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

_{Emily Morales
January 5, 2020

Intelligent Design

2}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; 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

PK
DNA has some attributes that some people liken to “code” or “language”.
Who claims that DNA is not code? You?Silver Asiatic_{January 7, 2020
January
01
Jan
7
07
2020
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PST}

Just because one fossil looks like another one does not mean that one evolved from the other.Silver Asiatic_{January 7, 2020
January
01
Jan
7
07
2020
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PST}

DNA has some attributes that some people liken to "code" or "language". It has many properties that differ from codes and languages that were created by humans. Inferring that DNA came about by design is another Bad Analogy fallacy.Pater Kimbridge_{January 7, 2020
January
01
Jan
7
07
2020
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PST}

I agree with Seversky that the design inference is what is called a Bad Analogy Fallacy. Just because automobiles and living beings share some attributes (complexity, function), it does not follow that they share all attributes (that they were both designed) Just because a grapefruit is round and yellow, and the sun is round and yellow, it is not reasonable to conclude that the grapefruit must be very hot and have a nuclear fusion reactor at its center.Pater Kimbridge_{January 7, 2020
January
01
Jan
7
07
2020
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PST}

seversky:
The case for the appearance of design in nature is essentially argument by analogy,...
Wrong. It's an argument from knowledge of cause-and-effect relationships. Analogies help make that case. And look, it STILL remains that to refute any given design inference all YOU have to do is actually step up and demonstrate that blind and mindless processes can produce it. Your whining isn't enough.ET_{January 7, 2020
January
01
Jan
7
07
2020
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PST}

Codes, Pater. The experiments prove that the codes that rule biology are real codes.ET_{January 7, 2020
January
01
Jan
7
07
2020
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PST}

@Upright BiPed #6 Please elaborate on these "experimental confirmations".. What experiments? What did they confirm?Pater Kimbridge_{January 7, 2020
January
01
Jan
7
07
2020
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PST}

seversky @5 i hate wasting time with people like you, but in some way, you atheists are very amusing ... Seversky, what did you want to say ? 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 ? did you read my post @4 carefully ? read it slowly, once again... 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) LIKE I SAID, IF YOU WANT TO REPAIR SOMETHING, FIRST OF ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW THAT IT IS BROKEN, THEN YOU NEED TO KNOW WHERE IT IS BROKEN AND HOW TO REPAIR IT, WHAT 'TOOLS' and 'MATERIALS / PARTS' to use to have it repaired ... AND, IN MOST CASES, YOU NEED A REPAIR-GUY= AN ENGINEER ... IT WON'T GET REPAIRED WITHOUT ANY INTERVENTION ... WHEN YOU GENIUSES WILL GET IT ??? WHEN WE ENGINEER SPEAK ABOUT DESIGN, WE DON'T ONLY MEAN THE PHYSICAL APPEARANCE OF THE SPECIES.... sure, this is also important, all nature species are so beautiful.... but, in nature, the most sophisticated design is the one you can't see (the development) .... see my post @4, layer #2 By the way, i have to agree with you on this: you said: " If life on Earth was the product of design, it was to a very different philosophy from that of human design" AGREED !!! AGREED !!! AGREED !!! YOU FINALLY GOT IT !!! KEYWORD: SELF-REPLICATION YES, OBVIOUSLY, THE MAIN PHILOSOPHY WAS THE SELF-REPLICATION !!! SO YOU CAN SUSTAIN THE LIFE... BECAUSE SPECIES GET KILLED AND EATEN :))) DID YOU NOTICE ? :))) Seversky, please tell me, you think that to replicate a human, is this a simple feat ? (Some species - living fossils - were replicated for hundreds of millions of years !!! Flawlessly !!! and still are !!! THIS IS AN ENGINEERING SCI-FI) Seversky, please tell us... what is your education ? ( If you are not educated enough, no wonder you can believe in anything, in any stupidity, in any absurdity... )martin_r_{January 7, 2020
January
01
Jan
7
07
2020
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PST}

Seversky
The case for the appearance of design in nature is essentially argument by analogy, a biological feature looks a bit like something we design, therefore it was probably designed.
It goes beyond this. We can actually test the case for design by attempting to create the biological feature using simulations of natural processes. If this fails, then the biological feature not only looks like design, but thus far the only way we can recreate it is through a design process.
Except that while a cell, in some ways, can be likened to a factory, for example, it other ways it is very different. An eye is a bit like a digital camera in some ways but in others it is very different. A balanced account weighs both the similarities and the difference. That doesn’t matter in the case of ID advocacy, of course.
Where has this kind of "balanced account" been offered in evolutionary research? Show how a cell is like a designed object and even far more sophisticated than what we design, then tell us how it is like an object created by random mutations. Then weigh the differences and conclude on which is the stronger proposition, design or chance? Is that the way evolutionary research works?
If life on Earth was the product of design, it was to a very different philosophy from that of human design
That may be the case, but the work of biomimetics indicates that we can learn a lot from the philosophy of design that we find on earth.Silver Asiatic_{January 7, 2020
January
01
Jan
7
07
2020
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PST}

. So... just ignore the symbol system, eh Sev? Ignore the predictions, ignore the experimental confirmations, ignore the physics, ignore the logic, ignore the history; ignore it all. Yup. (You can't even speak the words)Upright BiPed_{January 7, 2020
January
01
Jan
7
07
2020
04:31 AM
4
04
31
AM
PST}

