Quote of the Day

_{Barry Arrington

September 27, 2014

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

logically_speaking says:

In my opinion questions such as who was the designer and who designed the designer are only important after design has been detected. In fact this is how many branches of scientific endeavor must proceed. Ask any detective at a crime scene, do they ask who was the murderer before answering the question of was any murder committed in the first place.

There are two separate questions (1) was there design and (2) who was the designer. It really is a common sense observation that the second question is logically downstream from the first. It is a corollary to that common sense observation that anyone who insists that one cannot address the upstream question until one has resolved the downstream question is either deeply confused or has an agenda unconnected with discovering the truth of the matter.

Comments

Barry, good thought @20. BTW, they only burned the witch if she floated. :)Eric Anderson_{September 28, 2014
September
09
Sep
28
28
2014
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PST}

A friend suggests an interesting analogy:
English common law system of justice broke out of the dark ages when these distinctions [i.e., between what is logically upstream and downstream] came to be considered important. If people are shrieking that a person died from witchcraft! [Let's burn the witch!], it's hard to even begin to determine if that person died of natural causes or foul play, or a bit of both. Strange to think that an age that claims to put so much trust in science, actually replicates that atmosphere.
Barry Arrington_{September 28, 2014
September
09
Sep
28
28
2014
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PST}

Mapou: You are quite right that we can infer things about a designer by looking at the design. Specifically, we can infer that: (i) the designer was capable of producing the design, and (ii) the designer wanted to produce the design. With (i) we can also observationally understand something of the designer's competence and skill. It is much harder to draw much of an inference from (ii) about anything beyond the sheer desire to create that particular design, particularly when we have such a limited window into the overall larger context of the biosphere (though we are learning more each day). All of that is fine, as far as it goes. However, that limited and rational approach is quite different from the pedantic and illogical demands made by ID opponents that ID must identify the specific designer, by name, and with full particularity. For all of us who have been around the block a few times, of course, we realize that such a demand is not about the evidence or about careful, logical thinking. The anti-ID demand for the identify of the designer has nothing to do with actual evidence and logic; it has everything to do with the ID opponent's built-in philosophical assumption that ID proponents are up to something nefarious, that ID is "creationism in a cheap tuxedo," and that if they can manage to get an ID proponent to admit to the religious nature of the designer by saying the designer is God (which is the only answer the anti-ID'ist will accept), then ID will be exposed for the sham that it is and the debate will be won. It is impossible to understand the demand for identification of the designer if we think it arises in the context of a genuine desire to learn and look into the evidence. The only reason ID opponents continually bring it up is as a debating tactic to (i) avoid addressing the substantive issues relating to the design inference, and (ii) attempt to discredit ID. ----- See last paragraph of: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/on-holding-utterly-contradictory-ideas-in-your-head/#comment-516458Eric Anderson_{September 28, 2014
September
09
Sep
28
28
2014
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PST}

At the beginning of paragrtaph 2, I should have written, 'Indeed, the most sophisticated design imaginable - beyond imaginable - is so universal in Nature....'Axel_{September 28, 2014
September
09
Sep
28
28
2014
04:45 AM
4
04
45
AM
PST}

Only a petulant, infantile lack of intellectual integrity could possibly prevent even a person of less than normal, worldly intelligence from acknowledging unambiguously intelligent design in Nature, as the key concept of biomimetics. Indeed, design is so universal in Nature that to posit random chance in relation to all of it, never mind a single protein, is 'off the dial' madness; particularly in the absence of any explanation of life, itself, despite the most toilsome efforts. Modern, materialist science is just a madhouse, made all the more glaringly obvious by its very heavy reliance on quantum mechanics.Axel_{September 28, 2014
September
09
Sep
28
28
2014
04:42 AM
4
04
42
AM
PST}

#13 "I believe there were millions if not billions of designers who designed and created the universe and lifeforms." Not only that, but they operate continuously at every point in space-time to uphold (or in present day metaphor, compute) the unfolding of universe.nightlight_{September 28, 2014
September
09
Sep
28
28
2014
12:15 AM
12
12
15
AM
PST}

#11 So you agree that origin of life studies fail to qualify as science? The (neo)Darwinism and Discovery Institute's version of ID are mirror twins of each other, each an ideology aspiring to be taken as a science. It just happens that DI's ID is on the losing side, but in the long run both of them will end up in the same trash dump of deservedly forgotten quasi-scientific ideologies.nightlight_{September 28, 2014
September
09
Sep
28
28
2014
12:10 AM
12
12
10
AM
PST}

"In US Criminal law, means, motive, and opportunity is a popular cultural summation of the three aspects of a crime that must be established before guilt can be determined in a criminal proceeding." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means,_motive,_and_opportunity If you found a body at the bottom of a staircase and you didn't know if the person died from a fall or was pushed, the question of opportunity becomes relevant. If there was no one known to be in the vicinity, i.e. no one seemed to have opportunity that is relevant to determining if it was an act of a person or an accident. A much better way of explaining why the designer doesn't matter is this: http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2014/08/intelligent-design-skeptical-fallacies.html "It is not necessary to know the identity of the intelligent designer for an explanation based on intelligent design to be scientifically valid. In a theory of intelligent design, intelligence is treated just like any other known causal agent such as gravity or electromagnetism. The capabilities of intelligence are known from our observations of human intelligence. Intelligence is capable or producing information, producing cybernetic systems, and using mathematics. In the same way that an unseen massive body can be identified by the observation of perturbations in the orbits of planets, an unknown intelligence might be identified by observation of the existence of information (in DNA), cybernetic systems (in cellular machinery), mathematical principles (in natural laws) and mathematical values in nature (the finely tuned physical constants that allow the universe to support life). When there is no plausible explanation for how an unguided causal agent, such as gravity or the chemical properties of the elements, can cause a phenomenon that intelligence is known to be capable of causing, then intelligence is the best explanation for the phenomenon."Jim Smith_{September 27, 2014
September
09
Sep
27
27
2014
10:09 PM
10
10
09
PM
PST}

I believe there were millions if not billions of designers who designed and created the universe and lifeforms. They have many different functions/specialties, kind of like us human in our own societies. Certainly, they have to be united as one, not unlike the way the approximately 100 billion neurons in our brain are united to make one brain (unless you are schizophrenic or something). Unity is the underlying principle of everything, IMO. You mess with unity and you are in danger of getting hurt or becoming extinct.Mapou_{September 27, 2014
September
09
Sep
27
27
2014
10:02 PM
10
10
02
PM
PST}

#10 Can you provide examples from each of the “real sciences” and give us a list of the “not really sciences”? Pretty much any research in physics, chemistry, biochemistry or molecular biology fits the above requirement. On the other end of the spectrum, such as evolutionary biology, medicine, psychiatry, psychology, social sciences, economy... etc. are a mixed bag of science and agendas (commercial, political, ideological, religious).nightlight_{September 27, 2014
September
09
Sep
27
27
2014
09:45 PM
9
09
45
PM
PST}

nightlight, So you agree that origin of life studies fail to qualify as science?Mung_{September 27, 2014
September
09
Sep
27
27
2014
09:35 PM
9
09
35
PM
PST}

nightlight:
The question that matters scientifically is: does some model M (algorithm or formula) of the empirically observed process P reproduce the observed properties of P.
Great. Can you provide examples from each of the "real sciences" and give us a list of the "not really sciences"?Mung_{September 27, 2014
September
09
Sep
27
27
2014
09:34 PM
9
09
34
PM
PST}

Design/er talk and framing of the origin of life and evolution is a loaded language (warm & fuzzy, subjective and scientifically vapid). It's like insisting on teaching about gender and glass ceiling aspects of origin of life or theory of gravity. It's basically an indicator of an ax to grind (whether it is feminism, genderism, churchianity...) and an urge to shove it into everyone's face. The question that matters scientifically is: does some model M (algorithm or formula) of the empirically observed process P reproduce the observed properties of P.nightlight_{September 27, 2014
September
09
Sep
27
27
2014
09:27 PM
9
09
27
PM
PST}

Mapou 4 and Moose 6 both have a point, in my opinion. The design of the universe shows unity and diversity. Kinda like three persons but One substance... ;)anthropic_{September 27, 2014
September
09
Sep
27
27
2014
08:51 PM
8
08
51
PM
PST}

Wow I got a quote of the day, I feel very honoured and humbled. Now I just have to think of another 364 things to say lol. One of the things I've always wondered about, is what do evolutionists say about fingerprints. Fingerprints seem to be an aesthetic type of design feature to me, how do evolutionists account for them?logically_speaking_{September 27, 2014
September
09
Sep
27
27
2014
08:35 PM
8
08
35
PM
PST}

Mapou, "By looking at the many different design styles in nature, I can deduce that there were many designers and that they are extremely advanced." No, nay! There is one core engine in all of biology. We see it in the genes that are ultra-conserved throughout biology. Universal Common Descent, if true, would obligate that the first life be created by a single designer, or a group working as one. Further, as we look at physics we see a single big bang. The single big bang must have been the work product of a single designer or a group working as one. It is clear that the universe was designed to permit life -- the life that is. The most logical position to take is that the life that is was produced by the same designer that designed the universe. The fact that there are many design styles says something about the richness of the designer. The fact that the design is extremely advanced is way obvious. However the fact that the core of the design was put in place before time itself began establishes that the designer is not bound by any sense of time as we understand it. The designer is pre-our universe. The designer, therefore, can be reasonably called supernatural. Truly there are many things we can infer about the designer just by studying his/her designs.Moose Dr_{September 27, 2014
September
09
Sep
27
27
2014
07:51 PM
7
07
51
PM
PST}

I am a designer You are a designer We are all designers We have met the designer, and he is us.Mung_{September 27, 2014
September
09
Sep
27
27
2014
07:26 PM
7
07
26
PM
PST}

By looking at the many different design styles in nature, I can deduce that there were many designers and that they are extremely advanced. Genetic evidence reveals that they were true masters at reusing existing code as much as possible. I can tell that they had an amazingly vast sense of beauty. For some strange reason, they seem to have had an inordinate infatuation with all kinds of insects and spiders. Sex also seems to have been of crucial importance. It's almost as if they were having fun, as if they were trying to outdo one another in some friendly competition. There are many things we can infer about the designers just by studying their designs.Mapou_{September 27, 2014
September
09
Sep
27
27
2014
07:19 PM
7
07
19
PM
PST}

Mike Gene once said:
Suffice it to say, I have little patience with the "identify the designer" rhetoric. It's not just an example of sloppy thinking. It's a form of sloppy thinking that gunks up any sincere interest in design. It turns an attempt to adhere to logical, responsible thinking into a sinister motive. So perhaps, there is a better question to ask. Why do ID critics refuse to publicly acknowledge that it is illogical to identity the designer using the criteria of mainstream ID (IC and CSI)?
In the absence of direct observation or designer input the only way to make any scientific determination about the designer(s) or specific process(es) used is by first detecting and then studying the design and all relevant evidence, including context. That is why it is a separate question. And that is also why ID isn't a scientific dead end. There is plenty of work to be done to understand the design so that we may have a chance at answering those other questions.Joe_{September 27, 2014
September
09
Sep
27
27
2014
06:42 PM
6
06
42
PM
PST}

OT: GIANT comet moth! (Argema mittrei) (Another one of God's amazing creatures) - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02Ad3UtMz7Ybornagain77_{September 27, 2014
September
09
Sep
27
27
2014
06:24 PM
6
06
24
PM
PST}

The Designer created Time, therefore there is no "before the Designer...".mjazzguitar_{September 27, 2014
September
09
Sep
27
27
2014
06:19 PM
6
06
19
PM
PST}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply