How do you detect "design"?

[TagliatelliMonster]

A topic that frequently comes up in these creation debates, be it in context of evolution or the origins of the universe or alike, is our supposed ability to be able to differentiate "design" from natural occurances.

Yet whenever creationist or "design proponents" bring this up, it seems to me that they are either very vague about it or their methodology of "detecting design" seems to be no more then fallacious argumentst from ignorance ("I don't know how it can be natural, so therefor it isn't"), arguments from incredulity ("I don't believe it's natural, therefor it isn't") or various species or combinations thereof.

I would say that in a nutshell, we detect design by demonstrating signs of manufacturing or use of artificial materials.
This implies that we have to understand manufacturing processes and what signs / traces they tend to leave.
It also implies that we have to understand the difference between naturally occuring materials and artificial materials.

This in turn means that we could not detect or conclude design when it concerns things of unknown manufactoring and natural processes or of unknown materials.

This also means that if a designer sets out to mimic natural processes and materials while doing a perfect job, we would not be able to tell the artificial object from the natural object.

For example, if someone would take a rough stone and smooth it out by perfectly mimicing water erosion as what would happen in say a river, we would not be able to tell that this was done by a person instead of by a river.


So, having said that, when somebody *Mod edit* then states that one can "detect design" in the universe based on for example of the values of the physical constants, I wonder what the methodology is that is being used.

So in this thread, I invite people who disagree with my methodology of detecting design to explain their methodology of doing so and demonstrate how it achieves better results.

 

[Quintessence]

I feel like the question is sort of missing the point of understanding the gods to have had a hand in the making of things, at least from my own perspective. Then again, arguments about origins frequently miss that point just in general so I suppose that is par for the course.

For me "detecting design" is an awkward way of putting the experience of awe at the splendor of reality. What one believes is "behind" that splendor - if anything - varies from person to person and culture to culture. Some see reality and its aspects to be divine in of itself, some see purely physicalist processes, some see idea made manifest, some see a reality shaped by an external divinity, and on and on. There is wisdom to be gleaned from all of these versions of the stories and their tellings. What I have noticed is that regardless of what ideological box some human calls themselves, the experience of awe at the splendor of reality seems fairly universal. That some call this divinity and some don't shouldn't be what matters, IMHO. Unfortunately, the existence of this subforum demonstrates otherwise.

 

[shunyadragon]

I feel like the question is sort of missing the point of understanding the gods to have had a hand in the making of things, at least from my own perspective. Then again, arguments about origins frequently miss that point just in general so I suppose that is par for the course.

For me "detecting design" is an awkward way of putting the experience of awe at the splendor of reality. What one believes is "behind" that splendor - if anything - varies from person to person and culture to culture. Some see reality and its aspects to be divine in of itself, some see purely physicalist processes, some see idea made manifest, some see a reality shaped by an external divinity, and on and on. There is wisdom to be gleaned from all of these versions of the stories and their tellings. What I have noticed is that regardless of what ideological box some human calls themselves, the experience of awe at the splendor of reality seems fairly universal. That some call this divinity and some don't shouldn't be what matters, IMHO. Unfortunately, the existence of this subforum demonstrates otherwise.

The claims of Intelligent Design are specific in plain English.

There is no possibility of detecting Intelligent Design by science. The proposition of Intelligent Design is that science can confirm that the complexity of life confirmed by science as not explainable by coming about through Natural Laws and natural processes. First, this claim is virtually impossible to confirm by scientific methods. Second, all the examples of irreducible complexity proposed by the Discovery Institute have been demonstrate by science to be as a result of natural processes. Third, Scientific theories and hypothesis cannot falsify negative claims.

 

[leroy]

A topic that frequently comes up in these creation debates, be it in context of evolution or the origins of the universe or alike, is our supposed ability to be able to differentiate "design" from natural occurances.

Yet whenever creationist or "design proponents" bring this up, it seems to me that they are either very vague about it or their methodology of "detecting design" seems to be no more then fallacious argumentst from ignorance ("I don't know how it can be natural, so therefor it isn't"), arguments from incredulity ("I don't believe it's natural, therefor it isn't") or various species or combinations thereof.

I would say that in a nutshell, we detect design by demonstrating signs of manufacturing or use of artificial materials.
This implies that we have to understand manufacturing processes and what signs / traces they tend to leave.
It also implies that we have to understand the difference between naturally occuring materials and artificial materials.

This in turn means that we could not detect or conclude design when it concerns things of unknown manufactoring and natural processes or of unknown materials.

This also means that if a designer sets out to mimic natural processes and materials while doing a perfect job, we would not be able to tell the artificial object from the natural object.

For example, if someone would take a rough stone and smooth it out by perfectly mimicing water erosion as what would happen in say a river, we would not be able to tell that this was done by a person instead of by a river.


So, having said that, when somebody *Mod edit* then states that one can "detect design" in the universe based on for example of the values of the physical constants, I wonder what the methodology is that is being used.

So in this thread, I invite people who disagree with my methodology of detecting design to explain their methodology of doing so and demonstrate how it achieves better results.

This in turn means that we could not detect or conclude design when it concerns things of unknown manufactoring and natural processes or of unknown materials.

I disagree because…… there are many cases (hypothetical and real) wher we can infer design even if there is no prior knowledge on ther manufacturing process of the signs that the objects have.

:hypothetical: the SETI project is trying to detect Alien design through various mechanism…….. and scientists don’t seem to be concern about prior knowledge of their manufacturing process nor any of the stuff that you are claiming

Real: when paleontologist find tools made by Neanderthals, they infer design, despite the fact of not having previous knowledge on the abilities , manufacturing process, or any of the stuuf tha you propose.

For example, if someone would take a rough stone and smooth it out by perfectly mimicing water erosion as what would happen in say a river, we would not be able to tell that this was done by a person instead of by a river.

But there are things that nature can´t do, (or would be very unlikely) that could be done by designers. Only in this cases one would conclude design.

For example if the erosion of the river has the shape of meang full words and sentences or the shape of a guitar, or the shape of the KFC logo you would infer design……………….even if you find this patter in another planet, where no prior evidence for designers exist.

If you don’t answer with NO I disagree, I wouldn’t conclude design if I observe the KFC logo in an other planet………..I will assume that you agree with me in this point.

 

[Pogo]

I disagree because…… there are many cases (hypothetical and real) wher we can infer design even if there is no prior knowledge on ther manufacturing process of the signs that the objects have.

:hypothetical: the SETI project is trying to detect Alien design through various mechanism…….. and scientists don’t seem to be concern about prior knowledge of their manufacturing process nor any of the stuff that you are claiming

Real: when paleontologist find tools made by Neanderthals, they infer design, despite the fact of not having previous knowledge on the abilities , manufacturing process, or any of the stuuf tha you propose.


But there are things that nature can´t do, (or would be very unlikely) that could be done by designers. Only in this cases one would conclude design.

For example if the erosion of the river has the shape of meang full words and sentences or the shape of a guitar, or the shape of the KFC logo you would infer design……………….even if you find this patter in another planet, where no prior evidence for designers exist.

If you don’t answer with NO I disagree, I wouldn’t conclude design if I observe the KFC logo in an other planet………..I will assume that you agree with me in this point.

Totally missed the point in terms of Seti and archaeology.
Seti is looking for signs that resemble human generated electromagnetic signals that stand out from the background, Then they go into the category of I don't know, how could we generate this signal if we were an intelligent race and the answer is either I don't know or interesting newly discovered natural phenomenon. Until we have other evidence of the source and it's capabilities, it will stay in the interesting but we don't know category.
As for archaeology, design inference is, is it found in association with other human evidence (bones etc) are it's properties that are different from other random local properties consistent with methods and results that are known from other humans designers. IE we are not starting from scratch, but again from a knowledge base of what humans can do.

Silly hypotheticals only generate who cares.

 

[shunyadragon]

I disagree because…… there are many cases (hypothetical and real) wher we can infer design even if there is no prior knowledge on ther manufacturing process of the signs that the objects have.

:hypothetical: the SETI project is trying to detect Alien design through various mechanism…….. and scientists don’t seem to be concern about prior knowledge of their manufacturing process nor any of the stuff that you are claiming

Real: when paleontologist find tools made by Neanderthals, they infer design, despite the fact of not having previous knowledge on the abilities , manufacturing process, or any of the stuuf tha you propose.


But there are things that nature can´t do, (or would be very unlikely) that could be done by designers. Only in this cases one would conclude design.

For example if the erosion of the river has the shape of meang full words and sentences or the shape of a guitar, or the shape of the KFC logo you would infer design……………….even if you find this patter in another planet, where no prior evidence for designers exist.

If you don’t answer with NO I disagree, I wouldn’t conclude design if I observe the KFC logo in an other planet………..I will assume that you agree with me in this point.

Hypothetical cases? The claim of Intelligent Design does not involve human designs of technology, though these also must be within the limits allowed by Natural Laws and natural processes.

There is nothing involved with the claim of Intelligent Design concerning hypothetical Aliens.

Again , , ,

The claims of Intelligent Design are specific in plain English.

There is no possibility of detecting design by science. The proposition of Intelligent Design is that science can confirm that the complexity of life confirmed by science as not explainable by coming about by Natural Laws and natural processes. First, this claim is virtually impossible to confirm by scientific methods. Second, all the examples of irreducible complexity proposed by the Discovery Institute have been demonstrate by science to be as a result of natural processes. Third, Scientific theories and hypothesis cannot falsify negative claims.

To add, Intelligent Design folks often propose Phantom random causes that justify Intelligent Design. There is no true randomness in nature at the macro scale, all cause and effect events are caused by known Natural Laws and natural causes. The only thing that may be called random is the timing of the out come of a single event within the constraints of Natural Laws and processes,

 

[leroy]

There is no possibility of detecting design by science.

Yes, science detect design all the time, archeologists, forensic scientists fire experts etc….Scientists even Aim to detect design in other planets……………..

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes, science detect design all the time, archeologists, forensic scientists fire experts etc….Scientists even Aim to detect design in other planets……………..

Yes, scientists can do discovery human design and are looking for signs of design other than natural causes in other planets, but that does not remotely involve the claim of Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design proposes that there is objective evidence for a "Designer" out side the nature of our physical existence.

The case of possible Aliens would not be evidence of a designer outside our physical existence, ie an Intelligent God Designer. The intelligent Aliens if found would be designing technology like humans do within the limits of Natural Laws and processes.

Again . . .

The claims of Intelligent Design are specific in plain English.

There is no possibility of detecting Intelligent Design as defined by science. The proposition of Intelligent Design is that science can confirm that the complexity of life confirmed by science as not explainable by coming about by Natural Laws and natural processes. First, this claim is virtually impossible to confirm by scientific methods. Second, all the examples of irreducible complexity proposed by the Discovery Institute have been demonstrate by science to be as a result of natural processes. Third, Scientific theories and hypothesis cannot falsify negative claims.

 

[The Hammer]

The claims of Intelligent Design are specific in plain English.

There is no possibility of detecting Intelligent Design by science. The proposition of Intelligent Design is that science can confirm that the complexity of life confirmed by science as not explainable by coming about through Natural Laws and natural processes. First, this claim is virtually impossible to confirm by scientific methods. Second, all the examples of irreducible complexity proposed by the Discovery Institute have been demonstrate by science to be as a result of natural processes. Third, Scientific theories and hypothesis cannot falsify negative claims.

*Whoosh* goes the point.

 

[sun rise]

There is an ID argument that is never used because ID proponents are focused on miracles which supersede scientific laws. Simply "in the beginning God created the laws of the universe including evolution" If someone were to believe that, then the intelligence was baked in from the very beginning.

 

[F1fan]

There is an ID argument that is never used because ID proponents are focused on miracles which supersede scientific laws. Simply "in the beginning God created the laws of the universe including evolution" If someone were to believe that, then the intelligence was baked in from the very beginning.

The only plausible design/creation that can be claimed is a sort of deist scenario, where the Big Bang was caused, and the four forces created, and the laws of physics to act on energy.

The details like found in creation myths are highly improbable and even absurd. Of course most believers want a God that is interventionist, so it has to get involved in details. Too close a scrutiny on details find horrific things in creation that often kills God''s chosen spcies: humans. It's almost as if God isn't all that loving, and acts as if it doesn't exist.

 

[shunyadragon]

*Whoosh* goes the point.

Goes completely and specific to the point of Intelligent Design.

To be meaningful you have to provide a complete explanation! Not a "Whooosh!"

If you were being sarcastic concerning the posts @leroy I apologize, but you need to clarify.

Intelligent Design -

Intelligent design - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The term "irreducible complexity" was introduced by biochemist Michael Behe in his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box, though he had already described the concept in his contributions to the 1993 revised edition of Of Pandas and People.[37] Behe defines it as "a single system which is composed of several well-matched interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning".[43]

Behe uses the analogy of a mousetrap to illustrate this concept. A mousetrap consists of several interacting pieces—the base, the catch, the spring and the hammer—all of which must be in place for the mousetrap to work. Removal of any one piece destroys the function of the mousetrap. Intelligent design advocates assert that natural selection could not create irreducibly complex systems, because the selectable function is present only when all parts are assembled. Behe argued that irreducibly complex biological mechanisms include the bacterial flagellum of E. coli, the blood clotting cascade, cilia, and the adaptive immune system.[44][45]

Critics point out that the irreducible complexity argument assumes that the necessary parts of a system have always been necessary and therefore could not have been added sequentially.[20] They argue that something that is at first merely advantageous can later become necessary as other components change. Furthermore, they argue, evolution often proceeds by altering preexisting parts or by removing them from a system, rather than by adding them. This is sometimes called the "scaffolding objection" by an analogy with scaffolding, which can support an "irreducibly complex" building until it is complete and able to stand on its own.[n 6] Behe has acknowledged using "sloppy prose", and that his "argument against Darwinism does not add up to a logical proof."[n 7] Irreducible complexity has remained a popular argument among advocates of intelligent design; in the Dover trial, the court held that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."[19]

 

[shunyadragon]

The only plausible design/creation that can be claimed is a sort of deist scenario, where the Big Bang was caused, and the four forces created, and the laws of physics to act on energy.

The details like found in creation myths are highly improbable and even absurd. Of course most believers want a God that is interventionist, so it has to get involved in details. Too close a scrutiny on details find horrific things in creation that often kills God''s chosen spcies: humans. It's almost as if God isn't all that loving, and acts as if it doesn't exist.

It would be not a Deist synario if God Created Natural Laws and processes knowing the outcomes within a possible range as described by scientific nature of our physical existence. God would be actively involved in the process through Natural Laws and processes. "The Dice were loaded."

 

[The Hammer]

Goes completely and specific to the point of Intelligent Design.

The "Whooosh!" was the hot air from your post!

To be meaningful you have to provide a complete explanation! Not a "Whooosh!"

Intelligent Design -

Intelligent design - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The term "irreducible complexity" was introduced by biochemist Michael Behe in his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box, though he had already described the concept in his contributions to the 1993 revised edition of Of Pandas and People.[37] Behe defines it as "a single system which is composed of several well-matched interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning".[43]

Behe uses the analogy of a mousetrap to illustrate this concept. A mousetrap consists of several interacting pieces—the base, the catch, the spring and the hammer—all of which must be in place for the mousetrap to work. Removal of any one piece destroys the function of the mousetrap. Intelligent design advocates assert that natural selection could not create irreducibly complex systems, because the selectable function is present only when all parts are assembled. Behe argued that irreducibly complex biological mechanisms include the bacterial flagellum of E. coli, the blood clotting cascade, cilia, and the adaptive immune system.[44][45]

Critics point out that the irreducible complexity argument assumes that the necessary parts of a system have always been necessary and therefore could not have been added sequentially.[20] They argue that something that is at first merely advantageous can later become necessary as other components change. Furthermore, they argue, evolution often proceeds by altering preexisting parts or by removing them from a system, rather than by adding them. This is sometimes called the "scaffolding objection" by an analogy with scaffolding, which can support an "irreducibly complex" building until it is complete and able to stand on its own.[n 6] Behe has acknowledged using "sloppy prose", and that his "argument against Darwinism does not add up to a logical proof."[n 7] Irreducible complexity has remained a popular argument among advocates of intelligent design; in the Dover trial, the court held that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."[19]

Whatever makes you feel good

 

[shunyadragon]

Whatever makes you feel good

Explanation needed, It is not a matter of me feeling good.

 

[The Hammer]

Goes completely and specific to the point of Intelligent Design.

The "Whooosh!" was the hot air from your post!

To be meaningful you have to provide a complete explanation! Not a "Whooosh!"

*Whoosh*

You still keep missing her point. That's your reading comprehension ability not mine.

I feel like the question is sort of missing the point of understanding the gods to have had a hand in the making of things, at least from my own perspective.

For me "detecting design" is an awkward way of putting the experience of awe at the splendor of reality. What one believes is "behind" that splendor - if anything - varies from person to person and culture to culture.

 

[The Hammer]

Explanation needed, It is not a matter of me feeling good.

Ok, how about not my fault you can't read? I'm trying to be polite here.

 

[shunyadragon]

*Whoosh*

You still keep missing her point. That's your reading comprehension ability not mine.

The problem is her points DO NOT address the issue of what is "Intelligent Design."

I defined "Intelligent Design" and that is what needs to be responded to.

 

[shunyadragon]

Ok, how about not my fault you can't read? I'm trying to be polite here.

Politeness nor her points that do not address the reality of what "Intelligent Design" proposes and the problems in terms of "real" science.

Please, don't be polite and respond to the definitions of Intelligent Design and the problems.

. . . or maybe simply respond to the question of the thread; How do you detect "design?"

In terms of Intelligent Design.

 

[sun rise]

It would be not a Deist synario if God Created Natural Laws and processes knowing the outcomes within a possible range as described by scientific nature of our physical existence. God would be actively involved in the process through Natural Laws and processes. "The Dice were loaded."

Or if he caused a butterfly to flap its wings just so.