Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Recognizing design in nature as the standard for a reasonable person


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.

"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 asauber
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. BobRyan
And many of the things we design use what we see in nature as a guide.
Those things in nature we use as a guide were intelligently designed.
So the question is, what came first?
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.
"Thus, Behe concludes on the basis of our knowledge of present cause-and-effect relationships (in accord with the standard uniformitarian method employed in the historical sciences) that the molecular machines and complex systems we observe in cells can be best explained as the result of an intelligent cause. In brief, molecular motors appear designed because they were designed” Pg. 72 of Darwinism, Design and Public Education
And to falsify the design inference all one has to o is step up and demonstrate nature is capable of doing it ET
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.
And many of the things we design use what we see in nature as a guide. So the question is, what came first? Brother Brian
"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!
Map Of Major Metabolic Pathways In A Cell – Picture http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-AKkRRa65sIo/TlltZupczfI/AAAAAAAAE1s/nVSv_5HRpZg/s1600/pathway-1b.png
The appearance of design is not the same as the existence of design.
The appearance of design is more than enough to see if it was designed intentionally.
For the latter you need a credible candidate designer and a way to join the dots between the two.
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. ET
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
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!
Is Atheism a Delusion? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ii-bsrHB0o Design Thinking Is Hardwired in the Human Brain. How Come? - October 17, 2012 Excerpt: "Even Professional Scientists Are Compelled to See Purpose in Nature, Psychologists Find." The article describes a test by Boston University's psychology department, in which researchers found that "despite years of scientific training, even professional chemists, geologists, and physicists from major universities such as Harvard, MIT, and Yale cannot escape a deep-seated belief that natural phenomena exist for a purpose" ,,, Most interesting, though, are the questions begged by this research. One is whether it is even possible to purge teleology from explanation. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/design_thinking065381.html Richard Dawkins take heed: Even atheists instinctively believe in a creator says study - Mary Papenfuss - June 12, 2015 Excerpt: Three studies at Boston University found that even among atheists, the "knee jerk" reaction to natural phenomenon is the belief that they're purposefully designed by some intelligence, according to a report on the research in Cognition entitled the "Divided Mind of a disbeliever." The findings "suggest that there is a deeply rooted natural tendency to view nature as designed," writes a research team led by Elisa Järnefelt of Newman University. They also provide evidence that, in the researchers' words, "religious non-belief is cognitively effortful." Researchers attempted to plug into the automatic or "default" human brain by showing subjects images of natural landscapes and things made by human beings, then requiring lightning-fast responses to the question on whether "any being purposefully made the thing in the picture," notes Pacific-Standard. "Religious participants' baseline tendency to endorse nature as purposefully created was higher" than that of atheists, the study found. But non-religious participants "increasingly defaulted to understanding natural phenomena as purposefully made" when "they did not have time to censor their thinking," wrote the researchers. The results suggest that "the tendency to construe both living and non-living nature as intentionally made derives from automatic cognitive processes, not just practised explicit beliefs," the report concluded. The results were similar even among subjects from Finland, where atheism is not a controversial issue as it can be in the US. "Design-based intuitions run deep," the researchers conclude, "persisting even in those with no explicit religious commitment and, indeed, even among those with an active aversion to them." http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/richard-dawkins-take-heed-even-atheists-instinctively-believe-creator-says-study-1505712
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.
In the psychology of human behavior, denialism is a person's choice to deny reality, as a way to avoid a psychologically uncomfortable truth. Denialism - Wikipedia
Perhaps the two most famous quotes of atheists suppressing their innate ‘design inference’ are the following two quotes:
“Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning.” Richard Dawkins – “The Blind Watchmaker” – 1986 – page 21 “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.” Francis Crick – What Mad Pursuit Natural Selection is grossly inadequate as a 'designer substitute'. ..DNA screams that it is Intelligently Designed https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/evolution-if-mental-illness-helped-us-adapt-michael-behe-is-right/#comment-673732
Romans 1:19-20 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

Leave a Reply