Recognizing Design is to the Engineer, as Seafaring is to the Seaman

_{Emily Morales

January 5, 2020

Intelligent Design}

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

by Emily Morales

January 5th, 2020

Some months back, Norwegian ship-owner and engineer Einar Johan Rasmussen stirred up some controversy with a 1.6 million dollar contribution to the intelligent design organization BioCosmos. BioCosmos is calling for a more open debate on the power of materialistic processes in generating a highly ordered and fine-tuned universe, and life itself.

As expected, the usual cast of characters expressed their discontent: Martin Jacobsen, theologian at Ansgar Theological College remarked that naturalists are best suited to tell us about nature; and theologians, about God. I think most would concur. Might we further this brilliant line of thinking, acknowledging that engineers (such as Mr. Rasmussen) are supremely qualified to tell us about designed and engineered systems? For more on this story and a rationale as to why the billionaire philanthropist has the ideal credentials to opine on designed systems, check out the article below:

https://salvomag.com/post/in-defense-of-the-multi-billionaire-engineer

Having grown up in a family of engineers, and being an instructional designer myself in the sciences, there is something to be said for having the innate ability, and training for recognizing systems that are designed, as opposed to structures lacking design. Now note, that I did not say, “as opposed to systems lacking design,” because the term “system” denotes something that is highly ordered. Whenever any of us encounters something that is highly organized, we correctly assume there was a designing intelligence behind it – at least this is the assumption of reasonable people.

Even very small children have the capacity to recognize that highly organized systems are designed. Instinctively they know that sentient beings design and build complex things, which is why it is particularly challenging to teach them at a young age that purely materialistic processes gave rise to them! The language you need to use to teach them this is awkward. Little kids also do not readily receive this to the chagrin of many in contemporary science education; rather, children intuitively know that someone made them.

Comments

Where on earth did Dawkins gt his 'blind watchmaker' from in the first place ? I mean, what carzy fantasy. Surely, utterly gratuitous.Axel_{February 5, 2020
February
02
Feb
5
05
2020
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT}

PK : 'And having worked with DNA for his entire career, what has Larry Moran concluded about it’s origins?' Best not to stick your head above the parapet ? To adapt a well-known saw among pilots : 'There are old materialists...... and there are bold materialists. But there are no old, bold materialists.' (or perhaps, few, if any old, bold materialists enjoying tenure).Axel_{February 5, 2020
February
02
Feb
5
05
2020
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT}

John_a_designer 'If something appears to be designed isn’t it logically possible it really could be designed?' Oh, don't say you're evoking a match with rotten, old empirical observation/measurement ! What's the matter with non-scientiic, anecdotal kind of observation, eh ? That way wot you see's got nuffink to do wiv empirical stuff and all.Axel_{February 5, 2020
February
02
Feb
5
05
2020
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT}

Martin_r, your posts, 4 and 8 are wonderful. Sev. is quite artless much of the time, isn't he ? Imagine wanting to dispense with prioritising the relevant significance of various facts, in favour of providing a 'balance' ! Presumably numerical !Axel_{February 5, 2020
February
02
Feb
5
05
2020
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT}

Emily, 'God bless Antony Flew for having the willingness to embrace truth at great risk to his standing in the atheist community.' And I think it was some truly-ineluctable inference, such as the 'fine-tuning' of the universe' that he was reminded of, as he heard a reference to it, while passing a lecture hall, that prompted him to decide he could he could no longer ignore it's claim.Axel_{February 5, 2020
February
02
Feb
5
05
2020
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT}

Yes, this is a brilliant thread, Emily. How is it even possible to shoot fish in a barrel with panache.... but it's happening here. OK, maybe just side-splitting humour.Axel_{February 5, 2020
February
02
Feb
5
05
2020
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT}

UBP
SA, I did not respond to this because it is just so deeply nonsensical that it is hard to know where to start. Under this logic, Chinese readers not understanding the interpretants of Spanish text is reason to wonder if information is information.
I was surprised by it and had a hard time responding also. Seversky has been active in discussions here for some years by now and to make a response like that? I don't know. I don't get it.Silver Asiatic_{January 13, 2020
January
01
Jan
13
13
2020
05:20 AM
5
05
20
AM
PDT}

.
Only if you are using different meanings of the word “information”. You and I could look at a strand of DNA under a microscope and not even know what it was, let alone whether it contained any “information”. Yet I have just read the string of letters in the paragraph I quoted and derived a great deal of information from it.
SA, I did not respond to this because it is just so deeply nonsensical that it is hard to know where to start. Under this logic, Chinese readers not understanding the interpretants of Spanish text is reason to wonder if information is information. This is a prime example of the dullness that must be taken on in the effort to deny physical evidence and the documented history of science.Upright BiPed_{January 12, 2020
January
01
Jan
12
12
2020
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT}

Seversky
Only if you are using different meanings of the word “information”. You and I could look at a strand of DNA under a microscope and not even know what it was, let alone whether it contained any “information”. Yet I have just read the string of letters in the paragraph I quoted and derived a great deal of information from it. It looks like “information” is not a simple, unitary concept.
I'd refer you to Upright BiPed here -- but as importantly, the consensus view I find in journals and papers is that the cell contains actual information that operates in a system - codes are communicated and transmitted via DNA and RNA through the cell and specific and variable actions are carried out as a result. Most researchers I have seen call this providing "instructions" for the building of proteins among other things. "Instructions" being another term for "information".Silver Asiatic_{January 12, 2020
January
01
Jan
12
12
2020
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT}

Seversky
I thought we just agreed that the inference to design from the lack of a known causal pathway is not strong.
We agreed that there might not be any other possible natural causal pathways to find. We could search forever and never find one. 1. The feature looks like it was designed by intelligence 2. We test natural causes and we cannot recreate the feature 3. We know that we may never find any other natural causal pathways 4. We know that intelligence can create similar things 5. Therefore, one inference is stronger than another
And the burden of proof requires that ID presents compelling arguments and evidence to establish its case in the first instance – if it is concerned with persuading an audience, that is.
When something appears to be designed, the burden of proof lies with the non-design proposal.
I have always held that neither ID nor God can be absolutely ruled out. We have neither the knowledge nor the means to do either at the moment.
We have two competing proposals. We can compare the evidence for both and arrive at the best inference we have with the data and understanding we have thus far.
As far as I’m concerned, we are far from being able to rule out ID or God conclusively ... For the time being, we’ll just have to live with our ignorance.
If you're unwilling to assert that one of the proposals is a better inference, then you're saying that the evidence is equal for both. One inference is not more well-supported than the other. In that case, I'd expect that evidence for God would receive equal study and consideration as that of natural causes.Silver Asiatic_{January 12, 2020
January
01
Jan
12
12
2020
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT}

Information has been defined. seversky can ignore reality but he definitely doesn't speak for it.ET_{January 11, 2020
January
01
Jan
11
11
2020
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT}

seversky:
We cannot imagine how something so complex could have emerged through naturalistic processes and it looks a bit like things we design.
Imagination isn't science. And apparently you don't even have that.
Except our knowledge and powers are far too limited at this stage for this to mean much.
Speak for yourself. We have accomplished a great many things with our alleged limited knowledge.
As far as I’m concerned, we are far from being able to rule out ID or God conclusively but ID proponents and theists are just as far from being able to provide compelling arguments and evidence for their beliefs.
You don't even understand our arguments. And you definitely don't understand the evidenceET_{January 11, 2020
January
01
Jan
11
11
2020
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic @ 53
1. The biological feature does not look like it was produced by a blind-mindless naturalistic cause
We cannot imagine how something so complex could have emerged through naturalistic processes and it looks a bit like things we design.
2. We test and cannot produce the feature through natural processes.
Except our knowledge and powers are far too limited at this stage for this to mean much. The best scientists and engineers from the year 1020 could probably not even imagine, let alone comprehend, what scientists and engineers from 2020 know and can do. And we have no idea what the scientists and engineers of 3020 or 4020 will know and be able to do.
3. Therefore, we conclude that it was, indeed, produced by naturalistic causes and we will continue to insist on this forever since we can always imagine some as-yet unknown naturalistic cause that produced the feature. That is an absurd and irrational conclusion.
That's why it is not my conclusion. As far as I'm concerned, we are far from being able to rule out ID or God conclusively but ID proponents and theists are just as far from being able to provide compelling arguments and evidence for their beliefs. For the time being, we'll just have to live with our ignorance.Seversky_{January 11, 2020
January
01
Jan
11
11
2020
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic @ 52
This is an impossible standard. We can never arrive at a point where we know all possible naturalistic causal pathways.
Whether or not it's an impossible standard, the fact is that there is an awful lot about the natural world that we do not yet know so we are simply not in a position to infer design from the lack of a known natural causal pathway.
So, the biological feature looks like it was designed. In fact, it is more sophisticated than what humans can design. It is not the sort of thing that we ever see emerging from blind, mindless naturalistic effects. There might be some possible naturalistic pathway.
Exactly.
But the Inference to Intelligent Design, at this moment in time, is strong. It has not been refuted by evidence and the inference is logical and rational.
I thought we just agreed that the inference to design from the lack of a known causal pathway is not strong. And the burden of proof requires that ID presents compelling arguments and evidence to establish its case in the first instance - if it is concerned with persuading an audience, that is.
That conclusion, point #4 above, is the best answer we have. Design has not been ruled out by evidence. Some naturalistic explanation might be found, but until then, our best understanding tells us it was designed by intelligence. That can be overruled when we find a naturalistic cause.
I have always held that neither ID nor God can be absolutely ruled out. We have neither the knowledge nor the means to do either at the moment. I also have no problem with the possibility that some sort of extra-terrestrial intelligence seeded or at least had a hand in the development of life on Earth. But I haven't seen any compelling evidence of either so far. Neither does it help on the question of ultimate origins since it only pushes the question back one stage. We can still ask about the origins of the aliens.
Also, rather than look at the comparison of cell to factory, we could look at the information processing system within the cell and compare it with other such systems. In that case, the cell process is not an analogy of an information system, but is merely another system that communicates and processes information.
Only if you are using different meanings of the word "information". You and I could look at a strand of DNA under a microscope and not even know what it was, let alone whether it contained any "information". Yet I have just read the string of letters in the paragraph I quoted and derived a great deal of information from it. It looks like "information" is not a simple, unitary concept.Seversky_{January 11, 2020
January
01
Jan
11
11
2020
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT}

