That was an ancient philosophical world view:
There’s an assumption out there among many that a belief in design, as opposed to chance, as an explanation for everything we see around us is a religious claim that begins with the Bible.
But the truth is, people have been reasoning to the conclusion of intelligent design for millennia. One example of this is Cicero (106–43 BC), a Roman philosopher who wrote this in his On the Nature of the Gods: “Who would not deny the name of human being to a man who, on seeing the regular motions of the heaven and the fixed order of the stars and the accurate interconnection and interrelation of all things, can deny that these things possess any rational design, and can maintain that phenomena, the wisdom of whose ordering transcends the capacity of our wisdom to understand it, take place by chance? … ”
Amy K. Hall, “Intelligent Design Theory Is the Result of Reason, Not Dogma” at Stand to Reason
Pretty strong words. But from a classical perspective, seeing design was an act of reason and reason was the hallmark of humanity. The chief triumph of Darwinism is to make kinship with unreasoning creatures the hallmark of humanity. From there, it is a short step to seeing human consciousness as an illusion.
Science run by the raging Woke – who have no use for all this – will be, shall we say, an interesting place.
Studies establish that the design inference is ‘knee jerk’ inference that is built into everyone, especially including atheists, and that atheists have to mentally work suppressing their “knee jerk” design inference!
i.e. It is not that Atheists do not see purpose and/or Design in nature and biology, it is that Atheists, for whatever severely misguided reason, live in denial of the purpose and/or Design that they themselves see in nature. And yes, ‘denialism’ is considered a mental illness.
Perhaps the two most famous quotes of atheists suppressing their innate ‘design inference’ are the following two quotes:
Verse:
We recognize the appearance of design because it looks like things design and because we do not see it as the product of natural causes. That is the lesson of Paley’s watch. Even if we knew nothing about watches, we do not see shaped glass lenses, cogs, springs and levers made of refined metals growing on trees but we do see them as the products of human craft. Supposing, however, the walker in Paley’s parable had found something that looked like a crystal on the ground. Would he think it was a natural crystal or a piece of costume jewellery? Almost certainly he would not think it was a data storage device left behind by an extraterrestrial visitor to this planet even if that is actually what it was. The appearance of design is not the same as the existence of design. For the latter you need a credible candidate designer and a way to join the dots between the two.
seversky:
The appearance of design is more than enough to see if it was designed intentionally.
Pure nonsense. The DESIGN is evidence there at least was a credible candidate. THAT is how science operates. Only a scientifically illiterate loser thinks we have to have a candidate BEFORE determining design is real. We don’t even ask about a candidate until AFTER design is determined to exist.
It’s as if the opponents of ID are totally clueless when it comes to science. And they don’t care who knows.
“We recognize the appearance of design because it looks like things (we) design and because we do not see it as the product of natural causes.”
Bingo! Give that man a cookie!
Sev
And many of the things we design use what we see in nature as a guide. So the question is, what came first?
Those things in nature we use as a guide were intelligently designed.
Clearly the intelligent design we observe in nature came first. And it just so happens that we are part of that intelligent design observe in nature.
And to falsify the design inference all one has to o is step up and demonstrate nature is capable of doing it
ET @ 3
The opponents of ID are in a cult and unaware that they are in a cult. They feel they know science, yet hold everyone to a degree that they will never hold for themselves. In truth, they don’t care about science, since science does not support their dogmatic beliefs. They have no evidence to support evolution. Challenge 1000 Darwinists and you’ll get 1000 circular answers that don’t actually answer the most basic questions. There is nothing logical about evolution.
“And many of the things we design use what we see in nature as a guide”
BB,
Absolutely. You just answered your own question.
Now the next question is, when are you going to acknowledge reality?
Andrew