Intelligent Design

KF vs VS on “but, what is design”?

Spread the love

In the Pearcey book excerpt thread, I just had an exchange of views with VS on the nature of design that led to a comment at no 67 which I think is worth headlining. As, it seems that meaning of key terms such as design is now a focal issue:

________________

>> This caught my eye, per how one slice of a cake has in it all the key ingredients:

KF [cf 50 supra]: when the investigations tell us (a) that FSCO/I is a strong sign of design as cause

VS: You forget I think that a non intelligent directed configurations are also a form of design.

This seems a rather new-speak-esque conflation and — with all due respect — confusion of incongruous concepts.

I am very aware that evolutionary materialists often use “design” to denote functional configs, meaning how wonderful is their favourite all-answering plot device of blind chance non-foresighted variation and differential reproductive success based culling to answer to body plans.

The truth is, such has simply not passed the observed causal adequacy test, the vera causa principle; particularly where FSCO/I beyond 500 – 1,000 bits is involved. Purposeful, intelligently directed configuration issuing in contrivance, is a well known readily observed cause of FSCO/I. The only one we know after thousands of years of observation amounting to trillions of cases. A strong basis for confident induction.

But, the root issue is deeper.

On a priori evolutionary materialism, self aware consciousness and freely chosen purpose are regarded as in effect illusions, epiphenomena and folk psychology etc concepts along for the ride on the “real” world of CNS wiring and electrochemistry. As Crick et al have plainly said.

This tends to empty the real force of terms, just as Orwell’s New-Speak so powerfully satirised and exposed.

But, those of us who have had to wrestle with the hard business of significant real world technical system design (and then onwards with the issue of how one shapes future designers through pivotal strategic education of the upcoming generation of engineers) have a very different view of design. We actually have to get things to work, and get effective socio-technical systems to work through effective engineering education. (BTW, after much struggle through the minefield of such edu systems design, signs are, the design framework 10++ years on, had good bones.)

I find that the lead-in to Wiki’s article on design captures a description that rings true:

Design is the creation of a plan or convention for the construction of an object or a system (as in architectural blueprints, engineering drawings, business processes, circuit diagrams and sewing patterns).[1] Design has different connotations in different fields (see design disciplines below). In some cases the direct construction of an object (as in pottery, engineering, management, cowboy coding and graphic design) is also considered to be design.

More formally design has been defined as follows.

(noun) a specification of an object, manifested by an agent, intended to accomplish goals, in a particular environment, using a set of primitive components, satisfying a set of requirements, subject to constraints;
(verb, transitive) to create a design, in an environment (where the designer operates)[2]

Another definition for design is a roadmap or a strategic approach for someone to achieve a unique expectation. It defines the specifications, plans, parameters, costs, activities, processes and how and what to do within legal, political, social, environmental, safety and economic constraints in achieving that objective.[3]

Here, a “specification” can be manifested as either a plan or a finished product, and “primitives” are the elements from which the design object is composed.

With such a broad denotation, there is no universal language or unifying institution for designers of all disciplines. This allows for many differing philosophies and approaches toward the subject (see Philosophies and studies of design, below).

The person designing is called a designer, which is also a term used for people who work professionally in one of the various design areas, usually also specifying which area is being dealt with (such as a fashion designer, concept designer or web designer). A designer’s sequence of activities is called a design process. The scientific study of design is called design science.[4][5][6][7]

Designing often necessitates considering the aesthetic, functional, economic and sociopolitical dimensions of both the design object and design process. It may involve considerable research, thought, modeling, interactive adjustment, and re-design. Meanwhile, diverse kinds of objects may be designed, including clothing, graphical user interfaces, skyscrapers, corporate identities, business processes and even methods of designing.

Notice, the way “specification” is used, BTW, as there have been attempts to twist that term into rhetorical pretzels.

Design lives in the world we actually experience, of responsible, choosing, purposing, contriving agency. Intelligently directed configuration.

This is the very opposite of configurations resulting from blind walks across configuration spaces driven by blind chance and mechanical necessity.

The distinction should be respected, and if design can be shown to be a delusion then let that be so and let the word go out of usage. But, I doubt that that will ever happen as long as people have to actually design things that must work in the real world.

Trying to rewrite what design properly denotes to enfold precisely what is its antithesis, is in my considered view a gross confusion of important language that does not contribute to serious discussion.>>

________________

I say, we have a perfect right to retain design as holding its meaning in a well-established sense. Others may think differently. I think they have a worldview level problem with the empirical reality that design exists and works in a well-understood commonly observed way. END

21 Replies to “KF vs VS on “but, what is design”?

  1. 1
    kairosfocus says:

    Folks, Should “design” now be expanded to mean what has always been held its very opposite — blind chance and equally blind mechanical necessity as in F = m*a so drop a guava and it reliably falls? Would this not be a case of forcing a term to mean A AND NOT-A therefore, nothing at all? And, who would benefit from doing that to “design,” why? KF

  2. 2

    While I was a commenter on the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) blog, another commenter made me aware of an NCSE document on “What Design Looks Like.”

    I have since commented on that document which can be viewed at:
    http://ayearningforpublius.wor.....n-johnson/

    To a large extent, I have based my critique of NCSE’s paper, on my close to 40 years as a Software Developer with considerable hands-on and immersive experience in complex design.

    KFs remarks above “But, those of us who have had to wrestle with the hard business of significant real world technical system design (and then onwards with the issue of how one shapes future designers through pivotal strategic education of the upcoming generation of engineers) have a very different view of design. We actually have to get things to work … ” captures my view of and experience with design quite nicely.

    I have since been banned from the NCSE site so have not been able to send my feedback to them, but here it is.

  3. 3
    kairosfocus says:

    AYP, it is always a breath of fresh air to hear from you. I have initially glanced at both your remarks and the NCSE article. You are on the right track, they are not. Inter alia they do not realise that analogy is a foundational aspect of inductive reasoning so dismissal of it save in convenient circumstances is dangerous. They try to paint design thought as Creationism with all sorts of loaded implications in the subtext. They seemingly refuse to address cogently what functionally specific, interactive “Wicken wiring diagram” nodes-arcs pattern complex organisation and associated information [= FSCO/I] is, and how it is instantiated in the world of technology around us AND in the nanotech of the living cell, for which of course protein synthesis is capital case no 1, and the metabolic chem rxn network case no 2. Instantiation of an architecture is instantiation, not analogy. And of course they impose evolutionary materialist ideology and use it to get away from the challenge of actually addressing the need to empirically validate claims og causal adequacy. KF

  4. 4

    KF
    Thanks for the kind remarks … TOE types claim a bottom up design capability in nature vs. top down – I’ve not been able to grasp that concept.

  5. 5
    kairosfocus says:

    AYP,

    one thing I need to go back to.

    I cannot but help noticing how NCSE on its official web site keeps on promoting the false conflation of design thought and Creationism.

    Despite, any number of corrections and abundant evidence to the contrary — not least from Creationist organisations and their expressions of concern over or even critiques of design thought.

    At the level of such an organisation, sustained for so long it cannot be put down to ignorance, nor should we just shrug and say, that’s politics. The hunger for or exercise of power can never justify such insistent wrongdoing.

    This is patent malice, driven by lying sustained because they think they can gain an advantage thereby by stirring up prejudice. And let me state a definition to make my point crystal clear:

    to lie is to speak with disregard to truth (and often, fairness), in hopes of profiting by what is said or suggested being perceived as true.

    For shame!

    And by now, sustaining such a lie at the heart of their campaigns, year after year, heedless of correction because they think they can get away with it speaks volumes about the character of spokesmen and Board as well as executives alike. Yes, on fair comment, we could list identifiable individuals who have put themselves on the walls of a hall of shame.

    All of which points straight to the adherence to a devilish principle condemned since Plato in The Laws Bk X exposed evolutionary materialism and its destructively amoral ruthless factionalism:

    Ath. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical “material” elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ –> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity] . . . .

    [Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.- [ –> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT.] These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might [ –> Evolutionary materialism — having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT — leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for “OUGHT” is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in “spin”)], and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ –> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality “naturally” leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ –> such amoral factions, if they gain power, “naturally” tend towards ruthless abuse], and not in legal subjection to them.

    NCSE, you may indeed be able to get away with injustice rooted in lies for now, but that will never gain lasting success. Injustice such as you have been championing and building on lies and slanders, cannot stand in the end.

    For such has in it the seeds of its own destruction.

    Take warning and turn from wrongdoing now, before you ruin yourselves — and do irreparable harm to the reputation of science and science education in so doing.

    AYP, all we have to do is to continue to stand up on and for the simple truth and for the integrity and freedom of thought and scholarship.

    One day, the fatal cracks in the lies in the foundation of injustice will cause the whole edifice to collapse.

    Perhaps, with very little warning.

    And, it is those of us who stood up to lies who will have to then try to rescue what we can and help those willing to be helped. But for sure, the reputation of science and of science education is taking lasting damage from the sort of shenanigans that we here have to expose.

    KF

    PS: Let me add a Bible Reading snippet from Bible Gateway for today from 3400 years ago (though — New Atheists, kindly note on “the whole counsel” of Scripture — Christians will read this in light of how Jesus treated the Woman caught in the act of adultery and her accusers). This points to just how dangerous and chaotically destructive false accusations are and how diligently we must work to get things straight:

    Deut 19:16 If a malicious witness takes the stand to accuse someone of a crime, 17 the two people involved in the dispute must stand in the presence of the Lord before the priests and the judges who are in office at the time. 18 The judges must make a thorough investigation,and if the witness proves to be a liar, giving false testimony against a fellow Israelite,19 then do to the false witness as that witness intended to do to the other party. You must purge the evil from among you. 20 The rest of the people will hear of this and be afraid, and never again will such an evil thing be done among you. [ESV]

  6. 6

    Whenever a materialist/atheist points to a snowflake or the orbital patterns of planets as if it is in principle the same kind of design as a fully functional battleship, I know debate is useless.

  7. 7
    kairosfocus says:

    WJM, you have a point. In my always linked, I discussed snowflakes etc with onward links here. KF

  8. 8
    Seversky says:

    Both a canal and a river have the same function although only one has a purpose. Both are channels in the ground which convey water – and whatever floats in or on it – from one place to another. In the case of a river, the water flows from high ground down to a lake or the sea which are lower. In the case of a canal, the water is channeled in the direction the engineers want it to go.

    The courses of both canal and river are constrained by environmental influences such as the topography of the land over which they flow. The river will follow a line of least resistance across a landscape. Canal engineers will also take advantage of local geology and topography where they can but can also ignore it where, in their judgement, it is necessary.

    Both depend on ground that is soft enough to be shaped into a channel. No river will form in rock that is so hard as to be effectively impervious to erosion and engineers would avoid having to try and blast through such a substance unless they had no choice.

    The end result in both cases, though, are channels that have considerable similarities, except one is designed and one isn’t.

    This is analogous, of course, to selection in the biological world. Both artificial and natural selection work on – and depend on – the same properties and processes in Nature. If they weren’t there, neither selective breeding nor natural selection would be possible.

    And if malleable morphologies can be shaped to suit arbitrary human purposes, why shouldn’t they also be shaped by environmental influences in a similar way?

    I haven’t seen a materialist/atheist argue that the structure of a snowflake is designed the same way as battleship, even in principle, but I’m open to correction.

    The fact is, we don’t recognize design by calculating probabilities or trying to quantify wrongly reified abstracts like information. We recognize it by simple pattern-matching. Something looks designed because it looks like things we design. The eye looks like a camera, the cell looks like a tiny factory or some such.

    Of course, that also answers a question I posed in another post. I asked why would alien designers, who presumably are much more advanced, powerful and knowledgeable than we are, employ design that looks like that of humans of 20th and 21st centuries?

    Now I’m sure many of you can come up with just-so stories about why that might happen but isn’t the simpler explanation pareidolia? We use pattern-matching to make sense of the world around us, to recognize things. Sometimes we make mistakes, maybe see design where there is none.

  9. 9
    kairosfocus says:

    Seversky,

    much of the above is in common. I do note that one does not need to calculate probabilities to recognise Wicken wiring diagram functional specificity of organisation, which is highly informational:

    ‘Organized’ systems are to be carefully distinguished from ‘ordered’ systems. Neither kind of system is ‘random,’ but whereas ordered systems are generated according to simple algorithms [i.e. “simple” force laws acting on objects starting from arbitrary and common- place initial conditions] and therefore lack complexity, organized systems must be assembled element by element according to an [[originally . . . ] external ‘wiring diagram’ with a high information content . . . Organization, then, is functional complexity and carries information. It is non-random by design or by selection, rather than by the a priori necessity of crystallographic ‘order.’ [“The Generation of Complexity in Evolution: A Thermodynamic and Information-Theoretical Discussion,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, 77 (April 1979): p. 353, of pp. 349-65. (Emphases and notes added. Nb: “originally” is added to highlight that for self-replicating systems, the blue print can be built-in.)]

    Of course, we may readily show that information metrics are dual to probability ones, perhaps with some weighted averaging. And, beyond 500 – 1,000 bits worth of info — think, string length of structured y/n q’s to specify the state of a wiring diagram nodes-arcs mesh — the atomic and temporal resources of the sol system or observed cosmos will be utterly overwhelmed by the scope of possibilities. While intelligently directed configuration (on a trillion case knowledge base) readily creates FSCO/I, blind needle in haystack search per chance and mechanical necessity, will predictably fail to the point of utter implausibility.

    FSCO/I is a readily observed, highly reliable, inductively warranted strong sign of design as cause.

    and that is induction per observable phenomenon, not reification.

    KF

  10. 10

    Seversky said,

    Of course, that also answers a question I posed in another post. I asked why would alien designers, who presumably are much more advanced, powerful and knowledgeable than we are, employ design that looks like that of humans of 20th and 21st centuries?

    Perhaps the answer is because we only have a 21st century understanding of technological design concepts, that is how we interpret it, and that is the limit of what we can understand of what we are investigating.

  11. 11

    Here’s the atheistic/materialist position laid bare: they hold that a fully functional, self-replicating, self-sustaining 3D printer spontaneously rose up out of the mud by chance. Further, that a series of printing (or printing code) errors accumulated over time into fully functional, highly organized, staggeringly ultra-complex mega-machines.

    There is no reasoning with this kind of irrational anti-theistic fanaticism. At this point, they’re just substituting the word “chance” for “magic”.

  12. 12
    Seversky says:

    William J Murray @ 10

    Perhaps the answer is because we only have a 21st century understanding of technological design concepts, that is how we interpret it, and that is the limit of what we can understand of what we are investigating.

    Perhaps. Or perhaps people are seeing what they want to be there, what they hope is there.

    William J Murray @ 11

    Here’s the atheistic/materialist position laid bare: they hold that a fully functional, self-replicating, self-sustaining 3D printer spontaneously rose up out of the mud by chance. Further, that a series of printing (or printing code) errors accumulated over time into fully functional, highly organized, staggeringly ultra-complex mega-machines.

    I’m surprised at you, WJM – okay, maybe I’m not – that’s just Hoyle’s Fallacy restated in the idiom of printer technology.

    If you’ll bear with me, I’ll lay bare my atheist/materialist position.

    Somehow, billions of years ago, in ways we do not yet understand, inanimate elements and compounds combined to form simple self replicating entities.

    Very slowly, over billions of years, they combined, recombined, gradually grew more complex, added functions and became the precursors of the vast range of organisms we see around us now.

    Over the eons, the planet was battered by a series of extinction-level disasters but life managed to cling on by the skin of its teeth (must be something to do with the way the Universe is fine-tuned for us)

    Once the competition had been taken out by some vulcanism topped off with a passing asteroid, what was left went forth and multiplied and filled the gaps.

    To fill one of those gaps, one of those little, furry critters decided to move up in the world and took to the trees. They probably felt trees shouldn’t just be for the birds.