We infer design for two basic reasons: we do not observe the object to appear in nature through natural processes and it looks like things we design. The case for the appearance of design in nature is essentially argument by analogy, a biological feature looks a bit like something we design, therefore it was probably designed. Except that while a cell, in some ways, can be likened to a factory, for example, it other ways it is very different. An eye is a bit like a digital camera in some ways but in others it is very different. A balanced account weighs both the similarities and the difference. That doesn't matter in the case of ID advocacy, of course. As for the criticism of science by engineers, it should be noted that while scientist routinely deal with the unknown and uncertainty, those are both anathema to engineers. When Boeing or Airbus engineers design a new aircraft they are going to use materials and components whose properties are known to the 'nth' degree and are of the highest possible reliability. Thousands of lives and billions of dollars are on the line so they daren't take chances. Even a small mistake can be catastrophic. They are not going to specify an alloy for the skin of a wing that might unexpectedly mutate into rubber or fit turbofans that could change into piston engines at any moment. If life on Earth was the product of design, it was to a very different philosophy from that of human designSeversky_{January 7, 2020
January
01
Jan
7
07
2020
03:52 AM
3
03
52
AM
PST}

some of you already noticed, that i am a mechanical engineer (Europe) so, i couldn't resist to post here. I am not sure, if in 21st century science is something more absurd than the Darwinian evolutionary theory ... Darwinian evolutionary theory is absurd in the highest possible degree (like Darwin would say)... Absurd, absurd, absurd !!! There is a group of scientists - biologists - natural science graduates, who are in 21st century dead-serious about their theory, that autonomous, self-navigating flying systems somehow designed with no help from engineers, and then, somehow assembled, again, with no-help from engineers. Whats sounds even more crazy, they claim, this miracle happened not once, but multiple times repeatedly and independently (e.g. birds, insects, flying dinosaurs, mammals) Most lay people including most biologists just don't realize, that there are multiple layers of design when we look at a spieces. layer #1: the design of the species itself (e.g. wings geometry so it can fly, body shape so it can fly, the proper weight, so it can fly, the frequency of wing flap, so it can fly, or the trajectory of the wing flap, so it can fly .... and so on....) layer #2: the design of the species-assembly process (a biologist calls it 'a development'). It may sounds surprising, but there are no assembly-workers or parts-suppliers who assemble the species so it can fly ... the assemble-process is fully automated (it is an engineering SCI-FI), all needful parts and proper materials are made by the cell ... layer #3: the chemical design of the proper materials. Most of lay people don't realize it, but for example - a simple bone is made of a hi-tech material. This foamy material is very strong, and lightweight... and, the cell is producing this hi-tech material at the body temperature....again, it is an engineering SCI-FI..... could someone give me an example of a high-tech material which is produced by a body temperature ? Of course, there are many other layers of design, e.g. the design of many auto-repair processes, almost everything gets repaired or recycled ... (skin, eyes, bones, i don't know, a biologist would tell you more). If you wan't to repair something, YOU NEED AN ENGINEER ... YOU NEED TO KNOW WHAT TO REPAIR, WHEN AND HOW .... So, again, all biologists who BELIEVE in evolutionary theory should see the doctor.... especially in 21st century.... biologists - natural science graduates - who never made anything.... p.s. hey, biologists, i have a news for you - any evidence you have to support your absurd theory, you just misinterpreting it.... so simple it is .. your theory is absurd in the highest possible degree and many of you already know that ....martin_r_{January 7, 2020
January
01
Jan
7
07
2020
12:29 AM
12
12
29
AM
PST}

I think for folks like Dawkins there is a huge stakeholder interest as well. He will never relinquish his position as a Darwin adherent because it would cost him prestige, future opportunities to debate, and maybe future books. God bless Antony Flew for having the willingness to embrace truth at great risk to his standing in the atheist community. Darwinism from a macroscopic perspective seems very tenable - and the macroscopic view is really the one that people trained in zoology/ botany disciplines of old may have taken. The molecular data however turns all this on its head, and that's what Flew recognized.Emily Morales_{January 6, 2020
January
01
Jan
6
06
2020
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PST}

Engineers are required to have physical experience as part of their training. They design and build lots of bridges or computers before they can get a degree. That's why they understand nature. Books and lectures can lie, but nature doesn't lie. By the same standard, theologians are NOT qualified to talk about God. Some of them may incidentally have experience with God, but it's not part of their curriculum. Who is qualified? Mystics and Pentecostals who are constantly in direct communication with God.polistra_{January 5, 2020
January
01
Jan
5
05
2020
11:48 PM
11
11
48
PM
PST}

It's interesting to note the demand for those who believe in ID have backgrounds in biology and nothing else will do. Richard Dawkins went to Oxford and every degree he has, including his doctorate, is in zoology. He is not a biologist and by the standards of the Darwinists, he has no say over the matter. That would require Darwinists to have standards, but they don't. Engineers are closer to being biologists than zoologists will ever be.BobRyan_{January 5, 2020
January
01
Jan
5
05
2020
11:18 PM
11
11
18
PM
PST}

Prev 1 2 3

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply