Engineer says, the atom has a designer. Trolls disagree.

_{News
June 15, 2012

Design inference, Engineering, Intelligent Design, News

1}_{Categories
Design inference
Engineering
Intelligent Design
News}

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

In “Does the atom have a designer? When science and spirituality meet” ( Ann Arbor News, May 24, 2012), engineer Lakhi Goenka, grieving the death of his son, reflects,

Atoms are machines that enable the physical, electromagnetic (including light), nuclear, chemical, and biological (including life) functioning of the universe. Atoms are a complex assembly of interacting particles that enable the entire functioning of the universe. They are the machine that enables all other machines. It is virtually impossible to explain the structure, complexity, internal dynamics, and resulting functionality of the atom from chance events or through evolutionary mechanisms. The atom is a machine that provides multiple functions, and every machine is the product of intelligence. The atom must have a designer.

Trolls respond here. Usual nonsense.

See also The strongest argument against design

Comments

Jerad,
I defer to modern scientists, working in the evolutionary field, who are fully up to date with the molecular research.
And these evolutionary scientists convinced you that the symbolic control of protein synthesis arose by evolutionary processes? Is that why you won't accept it as an observable material artifact?
I keep hearing that natural processes are incapable of doing some things and therefore certain life forms must be due to ID.
You are probably hearing that because there are some things that natural processes cannot do. Such a claim seems reasonable to me. Are you suggesting that the proper antidote is to assume a priori that natural processes can do all things? If so, how shall we re-classify those things that are the result of artificial input?
Then you tell me that ID posits no discontinuity in the laws of nature. Maybe I’m stupid but I can’t see how those two contentions can both be true.
Can you highlight for me an ID proponent's methodology that posits a discontinuity in natural law in order reach an inference to design? I've read a few of them; I simply do not remember such a case.
Are you saying the designer tweaked the mutations so that certain outcomes happened? Then the mutations were not random at all. Yeah?
Actually I said nothing of the sort. I asked if you'd accept the symbolic control of protein synthesis as a potential artifact of design. It's apparently a hot potato for you, given that you have steadfastly avoided answering it. As for mutations, I am not aware of any that have been recorded as anything but coming from natural processes.
What THAT are you trying to get at?
Formalism, instantiated in matter. There are formal relationships between the material objects involved in protein synthesis - a symbol system. This system has material consequences which are accessible to observation. The exact same material consequences are observable in all other examples of such systems, regardless of their source. If there is a material fact that distinguishes this system from all the others, then certainly one should be able to look at the material operation of the system, and point out that distinction. But, no one can seem to do so.
Genetic variation occurs which is sometimes positive in that some of the life forms with the particular variation have more off spring than their contemporaries because they are better able to withstand the environmental pressues. Which means that variation becomes more and more common in the population. Bit by bit the genome changes over long periods of time based on natural selection acting on a stream of genetic variation.
Yet, as you've pointed out, none of that has anything whatsoever to do with the question I asked: Would you accept symbolic control over protein synthesis as a potential artifact of design? Given that we agree 'genetic variation' doesn't impact the question asked, your mentioning of it here must serve some other purpose.
I don’t see things the same way you do. Why don’t we just leave it at that?
Are you asking for a waiver? Would you like to come to UD and pepper the participants with questions, while having your position held above question? I am not sure I am willing to agree to that, but in this instance we needn’t continue if you wish not to.Upright BiPed_{June 20, 2012
June
06
Jun
20
20
2012
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT}

UBP,
So…your answer is: “No, I will not accept the symbolic-control of protein synthesis as a material artifact of design”. And as a consequence of your reasoning, your answer also is: “When it comes to any molecular artifacts, I will defer to the authority of a man who was dead prior to the advent of molecular biology”
I defer to modern scientists, working in the evolutionary field, who are fully up to date with the molecular research. Darwin and Wallace got the ball rolling but lots and lots of people and research have added to it.
No one here needs to spend time trying to properly nuance your understanding of ID, such that ID is not anti-evolution, or that ID propositions do not challenge data established by experiment, or that ID methodology posits no discontinuity in the laws of nature, or anything else. Surely, if the material observations generated over the past century can be willfully ignored, then what can logic do? What is the point of reason? Clearly, there is none.
I keep hearing that natural processes are incapable of doing some things and therefore certain life forms must be due to ID. Then you tell me that ID posits no discontinuity in the laws of nature. Maybe I'm stupid but I can't see how those two contentions can both be true. Are you saying the designer tweaked the mutations so that certain outcomes happened? Then the mutations were not random at all. Yeah?
Ain’t that something? All it needed in order to do what it does, is the exact same thing it needed in order to be what it is. But let us not wonder what that is; even if we can isolate it, recognize it, and speak of it in coherent terms.
What THAT are you trying to get at? A gene pool exists in a population of life forms. Genetic variation occurs which is sometimes positive in that some of the life forms with the particular variation have more off spring than their contemporaries because they are better able to withstand the environmental pressues. Which means that variation becomes more and more common in the population. Bit by bit the genome changes over long periods of time based on natural selection acting on a stream of genetic variation.
I would suggest that you describing yourself as “interested” is a rather useful delusion.
I don't see things the same way you do. Why don't we just leave it at that?Jerad_{June 20, 2012
June
06
Jun
20
20
2012
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT}

