How do you detect "design"?

[Brian2]

correct.
Why?
Because there is no evidence of one.
So science does not waste its time with it.

Not being able to find a designer does not mean that science says or has shown that there is no designer. You speak as if you actually think that science tells us that there is no designer.

 

[Brian2]

First, not believing in a designer is not the same as asserting that no designer was involved, and second, it is done not because science says to do so, but for philosophical reasons if one is a skeptic. The skeptic reserves judgment until he has grounds to say that something is or isn't the case.

That first point seems to elude many believers. Perhaps an analogy. You've just met a man about whom you know very little. Do you trust him? You shouldn't. Does that mean that he is untrustworthy? No, it doesn't. He may be trustworthy, but you just don't know that yet and are reserving judgment. If he is trustworthy, you might learn that in time and begin to trust him successfully.

True, but you have missed my point (and it was my fault no doubt).
I was answeriong @shunyadragon, #509
when he said: If some scientist believe in design they do so based religious belief.
I should have answered: If some scientist believes there is no designer, (better a "designer" instead of "design", because it can be said that things are designed by nature) then they are doing that based on religious belief.I IOW it is not science which tells people that there is no designer.
This even sounds like something you would agree with.

 

[Brian2]

I believe I have covered this issue previously. The belief in design or a designer are religious beliefs, and not falsifiable by science. "It cannot be said" that things can be designed or the existence of a design based on objective evidence.

Scientist (very few) like those in the Discovery Institute believe in design and a designer God, and promote research in "irreducible Complexity" for many years, but they have failed to come up with a falsifiable hypothesis to support Design or the existence of a Designer.

It seems that there are more believing scientists than you might think, and if you look at the site it looks like the numbers have not been diminishing over the last 100 years.
From this site: Scientists and Belief.

It is interesting that "those who don't believe in either" and "those who don't know/Refused" are separate categories, but according to atheists on this forum, "those who don't believe in either" should be in the same category as "those who do not know" since atheists are supposed to be those who have not decided, IOW those who do not say that there are or are not gods.

 

[Pogo]

Not being able to find a designer does not mean that science says or has shown that there is no designer. You speak as if you actually think that science tells us that there is no designer.

Not being able to find a leprechaun does not mean that science says or has shown that there are no leprechauns.
This is correct, you don't prove negatives in science. As to whether there are no leprechauns, science is agnostic, there might be but as they are magical and can hide pots of gold under rocks in the stories written about them. We do say that there is no known way for pots of gold to form under rocks naturally and no-one has ever found a pot of gold except in ancient books. That is it for science, but the question is open if anyone can explain how pots of gold are made magically.

 

[Brian2]

Yes, it is, and there are many who find no value believing by faith. What's the value to you to believe that the universe was intelligently designed by faith?

It goes hand in hand with my belief in the truth of the Bible and that has the value of being able to bring me everlasting life.

What the skeptic says is that absent evidence of intelligent design, he doesn't believe that the universe was intelligently designed, but for the reason implied in this thread, he also doesn't assert that there was no intelligent designer. He remains agnostic on the question.

Maybe it is too much for you to speak for all skeptics. You should probably just speak for yourself.
You do not know how to detect design or how to detect "no design" but you want a scientific way to do that before you will believe in a designer.
I otoh, believe in a designer until it can be shown that there is none.

No, in protein synthesis, the association between a given codon and a specific amino acid is mechanical. They are physically linked in a molecule of tRNA. With human language, the association between the appearance or sound of the word CAT and the animal it refers to in English is arbitrary and must be learned by a conscious agent to be used and understood as a symbol for that animal.

I would have thought that human language is a different coding system than genes, which do not require a conscious agent to learn associations. However that actual existence of those associations and the means to decode what has been encoded seems to have required an intelligence to have made that system.

 

[Pogo]

It seems that there are more believing scientists than you might think, and if you look at the site it looks like the numbers have not been diminishing over the last 100 years.
From this site: Scientists and Belief.

It is interesting that "those who don't believe in either" and "those who don't know/Refused" are separate categories, but according to atheists on this forum, "those who don't believe in either" should be in the same category as "those who do not know" since atheists are supposed to be those who have not decided, IOW those who do not say that there are or are not gods.

Atheists are those who know that they don't believe in any gods, this is different than not knowing whether you believe or not or refusing to answer.
As to believing scientists, yes there are lots of them, nobody ever said that there weren't. Science is not about belief, but about making and testing hypotheses to see what is demonstrable irregardless of belief.
What is true is that there are very few scientists who believe in things that have been demonstrated not to have happened. This still leaves them lots of room to discover how their believed in God did things in reality as opposed to in a book of moral stories. The stories they take as advice on how to live their lives and deal with other people as they were intended.

 

[Brian2]

Not being able to find a leprechaun does not mean that science says or has shown that there are no leprechauns.
This is correct, you don't prove negatives in science. As to whether there are no leprechauns, science is agnostic, there might be but as they are magical and can hide pots of gold under rocks in the stories written about them. We do say that there is no known way for pots of gold to form under rocks naturally and no-one has ever found a pot of gold except in ancient books. That is it for science, but the question is open if anyone can explain how pots of gold are made magically.

So I presume you would agree that if anyone said that science has shown that leprechauns do not exist, they would be wrong and that saying that would be a matter of faith and not science.

 

[shunyadragon]

It seems that there are more believing scientists than you might think, and if you look at the site it looks like the numbers have not been diminishing over the last 100 years.
From this site: Scientists and Belief.

There is a necessary distinction here, particularly among scientists. Scientists that believe in God rarely support the argument for "Intelligent Design" where the argument is that you can demonstrate "design" in nature through scientific methods as the Discovery Institute proposes. Also scientists that are associated or support the Discovery Institute most often reject or seriously question the sciences of evolution. This is not the case among by far most scientists who believe in God. If you compare the results of the above poll with scientists that support the sciences of evolution the picture becomes clearer. 98%+ scientist support the sciences of evolutions. By far most who believe in God consider the natural processes we see in science are the methods of Creation.

To make it clear the Discovery Institute and many many Christians and Muslims who argue for "Intelligent Design" reject natural processes like Natural Selection in the history of life,

It is interesting that "those who don't believe in either" and "those who don't know/Refused" are separate categories, but according to atheists on this forum, "those who don't believe in either" should be in the same category as "those who do not know" since atheists are supposed to be those who have not decided, IOW those who do not say that there are or are not gods.

The above is false rationalization on your part om a selective generalization of what atheists believe. This reflects your consistent bias against atheists. Atheism is a philosophical belief, and not related to the Methodological Naturalism of science.

This rationalization and the above polls do not consider the agnosticism and indifference in many concerning the existence of God.

 

[Brian2]

Atheists are those who know that they don't believe in any gods, this is different than not knowing whether you believe or not or refusing to answer.

OK

 

[Pogo]

So I presume you would agree that if anyone said that science has shown that leprechauns do not exist, they would be wrong and that saying that would be a matter of faith and not science.

Yup basically true, but if you insist leprechauns did something, then I will insist that you show me evidence that leprechauns exist and how they might have done what you say they did.
I don't believe in leprechauns for the same reason that I don't believe in the Easter Bunny, not because science has demonstrated their non-existence.

 

[shunyadragon]

So I presume you would agree that if anyone said that science has shown that leprechauns do not exist, they would be wrong and that saying that would be a matter of faith and not science.

You are neglecting the fact that Methodological Naturalism cannot falsify hypotheses nor "show the existence or non-existence" of subjective beliefs in Gods, Leprechauns or Unicorns. Actually arguing or demonstrating the belief in the subjective negative is a fallacy in logic is also. a problem. Logical arguments for the existence or non-existence of Gods require assumptions for the existence of Gods.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Not being able to find a designer does not mean that science says or has shown that there is no designer.

Agreed.

I presume you would agree that if anyone said that science has shown that leprechauns do not exist, they would be wrong and that saying that would be a matter of faith and not science.

Agreed again, although I would not say that they were wrong about leprechauns but wrong to assert that they don't exist as if he knows that. He might be correct, but he can't know that. We should remain agnostic about propositions which can neither be ruled in nor out.

If some scientist believes there is no designer, (better a "designer" instead of "design", because it can be said that things are designed by nature) then they are doing that based on religious belief.I IOW it is not science which tells people that there is no designer.
This even sounds like something you would agree with.

Agreed, although I wouldn't call it a religious belief even though I agree that it is a faith-based belief.

It is interesting that "those who don't believe in either" and "those who don't know/Refused" are separate categories, but according to atheists on this forum, "those who don't believe in either" should be in the same category as "those who do not know"

I would call somebody who doesn't believe in a god atheist. The higher power part is problematic. I believe in a higher power than man. Grvity would be an example. But I still consider myself an atheist.

It goes hand in hand with my belief in the truth of the Bible and that has the value of being able to bring me everlasting life.

What you're saying is the value of your faith to you is the hope for everlasting life, but you don't call it hope. You consider it a fact. That's the difference between faith and hope - belief. OK.

Maybe it is too much for you to speak for all skeptics. You should probably just speak for yourself.

What I wrote was, "What the skeptic says is that absent evidence of intelligent design, he doesn't believe that the universe was intelligently designed, but for the reason implied in this thread, he also doesn't assert that there was no intelligent designer. He remains agnostic on the question." That's a description of agnostic atheism, the only rational position for the skeptic, empiricist, and agnostic atheist. Did you want to try to refute that?

You do not know how to detect design or how to detect "no design" but you want a scientific way to do that before you will believe in a designer.
I otoh, believe in a designer until it can be shown that there is none.

Yes, we're different that way. Absent sufficient evidence, I don't believe.

I would have thought that human language is a different coding system than genes

Yes. Both are substitution codes (codons for amino acids and words for their definitions), but only one must be learned and understood. One requires a conscious creature with a literal language (original sense of the word), the other can be used by unconscious ribosomes to create proteins

However that actual existence of those associations and the means to decode what has been encoded seems to have required an intelligence to have made that system.

Not to me or the rest of the atheists who are familiar with that science. And of course, it's an incredulity fallacy to conclude that a designer god exists because you can't imagine how nature could have generated these objects without supervision and intention.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not being able to find a designer does not mean that science says or has shown that there is no designer. You speak as if you actually think that science tells us that there is no designer.

It's a null statement.

Take a rock that's demonstrably been shaped through erosion by water in a river.

Does science say of that rock that no undetectable pixies were involved in shaping said rock? No.
Did science show that no undetectable pixies were involved? No.

These are null statements.
Instead, science shows that the river and water erosion was involved in it.

There literally an INFINITE amount of potential things that your imagination can come up with that "might" have been involved and of which science "could" say that there's no reason to think that. Why would it bother? Why would anyone bother, unless one is somehow emotionally (or otherwise) invested in positing one of those things as being involved?

If you wish to say that a designer or pixie was involved: show how it was involved. If you can't... why would anyone care about your claim?

 

[Brian2]

There is a necessary distinction here, particularly among scientists. Scientists that believe in God rarely support the argument for "Intelligent Design" where the argument is that you can demonstrate "design" in nature through scientific methods as the Discovery Institute proposes. Also scientists that are associated or support the Discovery Institute most often reject or seriously question the sciences of evolution. This is not the case among by far most scientists who believe in God. If you compare the results of the above poll with scientists that support the sciences of evolution the picture becomes clearer. 98%+ scientist support the sciences of evolutions. By far most who believe in God consider the natural processes we see in science are the methods of Creation.

To make it clear the Discovery Institute and many many Christians and Muslims who argue for "Intelligent Design" reject natural processes like Natural Selection in the history of life,

I do not think that those who argue for intelligent design reject natural processes, like natural selection, and I don't think that anyone in science has shown any natural processes for methods of creation.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is interesting that "those who don't believe in either" and "those who don't know/Refused" are separate categories, but according to atheists on this forum, "those who don't believe in either" should be in the same category as "those who do not know" since atheists are supposed to be those who have not decided, IOW those who do not say that there are or are not gods.

They are called "weak" and "strong" atheists.
Both are atheists.

What all atheists have in common is that they all answer "no" to the question "do you believe a god exists?".
That doesn't mean they will all answer "yes" to the question "do you believe that NO gods exist?".


Many people seem to be unable to understand that these are different questions.


In the court room analogy, this is the difference between ruling someone "not guilty" instead of ruling someone to be "innocent".
Different answers; different questions.


In a court room, the question being discussed is NOT "is the defendant innocent". It is "can the defendant be shown to be guilty?"
And if the ruling is "not guilty", it doesn't mean the jury thinks he is innocent.
It merely means that they think the case hasn't sufficiently been made to demonstrate guilt.

As such, I rule this mysterious designer of the universe as "not guilty" of existing.
Which, as we have seen, is not the same as ruling her to be "innocent" of it.

 

[Brian2]

Yup basically true, but if you insist leprechauns did something, then I will insist that you show me evidence that leprechauns exist and how they might have done what you say they did.
I don't believe in leprechauns for the same reason that I don't believe in the Easter Bunny, not because science has demonstrated their non-existence.

Yes I also don't believe in laprechauns or the easter bunny and don't put them in the same category as belief in God.

 

[Brian2]

You are neglecting the fact that Methodological Naturalism cannot falsify hypotheses nor "show the existence or non-existence" of subjective beliefs in Gods, Leprechauns or Unicorns. Actually arguing or demonstrating the belief in the subjective negative is a fallacy in logic is also. a problem. Logical arguments for the existence or non-existence of Gods require assumptions for the existence of Gods.

It sounds like you are sort of agreeing with what I said.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So I presume you would agree that if anyone said that science has shown that leprechauns do not exist, they would be wrong and that saying that would be a matter of faith and not science.

Sure.

Although I would also add that it takes a lot more faith to believe they are real then to believe they aren't real.

Believing they aren't real is consistent with reality as it doesn't require the assumption that magic exists.
So you need less extra-ordinary assumptions to believe them to not be real then to believe them to be real.

Surely you can understand that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes I also don't believe in laprechauns or the easter bunny and don't put them in the same category as belief in God.

Why not?

Both are magical (supernatural) claims.
Both are untestable.
Both require faith.

Sounds like the same category to me...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I do not think that those who argue for intelligent design reject natural processes, like natural selection, and I don't think that anyone in science has shown any natural processes for methods of creation.

You don't seem aware that the ID crowd invented ID to have it replace evolution theory in science classes.