    Eventually, some of their descendants apparently decided trees were for the birds and came down to Earth again.

    At some point, again for reasons we don’t yet understand (yes, there’s actually a lot we don’t understand, we a/mats admit it) one of those former tree-huggers got big-headed about itself and took over the planet and got to thinking it was God’s gift.

    Somewhere along the line these big-heads invented paper. Then, in the fifteenth century, one of them came up with a crude but serviceable machine for printing words and pictures on that paper.

    Throw in a few hundred years of development and refinement, stir in advances in ink technology and computers and that’s how you get 3-D printers from mud.

    Now tell me how God did it.

  13. 13

    Seversky @12

    Thanks you so much Seversky!
    This is the best and clearest description of the evolutionary process I have ever read. I guess I have been missing all of these scientific terms, or at least have failed to understand them until your very understandable explanations. Such clarity shows me and explains the “mountain of evidence” I’ve been searching for years for:
    * Somehow, billions of years ago …
    * in ways we do not yet understand …
    * Very slowly, over billions of years …
    * gradually grew more complex …
    * life managed to cling on …
    * competition had been taken out by some vulcanism …
    * little, furry critters decided to move up in the world …
    * descendants apparently decided trees were for the birds …
    * At some point, again for reasons we don’t yet understand …
    * Somewhere along the line …
    * Throw in a few hundred years of development and refinement …

    Seversky … you have come up with the words, theories and scientific evidence that has eluded such luminaries as Jerry Coyne, Richard Dawkins, the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) and others for years. Your grasp of the topic is truly amazing and should once and for all time put an end to this controversy …

    The title of your (sure to be best selling) book would be “STUFF HAPPENS”

    Congratulations sir!!

  14. 14

    Further to AYP @ 13 and Seversky @ 12:

    I’ve written about such things as Seversky’s ‘atheist/materialist position’ in the past – see my article at: https://ayearningforpublius.wordpress.com/2011/08/31/professional-evolutionists-they-are-not-all-that-smart/

    But Seversky’s last challenge of ‘Now tell me how God did it.’ bears a bit of discussion.

    I don’t know how God did it, but I have every expectation that one day I will be able to sit at the feet of that great God and ask questions such as …

    “Tell me how you did that butterfly thing … .”
    “Tell me how you took that lifeless dirt and formed living things … including me … .”
    “Tell me how you put the ideas of music, language, literature, invention, creativity … into minds such as mine … .”
    “Tell me all about DNA and the cell, and how you came up with such a scheme that stores so much information into such a small space … how then does that information unfold itself so as to grow a single fertilized egg into a full blown albatross that soars across the waves of the sea. And how does a bird, salmon, turtle, whale listen to those protective magnetic fields and migrate from and back to its birthplace … .”

    And much more … .

    In the meantime because of the curiosity and creativity that God has placed within you and me, we can seek to answer some of those questions … much like the scientific giants of the past sought to think God’s thoughts after him and discovered amazing scientific truths and things.

    From Isaiah 55:7
    “Let the wicked forsake his way And the unrighteous man his thoughts; And let him return to the LORD, And He will have compassion on him, And to our God, For He will abundantly pardon. 8″For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,” declares the LORD. 9″For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts.…

    From Psalm 40:5
    “Many, LORD my God, are the wonders you have done, the things you planned for us. None can compare with you; were I to speak and tell of your deeds, they would be too many to declare.”

    From Job 38

    Then the Lord spoke to Job out of the storm. He said:
    “Who is this that obscures my plans with words without knowledge?
    Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me.
    “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand.
    Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
    Who stretched a measuring line across it?
    On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone— while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?
    “Who shut up the sea behind doors when it burst forth from the womb, when I made the clouds its garment and wrapped it in thick darkness,when I fixed limits for it and set its doors and bars in place, when I said, ‘This far you may come and no farther; here is where your proud waves halt’?
    “Have you ever given orders to the morning, or shown the dawn its place, that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it?
    The earth takes shape like clay under a seal; its features stand out like those of a garment.
    The wicked are denied their light, and their upraised arm is broken.
    “Have you journeyed to the springs of the sea or walked in the recesses of the deep?
    Have the gates of death been shown to you?
    Have you seen the gates of the deepest darkness?
    Have you comprehended the vast expanses of the earth?
    Tell me, if you know all this.

    “What is the way to the abode of light? And where does darkness reside? Can you take them to their places?
    Do you know the paths to their dwellings?
    Surely you know, for you were already born!
    You have lived so many years!
    “Have you entered the storehouses of the snow or seen the storehouses of the hail, which I reserve for times of trouble, for days of war and battle?
    What is the way to the place where the lightning is dispersed, or the place where the east winds are scattered over the earth?
    Who cuts a channel for the torrents of rain,and a path for the thunderstorm, to water a land where no one lives, an uninhabited desert, to satisfy a desolate wasteland and make it sprout with grass?
    Does the rain have a father?
    Who fathers the drops of dew?
    From whose womb comes the ice?
    Who gives birth to the frost from the heavens
    when the waters become hard as stone,
    when the surface of the deep is frozen?
    “Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades?
    Can you loosen Orion’s belt?
    Can you bring forth the constellations in their seasons
    or lead out the Beard with its cubs?
    Do you know the laws of the heavens?
    Can you set up God’s dominion over the earth?
    “Can you raise your voice to the clouds
    and cover yourself with a flood of water?
    Do you send the lightning bolts on their way?
    Do they report to you, ‘Here we are’?
    Who gives the ibis wisdom
    or gives the rooster understanding?
    Who has the wisdom to count the clouds? Who can tip over the water jars of the heavens when the dust becomes hard and the clods of earth stick together? “Do you hunt the prey for the lioness and satisfy the hunger of the lions when they crouch in their dens or lie in wait in a thicket? Who provides food for the raven when its young cry out to God and wander about for lack of food?

    __________________________

    No Seversky , I will not be so presumptuous as to tell you ” … how God did it.”
    Neither did Job.

  15. 15
    velikovskys says:

    Been busy, looks like KF has been too. Looks like I made it to the Hall of Shame
    KF:
    Folks, Should “design” now be expanded to mean what has always been held its very opposite — blind chance and equally blind mechanical necessity

    noun) a specification of an object, manifested by an agent, intended to accomplish goals, in a particular environment, using a set of primitive components, satisfying a set of requirements, subject to constraints;

    Except ID says the only thing it needs is the configuration of the object to detect if it is an intelligently directed configuration , you calculate the metric then if it exceeds ,it is intelligently directed . You don’t need knowledge of the agent, goal, environment , primitive components ,requirements beyond the metric, or know or o any knowledge if there are constraints or what they may be .All you really need is the object, its configuration

    In evolutionary theory one could argument you have a configuration, you have an agent (natural regularities, chemical etc ) ,environment ,primitive components, subject to constraints.

    The definition of design that ID seems to be using as operational is closer to these, IC studies the arrangement of elements.

    5 a : an underlying scheme that governs functioning, developing, or unfolding : pattern, motif

    ( one definition of pattern is
    : a natural or chance configuration )

    There is no mention that intelligence is required

    6 : the arrangement of elements or details in a product or work of art

    KF your definition reflects this ,design is an intelligently directed configuration. Not how intelligence directs anything.

    as in F = m*a so drop a guava and it reliably falls?

    As in the creation of configuration directed/ governed ( def : 1.
    guided, regulated, or managed) by natural regularities , a non intelligent directed configuration, Delicate Arch

    The creation of a design does not require a goal only a mechanism which results in the product. Now you could argue the non intelligence does not design in one sense, but since non intelligence governs/ directs configurations that would , at least ,make it a designer

    Would this not be a case of forcing a term to mean A AND NOT-A therefore, nothing at all? And, who would benefit from doing that to “design,” why? KF

    On the contrary, it is pointing out that words have different meanings, and changing between meanings midstream can be a rhetorical game. Just curious, what is the difference between ” blind chance” and chance?

    So it seems to me it is invalid to say there are two options, an intelligently directed configuration or undesigned. There is also a non intelligently directed configurations

  16. 16
    kairosfocus says:

    VS,

    design is something we experience and observe. It is intrinsically purposeful, goal directed and expresses itself in contrivance, that is there is a clear meaning to intelligently directed configuration; one we should not allow to be corrupted through 1984-style newspeak games.

    Often, products of design manifest characteristic observable features, e.g. as can be seen from (a) text in English, vs (b) sdsdsdsdsdsdsds . . . a repeating fixed pattern, or (c)rfkpve597yhxegov6e[‘sw7;lcwio . . . a toy example of an at-random string.

    The whole point of design theory as you full well know but wish to obfuscate [that design, too is evident], is that for cases of interest we need to have a reasonable warrant for assigning aspects and traces of the actual causal proces t1,t2, . . . Tn, to causal factors F1, F2, . . . Fm, per empirically credible signs that are based on demonstrated adequate and even characteristic causal patterns.

    Design often manifests signs such as FSCO/I, which on trillions of cases reliably traces to design. Thus, bearing in mind the needle in haystack search challenge that confronts the blind chance and/or necessity alternative, we are entitled to infer per best current empirically warranted explanation, that FSCO/I etc are markers of design.

    This has nothing to do with conveniently twisting, distorting and changing the meaning of design as intelligently directed configuration.

    Newspeak needs not apply, there is no vacancy here.

    And of course the sort of language pretzel games we are seeing actually reflect the basic fact that actually observed counter-examples of blind chance and mechanical necessity producing things like FSCO/I are . . . unsurprisingly, given the needle in haystack search challenge to such in the face of config spaces that start at 3.27*10^150 possibilities and go exponentially up . . . persistently missing.

    In short, they are markers of an inductively strong but ideologically utterly unwelcome argument confronting an entrenched school of thought, a priori evolutionary materialist scientism and its fellow travellers.

    KF

  17. 17
    velikovskys says:

    KF:
    design is something we experience and observe.

    Agreed

    It is intrinsically purposeful, goal directed and expresses itself in contrivance

    Nope, not according to the definition and not according to the way ID uses it.

    that is there is a clear meaning to intelligently directed configuration;

    True, but that doesn’t mean there is not a clear meaning to non intelligent directed configuration.

    one we should not allow to be corrupted through 1984-style newspeak games.

    Yes, nothing like using an actual definition to corrupt the meaning of a word

  18. 18
    kairosfocus says:

    VS, the act of design is inherently goal oriented. The entity that has been created obviously needs not be. The project of design theory is to detect empirical signs that certain entities are intelligently configured reliably on empirically warranted signs. However, kindly show us an observed process of design that has no direction . . . thus configuration towards a goal. KF

  19. 19
    velikovskys says:

    KF:

    VS, the act of design is inherently goal oriented

    Agreed , but an arrangement of elements of a product is not, that is design the noun

    The entity that has been created obviously needs not be.

    so design( noun) does not require a intelligent designer, seems close to my point

    The project of design theory is to detect empirical signs that certain entities are intelligently configured reliably on empirically warranted signs.

    I understand, that of course depends on a reliable and non simplistic theory of design and a reliable and non simplistic understanding of alternative explanations.

    However, kindly show us an observed process of design that has no direction
    A process that results in a design would seem to me to be a process of design with a goal.

    Off the top of my head maybe sex, the direction is often not to the creation of the resulting goal/design if am understanding your question. Designs often result from chance and mechanical necessities

    . . . thus configuration towards a goal. KF

  20. 20
    velikovskys says:

    That should be a process of design without a goal

  21. 21
    kairosfocus says:

    VS:

    This is now English and basic observables.

    Designer –> goal and technique [end and means] –> implementation — > resulting entity

    Entity –> observable characteristics –> signs

    Observer –> signs –> tests –> inductive warrant that signs are reliable

    Entity –> signs known to be reliable –> inference of design on sign

    KF

    PS: People do not design sex, but the processes involved do show intent heavily involved, as in say certain requisites of carrying out the act proper. (hence a tonic called front end lifter where I come from.)

Leave a Reply