Intelligent Design

What a Simple Kirigami Star Can Reveal About Nature’s Own Form of the Ancient Craft

Spread the love

Emily Morales

January 17, 2020

Even with just ten steps, there are countless ways to fail in making a kirigami star. Embryogenesis – natures complex expression of kirigami, and being possessed of literally thousands of steps, yields an unlimited number of possibilities for failure!

While most concede that kirigami is carried out by intelligent agents, they would argue that the folding, creasing, snipping and tucking that occurs during embryogenesis is the consequence of undirected, materialistic processes – no intelligent agent required.

https://salvomag.com/post/folding-creasing-snipping-amp-tucking

4 Replies to “What a Simple Kirigami Star Can Reveal About Nature’s Own Form of the Ancient Craft

  1. 1
    Seversky says:

    Here’s a general question for ID proponents: suppose we found compelling evidence that an extraterrestrial intelligence had influenced the development of life on Earth, possibly even seeding the planet with it, would that be sufficient for you, even though it fell short of being evidence for the existence of your God?

  2. 2
    ET says:

    That has always been sufficient for ID, seversky.

  3. 3
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Seversky

    It’s a tough question. For “Biological ID”, strictly speaking, that’s enough to validate the theory. Life would have been influenced or seeded by “intelligence” – a designer or designers. That was the proposal and the evidence would confirm it.

    For “Cosmological ID” the question is still open because the alien-seeding scenario doesn’t touch on the fine tuning of the universe.

    But I think there’s another problem that ID would face, even with panspermia. From my reading of early ID proponents, they were really looking to attack Materialism. I’m thinking of Philp Johnson, for example, and I think even Wm Dembski said something like that as the purpose of ID in his early writings. The hope was that the Designer had to be an immaterial agent, even at the biological level.

    So, if it could be shown that life was developed by a designer that was actually part of the material universe itself (as an alien would be), then ID would not refute materialism on that point. Could ID accept a solution that is consistent with atheistic-materialism?

    The simple answer, strictly speaking, is that the Biological ID project would be completed if a designing intelligence was found. The theory would be validated on that point. Darwinism would be refuted and maybe even all other sorts of evolutionary ideas.

    I think the battle would then move to claims about the origin of alien life, and both ID and materialist science would have an almost impossible task. It would be a war of speculations and imaginary scenarios.

    For me, philosophy would be the only answer at that point, not science. Alien life would still have to be explained as yet one more contingent being acting in the universe, and it cannot explain it’s own origin. Thus there remains the need for a first cause, thus God must necessarily exist.

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    But alas Seversky, it is your very own worldview, i.e. methodological naturalism, since it denies the reality of intelligent agency altogether, that precludes the possibility of us discovering Extraterrestrial Intelligence via our radio telescopes. As Paul Nelson pointed out, “some feature of “intelligence” must be irreducible to physics, because otherwise we’re back to physics versus physics, and there’s nothing for SETI to look for.”

    Do You Like SETI? Fine, Then Let’s Dump Methodological Naturalism
    Paul Nelson – September 24, 2014
    Excerpt: Assessing the Damage MN Does to Freedom of Inquiry
    Epistemology — how we know — and ontology — what exists — are both affected by methodological naturalism. If we say, “We cannot know that a mind caused x,” laying down an epistemological boundary defined by MN, then our ontology comprising real causes for x won’t include minds.
    MN entails an ontology in which minds are the consequence of physics, and thus, can only be placeholders for a more detailed causal account in which physics is the only (ultimate) actor. You didn’t write your email to me. Physics did, and informed you of that event after the fact.
    “That’s crazy,” you reply, “I certainly did write my email.” Okay, then — to what does the pronoun “I” in that sentence refer?
    Your personal agency; your mind. Are you supernatural?,,,
    You are certainly an intelligent cause, however, and your intelligence does not collapse into physics. (If it does collapse — i.e., can be reduced without explanatory loss — we haven’t the faintest idea how, which amounts to the same thing.) To explain the effects you bring about in the world — such as your email, a real pattern — we must refer to you as a unique agent.
    If ID satisfied MN as that philosophical doctrine is usually stated, the decades-long dispute over both wouldn’t have happened. The whole point of invoking MN (by the National Center for Science Education, for instance, or other anti-ID organizations) is to try to exclude ID, before a debate about the evidence can occur, by indicting ID for inferring non-physical causes.
    That’s why pushing the MN emergency button is so useful to opponents of ID. Violate MN, if MN defines science, and the game is over.,,,
    If You Like SETI, You Should Dump MN…
    ,,, some feature of “intelligence” must be irreducible to physics, because otherwise we’re back to physics versus physics, and there’s nothing for SETI to look for.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2014/09/do_you_like_set/

    Thus the question is not if ID advocates would ever accept ‘compelling evidence’ that “extraterrestrial intelligence had influenced the development of life on Earth, possibly even seeding the planet with it”, the question is would you, a Darwinist, ever accept ‘compelling evidence’ for intelligent agency and would you ever abandon methodological naturalism if you ever did accept the reality of intelligent agency?

    My guess is that , NO, you would never accept it since that honest admission for the reality of intelligent agency would, in the end, undermine your Darwinian worldview from within.

Leave a Reply