Detecting Design.

[Link]

This thread is not going to be about actual design in the universe or earth or biology.

I'm simply, want to look at the concept of irreducible complexity as an abstract concept. That is, does it rationally hold as a possible means of detecting design (1). And secondly how do we apply it properly to reality (2). Careful with (2), I don't want this to be an actual discussion about design in reality, just purely abstract. So I said to reality, but what I really mean, is give examples of concrete design that it would apply to, but, aren't real things.

After this thread is over, then perhaps, we can make a thread about real life application of it and look for examples.

 

[ChristineM]

 

[sun rise]

As @ChristineM 's video pointed out, irreducible complexity is necessarily a challenge to evolution. I see nothing abstract about it.

Reading this article, I find nothing necessarily incompatible between Islam and evolution. Islamic views on evolution - Wikipedia

 

[Link]

Jesus Christ. People can't even think of this concept. Yes, it has potential to refute evolution.

I'm talking about if as abstract concept, is it legit. That's different then saying something is actually irreducible complex in nature or the universe.

People are so dogmatic and brainwashed.

Let's talk about the concept. This thread is not about evolution and Islam.

 

[PureX]

This thread is not going to be about actual design in the universe or earth or biology.

I'm simply, want to look at the concept of irreducible complexity as an abstract concept. That is, does it rationally hold as a possible means of detecting design (1). And secondly how do we apply it properly to reality (2). Careful with (2), I don't want this to be an actual discussion about design in reality, just purely abstract. So I said to reality, but what I really mean, is give examples of concrete design that it would apply to, but, aren't real things.

After this thread is over, then perhaps, we can make a thread about real life application of it and look for examples.

It seems to me that, logically, ANY complexity requires 'design' to occur. Limitations within chaos that result in an existential order (complexity) is the very definition of design. However, when we humans think of design we tend to think in terms of human design, which includes 'intelligence and intent'. Whereas the existential design we are discussing here does not necessarily require these as part of it's 'logic'. (Though it clearly would imply them to most human's way of thinking.)

 

[Link]

But irreducible complexity doesn't say that. It has different way at reaching design than "well it's so complex, then it definitely is designed".

 

[Link]

First I'm going to talk about the flawed way of inferring design and how evolution refutes that.

Then talk about irreducible complexity. And how that is a way that has potential. Whether it's proven to prove design or not in nature or the universe, is a different debate.

I'm going to be simply talking about from an abstract level.

 

[Left Coast]

Jesus Christ. People can't even think of this concept. Yes, it has potential to refute evolution.

I'm talking about if as abstract concept, is it legit. That's different then saying something is actually irreducible complex in nature or the universe.

People are so dogmatic and brainwashed.

Let's talk about the concept. This thread is not about evolution and Islam.

The problem, Link, is that the concept is irrelevant separated from practical examples. Even if one were to concede that irreducible complexity somehow pointed to design, we'd have to look at actual examples to determine if they're irreducibly complex. Also, design wouldn't have to come from some supernatural deity. It could come, for example, from technologically advanced aliens.

 

[Link]

The problem, Link, is that the concept is irrelevant separated from practical examples. Even if one were to concede that irreducible complexity somehow pointed to design, we'd have to look at actual examples to determine if they're irreducibly complex. Also, design wouldn't have to come from some supernatural deity. It could come, for example, from technologically advanced aliens.

Doesn't matter. We aren't talking about God or Aliens here, simply design, and if can be inferred from this concept.

We aren't talking about real life. First, you have to understand this concept thoroughly.

It's because a bunch of idiots misapplied this to the eye in pamphlets, that, everyone thinks it's refuted now.

Let's look at the concept.

 

[Left Coast]

Doesn't matter. We aren't talking about God or Aliens here, simply design, and if can be inferred from this concept.

We aren't talking about real life. First, you have to understand this concept thoroughly.

It's because a bunch of idiots misapplied this to the eye in pamphlets, that, everyone thinks it's refuted now.

Let's look at the concept.

If we're not talking about real life, then why are we talking about it? Are you gathering ideas for a series of sci-fi novels?

Again, the problem is that the concept is irrelevant to our understanding of the world apart from specific examples to illustrate it.

 

[Link]

If we're not talking about real life, then why are we talking about it? Are you gathering ideas for a series of sci-fi novels?

Again, the problem is that the concept is irrelevant to our understanding of the world apart from specific examples to illustrate it.

We'll see if it's irrelevant or not in another thread. This thread is about the concept purely, can it detect design or not. Or is it impossible for it do so.

First thing that has to be shown, is the wrong way to infer design. Complex -therefore Designed. We have to see why this is false. And how irreducible complexity differs from it.

 

[exchemist]

This thread is not going to be about actual design in the universe or earth or biology.

I'm simply, want to look at the concept of irreducible complexity as an abstract concept. That is, does it rationally hold as a possible means of detecting design (1). And secondly how do we apply it properly to reality (2). Careful with (2), I don't want this to be an actual discussion about design in reality, just purely abstract. So I said to reality, but what I really mean, is give examples of concrete design that it would apply to, but, aren't real things.

After this thread is over, then perhaps, we can make a thread about real life application of it and look for examples.

I'll have a go.

It seems to me there is a basic problem with design as a scientific concept, because it has to assume teleology or purpose. After all, the only intrinsic distinguishing characteristic of something designed, is that is was made by someone for a purpose. So basically, the concept of identifying design is one and the same as identifying purpose. How do you do that? You can't.

We can all recognise examples of human design, because we have a feeling for how and for what purpose humans design things. But it seems to me impossible to identify design in the absence of information about the designer. Irreducible complexity is a bogus idea, as there is no way to prove that a given example of apparent complexity could not have arisen by the action of natural processes, operating in some hitherto unknown way.

 

[Link]

I'll have a go.

It seems to me there is a basic problem with design as a scientific concept, because it has to assume teleology or purpose. After all, the only intrinsic distinguishing characteristic of something designed, is that is was made by someone for a purpose. So basically, the concept of identifying design is one and the same as identifying purpose. How do you do that? You can't.

We can all recognise examples of human design, because we have a feeling for how humans design things. But it seems to me impossible to identify design in the absence of information about the designer. Irreducible complexity is a bogus idea, as there is no way to prove that a given example of apparent complexity could not have arisen by the action of natural processes, operating in some hitherto unknown way.

Okay. We'll see how irreducible complexity ignores the issue of intent all together. It infers design without looking at things and coloring it with purpose and inferring, well, it's made for this purpose and so it must be designed.

 

[exchemist]

Okay. We'll see how irreducible complexity ignores the issue of intent all together. It infers design without looking at things and coloring it with purpose and inferring, well, it's made for this purpose and so it must be designed.

It may claim it does, but as I say the problem is that it can't prove the system or structure in question cannot have arisen naturally. This follows from the fact that we do not know all the possible processes of nature.

 

[Left Coast]

We'll see if it's irrelevant or not in another thread. This thread is about the concept purely, can it detect design or not. Or is it impossible for it do so.

First thing that has to be shown, is the wrong way to infer design. Complex -therefore Designed. We have to see why this is false. And how irreducible complexity differs from it.

I'll be fascinated to see how you demonstrate any of this without reference to any real-world observations or examples.

 

[Link]

It may claim it does, but as I say the problem is that it can't prove the system or structure in question cannot have arisen naturally. This follows from the fact that we do not know all the possible processes of nature.

That's what aims to do though. I think if it is to prove design, it has to prove it regardless of what we know of nature or not. Can't be a statement from ignorance.

The complex- therefore design, was a statement from ignorance. From what I understand, irreducible complexity is different in that it shows something not by ignorance, but by insight and knowledge to the design.

But first we have to talk about the false way and a bit about how evolution refuted it before I get into the details.

 

[Link]

I'll be fascinated to see how you demonstrate any of this without reference to any real-world observations or examples.

It will be fun.

 

[exchemist]

That's what aims to do though. I think if it is to prove design, it has to prove it regardless of what we know of nature or not. Can't be a statement from ignorance.

The complex- therefore design, was a statement from ignorance. From what I understand, irreducible complexity is different in that it shows something not by ignorance, but by insight and knowledge to the design.

But first we have to talk about the false way and a bit about how evolution refuted it before I get into the details.

But I thought you wanted to discuss this in the abstract, without relating it to actual examples such as evolution.

I warn you, though: irreducible complexity is a bogus concept, developed by a crank mathematician (Dembski) with a dishonest agenda.

 

[Link]

Evolution is a refutation the two main bad ways of thinking of design. Evolution even if doesn't occur, by abstract concept of it, refutes the two bad ways of thinking of it.

 

[Link]

irreducible complexity is a bogus concept

We'll see what it is in details and discuss that, before we decide that.