Is this actually true of protein synthesis? I thought the connection between DNA and proteins was not arbitrary but chemically determined.
Hi Clavdivs, DNA is transcribed into mRNA, matured, and then that matured mRNA is used to order tRNA inside the ribosome. The material effect of nucleic base-pairing is the controlling factor during that entire transcription process; maintaining a specific sequence pattern throughout each step. But the end result of that process is the presentation of a specific amino acid at the peptide binding site, and that result is not determined by the arrangement of the nucleic acids, but is instead determined by the arrangement of the aminoacyl-synthetases (aaRS). The aaRS charge the tRNA with their amino acids in material isolation from both the DNA/mRNA (the representational input into the system) and the peptide binding site (the resulting output of the system), thereby preserving the required arbitrary nature of the representation.Upright BiPed_{June 20, 2012
June
06
Jun
20
20
2012
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT}

Jerad,
Yup, I agree. And Darwinian evolution depends on that system having already been established. How it got establish I put in the OoL camp which I’m not addressing. Neither did Darwin.
So…your answer is: “No, I will not accept the symbolic-control of protein synthesis as a material artifact of design”. And as a consequence of your reasoning, your answer also is: “When it comes to any molecular artifacts, I will defer to the authority of a man who was dead prior to the advent of molecular biology” That’s quite an intellectual cocoon you’ve constructed. I can assume that if someone had shown the rise of molecular symbols from mere chemistry, you’d defer to 1859 on that evidence as well. No one here needs to spend time trying to properly nuance your understanding of ID, such that ID is not anti-evolution, or that ID propositions do not challenge data established by experiment, or that ID methodology posits no discontinuity in the laws of nature, or anything else. Surely, if the material observations generated over the past century can be willfully ignored, then what can logic do? What is the point of reason? Clearly, there is none.
I believe that once that system is established then all you need are natural unguided processes. New ‘information’ can be incorporated into the existing genomes.
Ain’t that something? All it needed in order to do what it does, is the exact same thing it needed in order to be what it is. But let us not wonder what that is; even if we can isolate it, recognize it, and speak of it in coherent terms.
Like Dr Dawkins I am an interested bystander regarding the origin of life and the genetic code as a viable system of descent with modification.
I would suggest that you describing yourself as “interested” is a rather useful delusion.Upright BiPed_{June 20, 2012
June
06
Jun
20
20
2012
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT}

Upright Biped @ 31
Firstly, the representation (by necessity) is materially arbitrary to the effect it evokes within the system. This is evidenced by the simple fact that the matter the representation is instantiated in, is not the effect it represents to the system.
Is this actually true of protein synthesis? I thought the connection between DNA and proteins was not arbitrary but chemically determined. CheersCLAVDIVS_{June 20, 2012
June
06
Jun
20
20
2012
02:01 AM
2
02
01
AM
PDT}

UBP,
To say that self-replication and variation (Darwinian Evolution) can create symbolic representations is to get the cart before the horse. Darwinian evolution is entirely dependent on the existence of recorded heritable information being transferred from parent to daughter.
Yup, I agree. And Darwinian evolution depends on that system having already been established. How it got establish I put in the OoL camp which I'm not addressing. Neither did Darwin. I believe that once that system is established then all you need are natural unguided processes. New 'information' can be incorporated into the existing genomes. Like Dr Dawkins I am an interested bystander regarding the origin of life and the genetic code as a viable system of descent with modification. Chance, I guess I have pushed part of the issue back onto the OoL. How the whole thing got started. That is a big problem but not one I'm addressing. I don't think it's entirely belief without warrant. Work is being done on OoL issues. I HOPE it gets 'solved' in my life time 'cause I'd like to see that! I do think the evidence from human breeding shows that, given an existing genome and viable phenotype, new 'information' can be 'generated' and incorporated into the genome. It happens in small steps and is dictated by the environmental pressures. We see descent with modification happening. It's documented. Obviously there is a mechanism. The theory that the mechanism is selection (and genetic drift and a few other processes) acting on the existing genome and random variation within the genome is not contradicted by the ever increasing mounds of data in the fossil, generic and biogeographic records and morphology. That's good enough for me. The model works and has great explanatory power.Jerad_{June 19, 2012
June
06
Jun
19
19
2012
11:19 PM
11
11
19
PM
PDT}