EugeneS @ 49
Yes, a truly balanced account will recognise that living systems are immensely more complex than the most functionally complex things humans are able to create nowadays. That’s for sure.
Agreed. Can we also agree that, if living things were designed, it was by a being or beings far more complex and with access to far more information than we have?Seversky_{January 11, 2020
January
01
Jan
11
11
2020
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT}

Is it true that James Tour did not accept Nick Matzke’s offer to meet because the condition to record the meeting was unacceptable to Dr Tour?PavelU_{January 10, 2020
January
01
Jan
10
10
2020
04:41 PM
4
04
41
PM
PDT}

UBP
We all know that Seversky’s beef is not science; its anti-religion. But it never seems to occur to him that the discovery of biological design on earth is not completely incompatible with his atheism; its just that by acknowledging that fact, he would forfeit the thrill of coming here on a daily basis to exercise his need and desire to tell theists that they’re full of it.
It's a fascinating insight. Yes, that is true. A person can accept the findings of ID and remain an atheist. That would solve a lot of problems - it would avoid some of the ugly contradictions that non-ID materialism offers. So why not? But an anti-religious incentive would be a driver of opposition to ID, even when that opposition is not needed. People can develop a hatred for religion through various causes. It can be understandable in some cases. A person who was abused by a religious teacher, for example, might have a hatred for religion in general. The opposition to religion is then transferred to a hatred of God, since He is the object of religion. Then all of the pro-atheist, materialist arguments end up being a smoke-screen to cover the underlying hatred of religion.Silver Asiatic_{January 10, 2020
January
01
Jan
10
10
2020
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT}

. Yes, SA … Seversky’s great rejoinder above very neatly shields his position from falsification forever and ever and ever. I suppose that’s why he is so fond of it, but oh what a sight – Mr. Scienceman happily ejects the standards of science in order to spare his worldview from the intellectual impediments brought on by empirical observation. The problem for Sev (of which there are many) is that the hapless selling of his worldview doesn’t just happen in a vacuum. It’s not 1859. In 2020, we know a few things that have been discovered along the way. It is no surprise whatsoever that it is precisely those things that Sev simply cannot raise himself to acknowledge. In any case, he is certainly an intelligent enough gentleman to see that his comment above renders materialism a non-falsifiable proposition (and thus non-scientific on top of being unsupported and irrational). He simply chooses it among the alternatives. We all know that Seversky's beef is not science; its anti-religion. But it never seems to occur to him that the discovery of biological design on earth is not completely incompatible with his atheism; its just that by acknowledging that fact, he would forfeit the thrill of coming here on a daily basis to exercise his need and desire to tell theists that they're full of it. If the old adage that "people do what profits them" is true, then apparently Seversky profits more from the exercise than he would from actually having a scientifically-integrated worldview.Upright BiPed_{January 9, 2020
January
01
Jan
9
09
2020
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT}

Notice how our interlocutors keep using the same fallacious kind of reasoning:
Either X or Y could be true (Seversky*) believes Y Therefore, Y is true. In other words, (Seversky) believes it. That settles it.
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/faith-even-mathematics-depends-on-some-unprovable-assumptions/#comment-690671 [*Notice how you can just substitute any of our other interlocutors on almost any ID related subject into the above “argument.” As I have complained here many times before: these people DO NOT understand basic logic.] An argument which is only an argument about a personal opinion is not really an argument, it’s only being pointlessly argumentative. The objective of any logical argument is to establish the truth. Doubling down on one’s personal beliefs doesn’t move the ball in either direction. It is nothing more than a self-serving combination of hubris and dogmatism.john_a_designer_{January 9, 2020
January
01
Jan
9
09
2020
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT}

Something went wrong with posting my comment @54 that got repeated @55. The comment @55 doesn't show the "Click to Edit" or "Request Deletion" links. That's really weird. No idea what went wrong. Any clues?jawa_{January 9, 2020
January
01
Jan
9
09
2020
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT}

Martin_r @50 & 51: I like your comments. Well written!jawa_{January 9, 2020
January
01
Jan
9
09
2020
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT}

1. The biological feature does not look like it was produced by a blind-mindless naturalistic cause 2. We test and cannot produce the feature through natural processes. 3. Therefore, we conclude that it was, indeed, produced by naturalistic causes and we will continue to insist on this forever since we can always imagine some as-yet unknown naturalistic cause that produced the feature. That is an absurd and irrational conclusion.Silver Asiatic_{January 9, 2020
January
01
Jan
9
09
2020
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT}

Seversky
That argument might work if we knew all possible naturalistic causal pathways and were able to exclude them but we simply don’t know enough at this point to be able to say that,
This is an impossible standard. We can never arrive at a point where we know all possible naturalistic causal pathways. For example, how many more pathways are there to know right now? We search and might discover new pathways. However, we may have discovered all of them already, So, the biological feature looks like it was designed. In fact, it is more sophisticated than what humans can design. It is not the sort of thing that we ever see emerging from blind, mindless naturalistic effects. There might be some possible naturalistic pathway. But the Inference to Intelligent Design, at this moment in time, is strong. It has not been refuted by evidence and the inference is logical and rational. 1. The feature looks like something that has been designed (it resembles other designed things) 2. We have tested and have not found a naturalistic mechanism that can create it. 3. There might possibly be a naturalistic explanation, but we do not have it presently. 4. Therefore, with all of our knowledge currently, the best explanation is that the feature was designed by intelligence. That conclusion, point #4 above, is the best answer we have. Design has not been ruled out by evidence. Some naturalistic explanation might be found, but until then, our best understanding tells us it was designed by intelligence. That can be overruled when we find a naturalistic cause. The reasoning process must work that way. We have the appearance of design and failed tests for non-design. We can continue to test for an indefinite period of time, but meanwhile, design is the explanation.
Although there may be processes taking place in a cell that may be analogous to those happening in a factory, the latter is made of things like bricks, concrete, glass and steel, is thousands of times bigger and is unable to replicate itself.
Yes, it is unable to replicate itself. One reason we give the analogy of a cell with a factory is to show the cell's comparison with a designed function (factory). However, the cell is more sophisticated than the factory. This only means that it is less likely that the cell was created by a blind, mindless process and more likely that it is the result of design. Also, rather than look at the comparison of cell to factory, we could look at the information processing system within the cell and compare it with other such systems. In that case, the cell process is not an analogy of an information system, but is merely another system that communicates and processes information.Silver Asiatic_{January 9, 2020
January
01
Jan
9
09
2020
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT}

seversky @46 as to HUMAN GENETIC DISORDERS.... so what ? human genome is degrading...no evolution, devolution.... it is degrading like everything else on earth... but i agree with you, the DNA proofreading /repair is not 100% efficient. But, are you really suggesting, it is a bad design ? :))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) Meanwhile, there are about 6 billions people on Earth, human population is increasing... i don't see any bad or inefficient design... it works pretty good ... DNA proofreading / repair is an undeniable and ultimate proof of designed cell / life, don't matter what Seversky, biologists, archeologists, paleontologists say... Seversky, i know, you and Dawkins, you can design much better DNA proofreading / repair system :)))) I bet that you and Dawkins would design a better human eye, with no blind spot in it... right ? :)))))) Seversky, by the way, you have provided a very long list of genetic disorders (lethal mutations)... i am aware of 6000 genetic disorders, and counting.... could you please provide a similar VERY LONG list with so called beneficial mutations ? i can't wait.... p.s. Seversky, you wrote: "Why design something using materials and processes that mean it will inevitably mutate" Seversky, what materials/ technology would you (and Dawkins) use, so it does not degrade and stays intact for hundreds of millions of years (did you hear of living fossils) ... please enlighten me ...martin_r_{January 9, 2020
January
01
Jan
9
09
2020
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT}

seversky @46 you see? that is why i was asking WHAT IS YOUR EDUCATION ... you are so confused... but i debated lots of people like you, now i am patient with people like you, i used to be very rude... BIRDS AND BEES perfect! at least you admit that birds and bees are autonomous self-navigating flying systems... that is a big progress.... most atheists i have debated deny even that fact So once again - you agree with me, that birds and bees are autonomous self-navigating flying systems with GPS-level-navigation-accuracy, but, in 21st century, you decided to believe in a theory developed by natural science graduates (biologists), an absurd theory, claiming that autonomous self-navigating flying systems can design from zero with no help from engineers, molecules somehow mixed, and few millions years later we are looking at SOPHISTICATED autonomous flying systems with GPS-level-navigation-accuracy ... is that so ? And, no engineer was needed .... Seversky, how does that sound in 21st century ? You really believe this non-sense or you just came here to do harm ? Seversky, lets close all technical universities, worldwide, and lets send all future aerial engineers to evolutionary biology classes ... Biology professors around the world will teach them, how to design autonomous self-navigating flying systems ... i think, that biology professors can show us how to save billions of dollars, because, this way, no very expensive satellites will be needed (right now there are about 33 GPS satellites orbiting the Earth - worth billions of dollars, not to mention the expenses for the maintenance of the satellites )martin_r_{January 9, 2020
January
01
Jan
9
09
2020
05:27 AM
5
05
27
AM
PDT}

===A balanced account weighs both the similarities and the difference.=== Yes, a truly balanced account will recognise that living systems are immensely more complex than the most functionally complex things humans are able to create nowadays. That's for sure.EugeneS_{January 9, 2020
January
01
Jan
9
09
2020
05:09 AM
5
05
09
AM
PDT}

.
if we knew all possible naturalistic causal pathways and were able to exclude them
Seversky’s once again drags out his Great Hail Mary. It serves as both his first and his last line of defense against reality; against acquired knowledge and systematic observation – perhaps the most unscientific and anti-intellectual position possible.Upright BiPed_{January 8, 2020
January
01
Jan
8
08
2020
11:28 PM
11
11
28
PM
PDT}

seversky:
Why design something using materials and processes that mean it will inevitably mutate far from the original design in a few million generations?
Question-begging. How "far", seversky? Airplanes evolve by means of design They have changed quite a bit over the last century- by means of designed change and replication. And again, if seversky, et al., had something beyond whining about the design inference, it could be presented and discussed.ET_{January 8, 2020
January
01
Jan
8
08
2020
05:43 PM
5
05
43
PM
PDT}

Martin_r@ 8
Did you want to say, that autonomous self-navigating flying systems can design with no help from an engineer ? This is what you seriously claim in 21st century ?
Have you looked at birds or bees recently?
IN EVERY SPECIES, THERE ARE MULTIPLE LAYERS OF DESIGN !!!! THE ULTIMATE PROOF OF SPECIES-DESIGN ARE VARIOUS REPAIR PROCESSES… WE SEE IT EVERYWHERE…. EVEN DNA MOLECULE GETS REPAIRED IN VARIOUS WAYS (depends on the type of damage, some DNA repair processes are backed up, when first fails, the second will make sure it finally gets repaired)
Here are a few human genetic disorders: Angelman syndrome Canavan disease Charcot–Marie–Tooth disease Color blindness Cri du chat syndrome Cystic fibrosis DiGeorge syndrome Down syndrome Duchenne muscular dystrophy Familial hypercholesterolemia Haemochromatosis Hemophilia Klinefelter syndrome Neurofibromatosis Phenylketonuria Polycystic kidney disease Prader–Willi syndrome Sickle cell disease Spinal muscular atrophy Tay–Sachs disease Turner syndrome There are many more. Yes, there are self-repair mechanisms in the genome but they are far from perfect
YES, OBVIOUSLY, THE MAIN PHILOSOPHY WAS THE SELF-REPLICATION !!! SO YOU CAN SUSTAIN THE LIFE… BECAUSE SPECIES GET KILLED AND EATEN :))) DID YOU NOTICE ? :)))
Why? Self-replication for what purpose? Why design something using materials and processes that mean it will inevitably mutate far from the original design in a few million generations? Did Being engineers design the 737-300 to see what it would change into? No, of course not. They wanted the aircraft to perform exactly as it was designed to perform over its whole life-cycle.Seversky_{January 8, 2020
January
01
Jan
8
08
2020
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply