forward yet.

 

[Chriliman]

If you are going to insist on turning the topic around and rambling about off topic stuff, I'm kindly going to ask you to do it elsewhere.

Sorry, but it's getting a bit frustrating.

I created this thread with only one purpose: for ID'ers to tell me how they differentiate design from non-design.

No one has come forward yet.

Isn't it nonsensical to ask an ID'er to determine what is non-design in a universe that they believe wouldn't exist if it hadn't been designed? In other words, based on what ID'ers believe, they would not be able to determine anything non-designed because everything is designed for a specific reason. From an ID'ers perspective, non-design does not exist.

 

[Loudmouth]

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

In science, evidence is the default position. We go with the theories that are testable and supported by verifiable evidence.

Also, I would suspect that almost every minute of every day you are assuming that natural processes are producing what you see going on in the world around you. When you walk out in the morning and find that the ground is wet wherever you look, do you suspect that magic water leprechauns went around with garden sprinklers and spread water all over? Or do you assume that the natural process of water precipitation in the atmosphere caused what you observe?

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).

When we find evidence that is consistent with natural processes, why shouldn't we tentatively conclude that natural processes were the cause?

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.

How do you determine which unevidenced and faith based story you will accept?

So, theres no null hypotheses for ID at one level anyway, and theres no null hypothesis for naturalism either.

There is a null hypothesis for the theory of evolution. Rampant and obvious violations of phylogenies would falsify the theory. Birds with teats and mammals with feathers are two of the more popular examples.

If species or species groups were separately created, there is no expectation of a nested hierarchy. However, with species groups that are dominated by vertical inheritance and evolutionary mechanisms, a phylogeny is the only result you should see.

 

[Loudmouth]

Because if we try to apply the rules of science to religion, we get gobblygook. And both militant anti-theists, and creationists have a common interest in making faith and science at odds with each other.

Atheists and theists have coexisted in the sciences quite happily since the start of modern science.

I always thought that atheists were kinda anarchistic; who knew they had a king? He rules by "absent right?"

The ruler of atheists is decided by a "Magic: The Gathering" tournament.

 

[crjmurray]

The ruler of atheists is decided by a "Magic: The Gathering" tournament.

NEEERD

 

[ChetSinger]

I think one evidence of design is evidence of machining.

Another evidence, more pertinent to this thread, is that something's design can be inferred when it contains interdependencies that I don't believe could arise without purposeful construction. I include everything living among those things, even individual cells.

 

[Loudmouth]

Another evidence, more pertinent to this thread, is that something's design can be inferred when it contains interdependencies that I don't believe could arise without purposeful construction. I include everything living among those things, even individual cells.

"I don't believe that the Earth could orbit the Sun".

Have I just disproven the laws of gravity?

 

[crjmurray]

"I don't believe that the Earth could orbit the Sun".

Have I just disproven the laws of gravity?

No don't say th- AAAAAAAAHHH!!!!!

 

[ChetSinger]

"I don't believe that the Earth could orbit the Sun".

Have I just disproven the laws of gravity?

Since the sun doesn't depend on the earth I don't think this example applies to what I said. I see dependence, but not interdependence.

 

[Loudmouth]

Since the sun doesn't depend on the earth I don't think this example applies to what I said. I see dependence, but not interdependence.

Reality doesn't depend on what you can or can not believe. That's the point.

 

[ChetSinger]

Reality doesn't depend on what you can or can not believe. That's the point.

I'm sorry, but I don't see any relevance between this and my first post.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm sorry, but I don't see any relevance between this and my first post.

"Another evidence, more pertinent to this thread, is that something's design can be inferred when it contains interdependencies that I don't believe could arise without purposeful construction."--ChetSinger, post #33

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Where do we draw the line between design and extended phenotype? Humans desingn things... what about beavers, birds an and termites?

Also, what about learned, intentional, goal-directed behavior, consciously designed or planned out for a purpose. I know this has little bearing, but it is a kind of design (although a behavioral not a phenotypic one). Maybe than migh help to clarify what design is - by its nature something not not inherited?