Hi Upright! I'm glad to see you commenting. I hope you're doing well.Chance Ratcliff_{June 19, 2012
June
06
Jun
19
19
2012
05:49 PM
5
05
49
PM
PDT}

Hello MI.Upright BiPed_{June 19, 2012
June
06
Jun
19
19
2012
05:44 PM
5
05
44
PM
PDT}

Jerad, you are invoking Darwinian processes to explain that which is required before Darwinian processes can function. The code in DNA must already be present, along with the proteins it codes for, in order for any putative evolution to occur. Perhaps this is why you feel that you need to repeat yourself. Circularity becomes an issue when a process is called upon to explain itself. You wrote:
I think that DNA is not designed if that’s what you’re trying to get me to say. I think it developed through purely natural, unguided and undirected processes.
Descent with modification cannot explain the code nor the product because both are required before descent with modification can occur in a stable system. You should find this mysterious, because any account for it is entirely absent from knowledge. I suggested that the inference to design can be avoided by producing a single example of symbolic code generation sans biology:
This argument can be refuted by a single counterexample of a contingent, complex and specific symbolic code which abstracts the production and/or operation of a physically unrelated configuration of matter. Do you have an argument here that doesn’t stem from a personal preference?
I don't mean to sound pushy; however what scientists believe is not the issue. Rather that which can be demonstrated empirically is being sought. We infer design in code-configured systems because intelligence is the only known cause for such systems. Absent a counter example, you're advocating a belief without warrant. Descent with modification is an observation which requires an explanation - it's not a mechanism that comes about by law-like necessity. Any attempt to push this back on OOL is not appropriate, because this feature, heritable variation, is the very thing in need of being explained. It is dependent on a very sophisticated system for which the origin, not the operation, needs to be elucidated before we can attribute a material cause. This seems axiomatic.Chance Ratcliff_{June 19, 2012
June
06
Jun
19
19
2012
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PDT}

Jerad, I am not trying to be obscure and I am certainly not trying to play games. To say that self-replication and variation (Darwinian Evolution) can create symbolic representations is to get the cart before the horse. Darwinian evolution is entirely dependent on the existence of recorded heritable information being transferred from parent to daughter. Without that recorded information, there is no Darwinian evolution. And there isn’t a single example of recorded information in the cosmos that doesn’t exist as a symbolic representation; an arrangement of matter that can evoke a specified effect within a system. As far as anyone can tell, it is conceptually impossible to record information by any other means. Furthermore, in order for that representational arrangement of matter to have an effect within a system, it requires a second arrangement of matter to establish the material relationship between the representation and its downstream effect within the system (which is a relationship that otherwise wouldn't exist). This is the dual requirement of a representation and a protocol which are fundamentally required in order for recorded information to even exist, or be transferred. Furthermore, these two objects have specific relationships to one another, as well as to the resulting effect that they create within the system. Firstly, the representation (by necessity) is materially arbitrary to the effect it evokes within the system. This is evidenced by the simple fact that the matter the representation is instantiated in, is not the effect it represents to the system. Secondly, the physical protocol must establish the material relationship between the representation and its effect, but it must do so while preserving the arbitrary nature of the representation. In other words, neither the representation nor the protocol ever becomes the effect. These are the fundamental requirements of the transfer of recorded information. They are observably present in every instance of recorded information transfer ever witnessed. This includes the transfer of recorded information throughout all organisms in the living kingdom (human, animal, insect, etc) as well as in all information processing machinery ever produced. They are also entirely accounted for in the transfer of genetic information from DNA during protein synthesis. There are no exceptions whatsoever. Now if you were simply unaware that the transfer of recorded information had material consequences which could be observed, then that is fine. However, if you’d like your rebuke of design to be thoughtful, then perhaps you might want to integrate these observable facts into your rebuttals. If you’d like read a short presentation of this argument (with some examples), you can get that here.Upright BiPed_{June 19, 2012
June
06
Jun
19
19
2012
04:12 PM
4
04
12
PM
PDT}

UBP, I think the process of self-replication with modifications can generate the DNA molecule and it's functionality. I'm not sure what you're trying to get me to admit. You know what I think so . . . Sorry, I'm not good at playing games with this stuff. If I mis-spoke or answered poorly then I apologise. I don't think DNA's control over protein synthesis is evidence of design. Chance, Well, I disagree with you about the evidence as do a lot of other people. Quite a lot. Because the process involved is baby-step by baby-step and is guided by environmental pressures (natural selection, etc) then the genomes, and their corresponding phenotypes, are tailored to the environment. I don't think it's mysterious at all. We can see how a similar process has created a huge variety of dogs and plants starting from narrow root stocks. I consider that evidence of the power of descent with modification and selection. It's not spontaneous, far from it. It's climbing Mt Improbable in tiny increments. I'm not sure why you and UBP think I haven't been clear about the process(es) I think are capable of creating complex life forms. I don't find the proposed mechanism mysterious at all. I do find an undefined, unexperienced and unknown designer extremely mysterious. No one will even hypothesise when this designer implemented the designs! As the process requires self-replication with modification it is restricted to living things with is the realm of biology. These are not my arguments so even if I have adopted them out of a personal preference it is no reflection on their validity. I'm happy to keep repeating myself but as it doesn't seem to be getting us anywhere perhaps you'd like to ask me another set of questions? You know what I'm going to say in response to the standard ones after all.Jerad_{June 19, 2012
June
06
Jun
19
19
2012
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT}

Jerad, there is no evidence that the code embodied in the DNA molecule is the result of natural processes, not in the least. However there is evidence, via the symbolic control of protein manufacture, as UBP mentioned, of the involvement of intelligent agency. This puts you in the position of disregarding indicia of design in favor of something far more mysterious - the material law of spontaneous self-organization of information. If there is evidence of such a material law, it would be good of you to spell it out. If there is sufficient reason to believe that intelligence is not required for the generation of symbolic code, then I would be interested in hearing that also. If natural processes are capable of producing symbolic code, then there should be at least one example apart from biology. However there isn't a single example, apart from biology, of a natural symbolic code. It follows then that natural processes are not capable of producing one. This argument can be refuted by a single counterexample of a contingent, complex and specific symbolic code which abstracts the production and/or operation of a physically unrelated configuration of matter. Do you have an argument here that doesn't stem from a personal preference?Chance Ratcliff_{June 19, 2012
June
06
Jun
19
19
2012
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT}

Jerad, When asked if you would accept the evidence of symbolic control over protein synthesis as an artifact of design, you answered by stating that you don't think DNA is designed. But to say "I don't think DNA is designed" is to merely posit a conclusion, and it does nothing whatsoever to establish whether or not symbolic control over protein synthesis is something you'd accept as evidence. And exactly, what are the "natural, unguided and undirected processes" which can result in symbolic representation? I've done a fair amount of reading on the subject, and I have yet to encounter any evidence whatsoever of such processes, from anyone, anywhere, at anytime, regardless of their metaphysical position.Upright BiPed_{June 19, 2012
June
06
Jun
19
19
2012
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT}

UBP, I think that DNA is not designed if that's what you're trying to get me to say. I think it developed through purely natural, unguided and undirected processes.Jerad_{June 19, 2012
June
06
Jun
19
19
2012
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT}

Jerad, Using Stonehenge as an example of an artifact which is strongly thought to have been designed; your comment was that you’d start immediately looking for additional evidence among the artifacts in order to support the inference. You even stated you’d start looking for the designer’s trash heap. Did you not? Well… Since it is thought among ID proponents that life on earth was designed, (and conversely denied by materialists) then would such evidence as the symbolic control of protein synthesis count among the evidences which you would be willing to accept – following your comments about the example of Stonehenge?Upright BiPed_{June 19, 2012
June
06
Jun
19
19
2012
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT}

UBP, I assumed it was a joke as the discussion was about a Mars-based Stonehenge and not . . . whatever was implied.. Clearly highly technical data left in some readable form would be indications of an advanced intelligence and/or life forms depending on the way the 'evidence' was left. If you're meaning DNA then I'd assume it was indications of life having been on Mars at some time.Jerad_{June 19, 2012
June
06
Jun
19
19
2012
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT}

If someone left a Stonehenge on Mars I’d bet they left some other traces and evidence.
Traces and evidence, you mean like the functional control of protein synthesis from symbols-based memory?
Given your lack of a response, can we assume that this is, as you say, "evidence that you don't accept?"Upright BiPed_{June 19, 2012
June
06
Jun
19
19
2012
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT}

Joe,
The grand claims of your position cannot be pinned down in a lab and studied.
How do you propose to test the claims of ID in the lab? And I don't just mean trying to prove a negative: attempting to show the limitations of evolutionary theory. What can the ID paradigm pin down in the lab and study?
Also I can take your “evidence” for common descent and use it to support a common design.
Well, I'd love to hear your take on the evidence. I won't ask about the designer but, surely, a core part of ID is when; when did the designer intervene. That at least should be answerable. That is the core difference isn't it: Darwinism says: the 'gaps' were bridged by natural, observable processes. ID says: the designer bridged those gaps with knowledge and abilities we extrapolate from our own currently inadequate abilities. BUT, you haven't said which gaps or when. Without being specific about at least when design was implemented then ID isn't really explaining anything. It's just kind of waving its hands over a huge area saying the designer did it all.Jerad_{June 19, 2012
June
06
Jun
19
19
2012
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT}

Jerad, The stone circles in Britain/ Europe do NOT match Stonehenge. Stonehenge is unique with existing structures. The proposed evolutionary mechanism of accumulations of random mutations has never been observed to produce any new, useful multi-protein configurations. No known mechanism can change a prokaryote into something other than a prokaryote. Meaning universal common descent is dead without imagination, ie non-science. The design inference extends beyond biology. Meaning there is evidence of design in physics, chemistry and cosmology. The grand claims of your position cannot be pinned down in a lab and studied. And again your position has all the power, meaning if you could support your claims ID would fall. Also I can take your "evidence" for common descent and use it to support a common design. BTW it is you that wants a film of the designer in action. I would accept the theory of evolution if it had some science to support it. Imagination is not science.Joe_{June 19, 2012
June
06
Jun
19
19
2012
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT}

Joe,
The fossil record doesn’t say anything about any mechanism- nada, zilch, zip. The genetic record doesn’t say anything about a mechanism. The morphological evidence doesn’t say anything about any mechanism and breeders demonstrate there are limits- phenotypic plasticity exists but limits exist also.
All those records do not contradict the slow, step-by-step mechanism proposed. The limits that exist are based on the proposed mechanism.
Evolutionary “theory” has father tiime + mother nature + some still unknown process and that is it. Also design is a mechanism.
What unknown processes? Evolutionary theory extrapolates observed processes. Time and random mutations and natural selection (along with some other effects like genetic drift and sexual selection). Design is a mechanism if there is a designer available to do the designing!! Aside from the existing genomes how do you know there was a designer around? You keep saying it's not possible to say anything about the designer without eyewitness testimony or input from the designer so are you really sure there was one?
Archaeology and forensic science know who they’re making the design inference about: human beings.
That is incorrect.
I'm married to an archaeologist, I'll ask.
They know what human beings are roughly capable of.
Yeah because people left behind stuff that we can study! How do we know people were capable of building Stonehenge? Stonehenge!
Joe, there are hundreds of stone circles in Great Britain. Hundreds. If it were just Stonehenge the human design inference would be much harder.
Because of the evidence they left behind. Geez you are making my case for me.
Evidence other than the objects in question. It's NOT just Stonehenge. That's one, high profile site. There are thousands of prehistoric sites all over Europe which tell us there were people around at the time with the tools and ability to design and build Stonehenge. That's the point: multiple lines of evidence. Like with evolution. It's not just fossils or genomes or morphology or geographic distribution of species. It's all of that combined together.
That’s right! It is called knowledge of cause and effect relationships. And THAT is what the design inference is based on- our KNOWLEDGE of cause and effect relationships. And that means all someone has to do is step up and demonstrate that necessity and/ or chance can produce what we infer required a designer and the design inference falls.
But it's not just the cause you want to be true. You want every single little frame of film to be put in evidence. But that's not possible. You'd never convict anyone of murder by that standard. You propose a model that doesn't assume too much, see if the data fits and go from there. A slow, step-by-step process of common descent with modification is upheld by the data and is not contradicted by it. You're proposing a cause, a designer, which has left no evidence aside from the evidence you're trying to explain.
In the absence of direct observation or designer input, the ONLY possible way to make any scientific determination about the designer(s) or specific processes used, is by studying the design and all relevant evidence. THAT is how it is done in archaeology and forensic science.
I agree. And I don't think you have any other relevant evidence. So the hypothesis of a designer is not as parsimonious as evolutionary theory. A designer would have to be a complex, sophisticated, advanced, powerful, intelligent being. If it was not supernatural then it would need support systems and such. Those things leave evidence. And if it was supernatural then it's beyond the realm of science because things that can't be pinned down in the lab can't be studied.
Also, Jerad, you are proving that the design inference is not a dead-end as it opens up other questions. Ya see, as Dembski said, just because ID is not about the designer there is nothing stopping people from trying to figure who, what, when, where and how.
I agree it opens up other questions but everybody here is telling me the design inference is justified and no one seems to be pursuing the follow on questions. You seem reluctant to discuss your ideas about them. Nobody wants to talk about it. Does that mean the design inference has NOT been established? Collin,
But you would discount those traces as well, presumably. Because, what would be different about those traces? How would you tell if they were designed or not?
How can I comment without seeing the data? You're assuming I'm ideologically opposed when there's nothing to look at except the fossil, genetic, morphologic and biogeographic records. Show me something else and I'll have a look.
Let’s say we have observed animals making prints in snow and dirt. We’ve seen deer and wolves, for example. And we’ve examined their feet and their prints and can tell that they match up. Then one day we find a print that we have never seen before. Like the wolf it has a pad and toes, but it has more toes than a wolf. Even though we can’t be certain what this animal is and what its characteristics are, we can presume that an animal made the print because it shares many characteristics of other prints. This is analogous to design that we find in nature.
It depends on when and where the prints were found. And what they most closely resembled. First you try and see if it's possible they resemble some known species around at the time (granting we might be looking at historic material just to open up the discussion). You have to exhaustively eliminate natural causes before you make a leap into something new. I know what you're getting at . . . I think. And if something that looks like wolf prints were found in a PreCambrian fossil layer then that would give a severe blow to evolutionary theory. If you're trying to explain the design inference then I agree: as long as it's known there are creatures around at the time that make similar prints then you first try and prove some new species exists. BUT it you have no independent evidence of such creatures at that time and place you move on to something else. ID says: look around, in our experience things that are designed have an intelligent designer behind them. Look at the lifeforms and the genomes. They LOOK designed. What accounts for design IN OUR EXPERIENCE, intelligence. BUT the inference is based on inanimate objects AND there's no proof there was a designer around AND our experience is limited. I think ID SHOULD BE LOOKING for that extra evidence. I think that would help the cause immensely. I can't understand why money isn't being poured into that research. Maybe it is and I just don't know about it. Please tell me if I'm wrong about that.Jerad_{June 18, 2012
June
06
Jun
18
18
2012
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT}

Jerad, But you would discount those traces as well, presumably. Because, what would be different about those traces? How would you tell if they were designed or not? When I hear the complaint that ID doesn't work because we don't know anything about the designer, I think of this analogy. Let's say we have observed animals making prints in snow and dirt. We've seen deer and wolves, for example. And we've examined their feet and their prints and can tell that they match up. Then one day we find a print that we have never seen before. Like the wolf it has a pad and toes, but it has more toes than a wolf. Even though we can't be certain what this animal is and what its characteristics are, we can presume that an animal made the print because it shares many characteristics of other prints. This is analogous to design that we find in nature.Collin_{June 18, 2012
June
06
Jun
18
18
2012
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT}

Traces and evidence, you mean like the functional control of protein synthesis from symbols-based memory?
I guess you learnt nuthin' from your thyme over on the septic zone... :) evolutiondidit- heck it needed sumthin to du, don't ya know. and it had plenty of thyme to get to duin it...Joe_{June 18, 2012
June
06
Jun
18
18
2012
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT}

Jerad:
You mean evidence that you don’t accept. Like the fossil record. The genetic record. The morphological evidence. The geographic distribution of species. And, in the last few thousand years, eyewitness accounts from breeders and scientists.
The fossil record doesn't say anything about any mechanism- nada, zilch, zip. The genetic record doesn't say anything about a mechanism. The morphological evidence doesn't say anything about any mechanism and breeders demonstrate there are limits- phenotypic plasticity exists but limits exist also.
Evolutionary theory has a proposed mechanism, time frame, etc. We don’t just say ‘evolution did it’.
Evolutionary "theory" has father tiime + mother nature + some still unknown process and that is it. Also design is a mechanism.
Archaeology and forensic science know who they’re making the design inference about: human beings.
That is incorrect.
They know what human beings are roughly capable of.
Yeah because people left behind stuff that we can study! How do we know people were capable of building Stonehenge? Stonehenge!
And that they were around at the pertinent time.
Because of the evidence they left behind. Geez you are making my case for me.
And they have parallels with other events and structures, etc which they have other lines of evidence which establish that human beings were capable and did such things before.
That's right! It is called knowledge of cause and effect relationships. And THAT is what the design inference is based on- our KNOWLEDGE of cause and effect relationships. And that means all someone has to do is step up and demonstrate that necessity and/ or chance can produce what we infer required a designer and the design inference falls.
I am not asking you for the designer’s name or address, just your idea about the methods and timing. We know quite a lot about the people who built Stonehenge: what they ate, some of their rituals, stuff you can’t get from just studying Stonehenge itself.
What part of the folowing don't you understand: In the absence of direct observation or designer input, the ONLY possible way to make any scientific determination about the designer(s) or specific processes used, is by studying the design and all relevant evidence. THAT is how it is done in archaeology and forensic science. Also, Jerad, you are proving that the design inference is not a dead-end as it opens up other questions. Ya see, as Dembski said, just because ID is not about the designer there is nothing stopping people from trying to figure who, what, when, where and how. First things first.Joe_{June 18, 2012
June
06
Jun
18
18
2012
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT}

If someone left a Stonehenge on Mars I’d bet they left some other traces and evidence.
Traces and evidence, you mean like the functional control of protein synthesis from symbols-based memory?Upright BiPed_{June 18, 2012
June
06
Jun
18
18
2012
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT}

Joe,
Yet our opposition doesn’t need to proviode any positive evidence for their claims- got it.
You mean evidence that you don't accept. Like the fossil record. The genetic record. The morphological evidence. The geographic distribution of species. And, in the last few thousand years, eyewitness accounts from breeders and scientists.
ID is not anti-evolution and saying evolutiondidit is not an explanation. Meaning “evolution” does not have any explanatory power at all.
Evolutionary theory has a proposed mechanism, time frame, etc. We don't just say 'evolution did it'.
In the absence of direct observation or designer input, the ONLY possible way to make any scientific determination about the designer(s) or specific processes used, is by studying the design and all relevant evidence. THAT is how it is done in archaeology and forensic science.
Archaeology and forensic science know who they're making the design inference about: human beings. They know what human beings are roughly capable of. And that they were around at the pertinent time. And they have parallels with other events and structures, etc which they have other lines of evidence which establish that human beings were capable and did such things before. Remember Erich von Daniken and his ancient astronaut hypothesis? One of the biggest reasons his ideas were rubbish is because the archaeologists had evidence that human beings around at the time were capable of the structures that von Daniken said human beings were too stupid or primitive to have pulled off.
Really? Where did the designer(s) of Stonehenge come from? Heck who were the designers of Stonehenge? If I don’t get their names and addresses then Stonehenge wasn’t designed and archaeology is worthless! LoL!
I am not asking you for the designer's name or address, just your idea about the methods and timing. We know quite a lot about the people who built Stonehenge: what they ate, some of their rituals, stuff you can't get from just studying Stonehenge itself. There are lots of good books about prehistoric Britain if you're interested. AND we do ask: why did they build Stonehenge? When? In stages or all at once? Why? Always WHY?? It's what science does. Asks questions. You asked me a few weeks ago about finding Stonehenge on Mars and I said: you bet I'd think it was designed. And then I'd immediately start asking those questions and looking for answers and more evidence. I couldn't just let the deign inference sit there and be happy. I'd start digging. Quite literally in that instance in fact. I'd do some archaeology and look for the designer's trash heap. I'd ramp up SETI trying to find a signal. I'd try and date the structure. I'd hypothesise (based on careful examination of the thing) about construction techniques. If someone left a Stonehenge on Mars I'd bet they left some other traces and evidence.Jerad_{June 18, 2012
June
06
Jun
18
18
2012
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT}

Jerad:
And the obvious follow on point to hypothesising a complex and advanced designer is: where did the designer come from?
Really? Where did the designer(s) of Stonehenge come from? Heck who were the designers of Stonehenge? If I don't get their names and addresses then Stonehenge wasn't designed and archaeology is worthless! LoL! Do you ever read what you post? Again- ID is NOT about the designer. ID is about the DESIGN. That is because the way to the designer is through the design. And also figuring pout designs that we are capable of duplicating is much easier than figuring out designs that we cannot duplicate. Give me a computer and I can figure out how to make one. Give a computer to an Amazon native who has never seen a one and that person wouldn't have a clue.Joe_{June 18, 2012
June
06
Jun
18
18
2012
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PDT}

Jerad:
Given that the design inference is not widely accepted by the scientific community...
This alleged "scientific community" cannot support "their" position's claims. So they can pound sand.
I don’t need to see the designer in action but ID needs to prove the viability of the design inference with some additional evidence.
Yet our opposition doesn't need to proviode any positive evidence for their claims- got it.
Until ID addresses the whole question it will never have the explanatory power of evolution. ID is not anti-evolution and saying evolutiondidit is not an explanation. Meaning "evolution" does not have any explanatory power at all. And AGAIN- In the absence of direct observation or designer input, the ONLY possible way to make any scientific determination about the designer(s) or specific processes used, is by studying the design and all relevant evidence. THAT is how it is done in archaeology and forensic science.
Joe_{June 18, 2012
June
06
Jun
18
18
2012
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT}

Joe, And the obvious follow on point to hypothesising a complex and advanced designer is: where did the designer come from? You can decry the regression discussion but it doesn't mean that it isn't an issue. The main body of ID may chose to avoid the question but . . . you know scientists . . . they like asking questions and knowing why, when and how. You're clearly interested in science, surely you want to know the answers to such questions. I'm willing to bet you've thought about it all a lot. On other threads when you've hinted at some of your ideas I have not been rude or derisory (I don't think) so I hope you push the boat out a bit and give me some idea of what you're thinking.Jerad_{June 17, 2012
June
06
Jun
17
17
2012
11:29 PM
11
11
29
PM
PDT}

Joe, Given that the design inference is not widely accepted by the scientific community I'm just saying that you have no additional physical evidence of an intelligence capable of the design you infer at the time(s) I'm guessing you are invoking such a designer (although it's hard to get anyone to agree to specific design interventions). I don't need to see the designer in action but ID needs to prove the viability of the design inference with some additional evidence. I surmise from the general thrust of ID contentions that a designer capable of creating DNA sequences that would bridge some of the perceived gaps between hypothesised islands of functionality would have to have an intelligence greater than ours. Much greater. That implies a fairly complex being, one that not only has the technical capacity to create and implement the designs but also the knowledge to do so in such a way as to leave only a physical record consistent with purely natural processes. But if you have another tact on the matter I'd be happy to listen. You frequently ask me to explain my outlook but you shy away from explaining yours in any detail. There is a scientific question on the table: how and why and when did speciation occur in the order and timeframe we can see. ID says: a designer did it but backs away from answering the how, why and when. Evolutionary theory is working on answers for the how, why and when . . . it's a situation under flux obviously but slowly and surely the outlines are becoming clearer and clearer. Until ID addresses the whole question it will never have the explanatory power of evolution.Jerad_{June 17, 2012
June
06
Jun
17
17
2012
11:18 PM
11
11
18
PM
PDT}

In his On Physics and Philosophy, Princeton Univ. Press, 2006 (pg. 2 in the Foreword), professor of Physics, Bernard d’Espagnat, in the context he writes: “In fact, it is not inappropriate to consider, that while Nature( his capital letter) – in the broadest possible sense - refuses to explicitly tell us what she is, she sometimes condescends, when we press her tenaciously enough to tell us know a little about what she is not…” In light of this d’Espagnat’s statement, I’d like to ask you why does Nature hide her mysteries ‘tenaciously enough from herself? It may be that this question is not properly worded. I will try to explain: man or homo- sapiens, such as he is, according to Darwin’s theory of evolution, or materialistic- reductionistic theory, is not more than a handful of interstellar dust, insignificant bundle of atoms which came together by a blind chance, by material processes, by odd, at random, undirected, with no end, no intention, no teleology…Homo sapiens is here with no purpose whatsoever. I will try to use here a bit of syllogism: Major: Matter hides its mysteries from itself. Minor: Homo sapiens is matter, no more and no less. Conclusion: Ergo, homo-sapiens hides his mysteries from himself. How is it possible?Eugen_{June 17, 2012
June
06
Jun
17
17
2012
08:00 PM
8
08
00
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 6 7 8 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply