Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I mean, the OP didn't mention "Intelligent Design" at all, so it would be a bit weird to be addressing that which the OP didn't even contain. I couldn't care less about "Intelligent Design" - I was commenting broadly on the notion that the gods have a had in the making of things (e.g., that there is a "designer" if one wants to put it that way - I typically do not) and how that is pretty much a response to the extremely common (if not universal) feeling awe at the splendor of the universe.
I believe the original post used the word "design" in a thread that the above bold most definitely represents the view of many in Christianity and Islam, even some in Old Earth Creationism in Hinduism advocates "Intelligent Design" by a "designer" God.
The problem, I think, one runs into is that even "natural occurances" can be defined as a design. I.e. the natural aspect of an occurance can be by design. Maybe not by the way that humans would design something, but even evolution can be considered a design since the basis of how we humans define evolution occurs is based on natural selection. This term could be construed to conclude that nature has a way of selecting something. Thus, nature could be considered the designer. It is as some point semantics but the problem could be in terminology.
And I understand why he was reluctant about that terminology. Humans have a natural tendency to give agency to things that cannot have it. How often have go see people get mad at their cars when they won't start, yelling and cursing at them because they know better. That is just human nature and once one recognizes what one is doing the easier it is to stop.
Cool, but that is not what this thread is about. It is geared specifically to those who claim that "design" is detectable in the makeup of the universe / life / what-have-you
I'm not even going to bother with that arrogant statement.
Sure, but as I stated in the OP, this is always done by contrasting known processes of manufacturing against known natural processes.
Good point but also consider that cars have computers in them which have programming that was placed in them by human car designers. Thus, it could be that the person blames the car for something that at the end of the day is due to the humans who design and construct the car. Further, if we include the concept of self driving cars or even the potential for A.I. then one could be correct in giving agency to vehicle - though they would be incorrect in thinking that a car that wasn't designed to respond to their yelling and cursing will respond back with any meaningful response.
The OP is quite clear in that the topic is people who claim to be able to detect design in other ways then by contrasting known manufacturing processes against known natural processes.
Sure, but that is not the problem I am addressing in the OP.
In simplistic terms: evidence of manipulation.
But isn't the point that design implies a Designer who has made the designed thing by providing (a) intention (b) planning (c) and consequent execution of the thing?
I think it’s just as basic as ‘it looks like someone made it all’. It doesn’t get any deeper than that, all of the so-called explanations are just fluff.
Maybe not, but I think it does represent a wish to go back to what ID-ers think of as an inference made by someone, i.e. real or imagined persons who thought some thousands of years ago ‘where did all this stuff come from? - I know, god made it”. Moving past that idea would imply having to think seriously about whether or not god exists, and the reality is that a pretty large number of people just don’t want to give that any serious thought. So there’s a kind of mental fudging involved, whereby it makes sense to say ‘all of this is just obviously designed’. From there the grabbing onto factoids and unresolved questions as ‘proof’ that design is the inevitable conclusion.
There are several examples (I can quote some if you like) where scientists have thought that they detected artificial structures and other evidence of design on the Moon and the planets. More detailed observations have shown that these phenomena are of non-biological origin, or that they were entirely illusory.
First, referring to heavily on Charles Darwin is problematic considering the sciences of evolution have move far beyond his original Theory of Evolution. Also a terribly misused and denigrated phrase. Darwin was not even the first to propose a theory concerning evolution. Darwin correctly noted a number of problems with his proposed theory.