How do you detect "design"?

[Comradio251]

If one accepts an incompetent designer perhaps - as to both humans and non-human life:

Argument from poor design - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

All things dull and ugly
All creatures short and squat
All things rude and nasty
The Lord God made the lot.

(From the Monty Python team I believe)

Intelligent Design Theory has nothing to do with religion and a lot of those faulty design claims have already been debunked. Notice how it's all opinionated to? Like you can do a better job?

 

[Mock Turtle]

Intelligent Design Theory has nothing to do with religion and a lot of those faulty design claims have already been debunked. Notice how it's all opinionated to? Like you can do a better job?

The bits shown in the link point to a not-so-intelligent designer though, so that evolution is the better option. No opinions necessary, regarding the apparent design of the eyeball and the throat, for example, when there are other options.

 

[Comradio251]

The bits shown in the link point to a not-so-intelligent designer though, so that evolution is the better option.

And a lot of them have had good counter arguments to them.

 

[Mock Turtle]

And a lot of them have had good counter arguments to them.

Like what?

 

[Comradio251]

Like what?

Would it really matter to you if I presented a scientific example? I don't know your position. I not only can do that but I can make a philosophical one too where not perfect design doesn't discredit the fact that a designer can be behind it still.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

First off, intelligent design is a valid position within science

Quote me a valid single scientific paper that uses that methodology and / or draws that conclusion.
If it's a valid scientific position, then there should be scientific publications concerning this position.

If other scientific theories have a hard time explaining the data of your research and you see a logical case for intelligent design then you can make your case.

Classic argument from ignorance.

ID arguments happen all the time especially with already existing scientific research

Ow? Where? Give an example.

Many ID proponents argue against an evolutionary explanation of something in science

IN science?
Show me a scientific paper where this is done.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Science is only going to get the physical behavior of physical phenomena. It's only going to tackle how things work and behave in a physical manner from observation coupled with math.

Science cannot answer why questions about purposes, and intelligence in nature. That immediately falls into the realm of interpretation.

What do you mean by that? You need to be clear. Just hand waving and claiming that there is purpose or intelligence in nature is not good enough. You cannot just assume purpose. Quite often when someone sees something functioning one assumes that is a purpose and the two are not necessarily one and the same.

Extrinsically and objectively from third person perspective science can gain clues that consciousness exists. However it's because of our first person perspective we know that consciousness exists. Consciousness has properties that have no physical reference, and is qualitative in nature. There are things in nature that we don't have direct access to and are extremely hard to quantify, if they can be quantified at all.

Simply that there are things in nature that happen naturally does not mean that those natural things are completely understood, and completely observed.

You appear to be contradicting yourself. If you "know" something you can show how. Again, waving your hands in awe at how the body functions is not showing purpose. Function can look like purpose to the uneducated. How do you tell the difference between the two?

 

[Subduction Zone]

And once again there are many actual scientists that are open to the idea or even advocate it. Intelligent design actually has nothing to do with religion though if you have ever read about it which I can tell you haven't. If circular reasoning is your argument you have none. Just because you are prejudice towards an idea doesn't mean the idea is invalid.

But you think somehow a court of law presiding over a public school matter which is not a scienctific discipline disproved Intelligent Design Theory to you then I would love for you to present that proof to me. And no, the proof isn't because they feared there may be a religious implication in it.

So what? And I do not think that it is "many". ID supporters are a minority the last that I heard. The problem is that it is not science.

Answer me this question. What is a model for ID? What predictions does it make and how could those predictions refute it?

And yes, a court of law is far better than your average uneducated yahoo. Judges have to be experts on the concept of evidence. The sciences are evidence based. So the two get along very nicely with each other. The judge could see that there was no evidence for ID. All they had were various arguments from ignorance.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Would it really matter to you if I presented a scientific example? I don't know your position. I not only can do that but I can make a philosophical one too where not perfect design doesn't discredit the fact that a designer can be behind it still.

I doubt if you could find a "scientific" example. That is the problem with ID. They have no evidence, they do not follow the scientific method or supply any evidence for their beliefs at all.

 

[Pogo]

And once again there are many actual scientists that are open to the idea or even advocate it. Intelligent design actually has nothing to do with religion though if you have ever read about it which I can tell you haven't. If circular reasoning is your argument you have none. Just because you are prejudice towards an idea doesn't mean the idea is invalid.

But you think somehow a court of law presiding over a public school matter which is not a scienctific discipline disproved Intelligent Design Theory to you then I would love for you to present that proof to me. And no, the proof isn't because they feared there may be a religious implication in it.

Yes, we know all about the "dissent from Darwinism"
Larry Moran, professor emeritus of biology puts it best I think;
I am skeptical of claims that natural selection accounts for all of the complexity of life. There are lots of other things going on during evolution.

But I will not sign [A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism] because Dembski and the IDiots will deliberately misinterpret my intentions. They have no idea what dissent from classical Darwinism really means. They have no idea that someone like me could (mostly) agree with the statement while, at the same time, referring to all Intelligent Design Creationists as IDiots. I suspect that some of those who signed the petition would feel the same way about Intelligent Design.

Lists of creationist scientists

The following is a compilation (taken from various lists created by creationists) of lists of creationist scientists; which is to say, scientists who either:

rationalwiki.org

Read down to the qualifications of these "scientists" and then check out the "Project Steve" rebuttal.
March 7, 2016

Project Steve​

NCSE's "Project Steve" is a tongue-in-cheek parody of a long-standing creationist tradition of amassing lists of "scientists who doubt evolution" or "scientists who dissent from Darwinism."
Creationists draw up these lists to try to convince the public that evolution is somehow being rejected by scientists, that it is a "theory in crisis." Not everyone realizes that this claim is unfounded. NCSE has been asked numerous times to compile a list of thousands of scientists affirming the validity of the theory of evolution. Although we easily could have done so, we have resisted. We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!
Project Steve pokes fun at this practice and, because "Steves" are only about 1% of scientists, it also makes the point that tens of thousands of scientists support evolution. And it honors the late Stephen Jay Gould, evolutionary biologist, NCSE supporter, and friend.
We'd like to think that after Project Steve, we'll have seen the last of bogus "scientists doubting evolution" lists, but it's probably too much to ask. We hope that when such lists are proposed, reporters and other citizens will ask, "How many Steves are on your list!?"
The statement:

Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.

List of Steves | National Center for Science Education

Meet the Steves As of May 1, 2024, 1496 Steves have signed the statement. Will you be the next Steve?

ncse.ngo

---

​

 

[Pogo]

Intelligent Design Theory has nothing to do with religion and a lot of those faulty design claims have already been debunked. Notice how it's all opinionated to? Like you can do a better job?

cdesign proponentsists.

 

[Pogo]

And a lot of them have had good counter arguments to them.

No, the Fall is not a good counter argument.

 

[Pogo]

Would it really matter to you if I presented a scientific example? I don't know your position. I not only can do that but I can make a philosophical one too where not perfect design doesn't discredit the fact that a designer can be behind it still.

It would if you actually could, but we have probably already seen it, but go ahead and give us your best.

 

[Pogo]

Science is only going to get the physical behavior of physical phenomena. It's only going to tackle how things work and behave in a physical manner from observation coupled with math.

Science cannot answer why questions about purposes, and intelligence in nature. That immediately falls into the realm of interpretation.

Of course, this was demonstrated years ago by the great scientist Candide.

“It is demonstrable," said he, "that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be created for the best end. Observe, for instance, the nose is formed for spectacles, therefore we wear spectacles. The legs are visibly designed for stockings, accordingly we wear stockings. Stones were made to be hewn and to construct castles, therefore My Lord has a magnificent castle; for the greatest baron in the province ought to be the best lodged. Swine were intended to be eaten, therefore we eat pork all the year round: and they, who assert that everything is right, do not express themselves correctly; they should say that everything is best.”​

 

[Mock Turtle]

Would it really matter to you if I presented a scientific example? I don't know your position. I not only can do that but I can make a philosophical one too where not perfect design doesn't discredit the fact that a designer can be behind it still.

You can present whatever you want but it won't support any God - unless of the incompetent sort - given such is as likely.

The eye, for example, where humans have a blind spot because the connections are not made at the rear, as for some species. Why would this be when such seems more an attribute of evolution than design? And much the same for the throat and windpipe, where it is quite easy for people to die from choking - happens quite often - and where evolution is a better explanation for our anatomy than design.

And much the same for other human anomalies and non-human ones.

 

[osgart]

Of course, this was demonstrated years ago by the great scientist Candide.

“It is demonstrable," said he, "that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be created for the best end. Observe, for instance, the nose is formed for spectacles, therefore we wear spectacles. The legs are visibly designed for stockings, accordingly we wear stockings. Stones were made to be hewn and to construct castles, therefore My Lord has a magnificent castle; for the greatest baron in the province ought to be the best lodged. Swine were intended to be eaten, therefore we eat pork all the year round: and they, who assert that everything is right, do not express themselves correctly; they should say that everything is best.”​

This doesn't reflect anything I said or thought.

 

[osgart]

You appear to be contradicting yourself. If you "know" something you can show how. Again, waving your hands in awe at how the body functions is not showing purpose. Function can look like purpose to the uneducated. How do you tell the difference between the two?

You are basically declaring that all functions in nature have no purpose. No amount of evidence would convince you otherwise.

What exactly leads you away from purpose that it's not even considered?

 

[Pogo]

This doesn't reflect anything I said or thought.

No, maybe but it summarizes it rather well.

 

[osgart]

No, maybe but it summarizes it rather well.

No it doesn't. I don't see an ideally designed nature. You assumed I did all on your own. I'm not going to argue extremes with anyone.

Naturalism assumes the mundane causes function. Under naturalism we can't expect any thriving function at all. It doesn't get off the ground.

I'm atheist, but I cannot simply dismiss intelligence and purpose because of experts who assume the mundane causes every function. They dismiss it out of hand.

 

[Pogo]

No it doesn't. I don't see an ideally designed nature. You assumed I did all on your own. I'm not going to argue extremes with anyone.

Naturalism assumes the mundane causes function. Under naturalism we can't expect any thriving function at all. It doesn't get off the ground.

I'm atheist, but I cannot simply dismiss intelligence and purpose because of experts who assume the mundane causes every function. They dismiss it out of hand.

We don't dismiss design, I greatly appreciate the design of toilets, but teleology due to an unknown designer is dismissed as unevidenced.