First principles of the inference to design.

[Seasanctuary]

What of the first designed things that we encounter? Obviously everyone has encountered certain designed things for the first time, so are we justified to believe that those things are designed?

We're told they were made by people in that non-controversial way that's backed by the ability of any inquirer to confirm it. We don't hear, "Well, son, there are people who think cars are made by human beings and others who think they grow naturally in the Detroit area."

The second reason is that there are certain obviously designed things that we encounter are sui generis.

Consider two things, the Antikythera mechanism, and stone henge.

Metal gear-works and stacked rocks are hardly sui generis.

[Carrikature]

So how do we infer design....we recognize a purpose for the tool/item.

Is it true that every design has a purpose or function? Is 'to invoke pleasure or emotional response' considered a possible design purpose?

Another key point is determining what the purpose was for the architect. An artifact might not have present function or it may have been replaced with something altogether different. However, we can use our knowledge gathered through various means to determine the purpose that its inventor/user intended. As designed items are used to solve immediate problems for those utilizing the object the users become very important.

What if we cannot fathom the purpose? Does that make it un-designed, or simply less obvious that it was designed?

what is/was god's problem that needed solved?

I don't think calling it 'a problem that God needed to solve' is necessarily accurate. I can say that our existence is meant to bring glory to God, though that's another can of worms by itself.

I do not think the design argument is applicable to either biology or cosmology. To apply it one has to presuppose the designer....whom is.....furthermore even if there were a designer the purpose for which everything was designed are not necessarily anthropocentric.

Agreed.

We implant an idealized super human mind onto a entity and we make his purposes for our benefit. This seems a rather obvious hint that the 'Designer' was designed by a human mind.

Or, from a minimalist perspective, that humans are by nature egocentric.

[Carrikature]

I would like to add a couple of comments. First, pre-supposing design is at best useless when pursuing the scientific method. To extend that, discussions of design tend to boil down to a statement of, "I don't see how else it could have gotten that way." That seems lazy or insincere, in my opinion. Second, our inferences of design are based upon observing countless examples of human design. To claim that a god's design would be similar to our own seems a bit pretentious.

[franktalk]

The part where it is supposed to represent evolution.

I thought this is a discussion of methods not a place to push one's own agenda on an issue.

We can get into the math of chance and show that some designs are not likely but we have to make some assumptions in those calculations. If you feel that a process that requires billions of years is likely then you are speaking from feelings and not reality. The issue is once we have an item then how does one determine if it is designed. The discussion of methods does not require an acceptance or rejection of evolution.

If we use a complex animal as an example of an item we which to determine design or not it is hard to stay on topic. But I can in a general sense discuss the methods that I would use. In the case of the animal it requires us to gather data on the processes that we might examine to see if the animal came from those processes. Many feel that man knows how mutations happen and can determine the rates in which they occur. I don't think we know enough about the mutation process to use it to project back in time. But ignoring that we can use them anyway. Then we can overlay some timeframes from fossils and rock dating to give us other data points. Knowing full well that such dating comes with its own assumptions. We can then examine the parts of the animal and determine in a mathematical way the complexity of the animal. Then we use math and our data points to see if the processes we think can make the animal can in fact make it. But this is where we run into problems. We have to make some assumptions because we have no direct observations of the past. We guess on population sizes and death rates and life cycles. These are argued over but the disagreements are not far apart. The real problem comes from the mechanism that causes the change. Here if one assumes lucky mutations leading to a future animal then the currently known processes might be able to make what we see around us. But if we look at the math as a random process then the numbers tell us that the process is not able to make the end product. So as I stated before it all depends on what one assumes to be true that will determine the results. To me this means that evolution is still not shown to be the mechanism which produced all of life, but on the flip side we do not know enough about the mechanisms of change. We may find something next week which will overturn our current understanding of the process. But that is just one problem with projections backward in time. Since we have no direct observation we do not know if the environment of the past is as uniform as we think. It may be more supportive of evolution or it may be that the past inhibited evolution. These unknowns to me make our results questionable. So to me using life as our example for questioning design is a waste of time.

[Seasanctuary]

Then we can overlay some timeframes from fossils and rock dating to give us other data points. Knowing full well that such dating comes with its own assumptions.

No, it doesn't. At least not any assumptions anyone seriously questions in day to day life.

Any alternate scenario to natural evolution must explain why fossils change as they do over the time periods rock layers are independently known to represent. And that's without even touching genetics.

[The Pixie]

franktalk

We can get into the math of chance and show that some designs are not likely but we have to make some assumptions in those calculations. If you feel that a process that requires billions of years is likely then you are speaking from feelings and not reality. The issue is once we have an item then how does one determine if it is designed. The discussion of methods does not require an acceptance or rejection of evolution.

Your original claim was clearly a straw man version of evolution, in which loaded in what you wanted to claim:

One is that chance will one day make the most improbable things.

You are assuming these are "the most improbable things", and forcing that assumption upon your opponents. And having done that, when I object to your straw man, you say:

I thought this is a discussion of methods not a place to push one's own agenda on an issue.

The reality is that evolution is an exceedingly well-supported scientific theory, the reality is that the evolution camp does not seen the end products (in a broad sense) as being particularly improbable.

When we find an object, we study its origins to see if it was designed. The evidence indicates that aeroplanes were designed, and people evolved.

If we use a complex animal as an example of an item we which to determine design or not it is hard to stay on topic. But I can in a general sense discuss the methods that I would use. In the case of the animal it requires us to gather data on the processes that we might examine to see if the animal came from those processes. Many feel that man knows how mutations happen and can determine the rates in which they occur. I don't think we know enough about the mutation process to use it to project back in time.

Interesting opinion.

How much do we know about the creation process? How many "kinds" were created, and what were they? Did the first mammals have navels? Which came first, the chicken or the egg? What evidence do you have to support your claims?

The reality is that mutation rates are considerably better known than the creation process.

We can then examine the parts of the animal and determine in a mathematical way the complexity of the animal.

How?

I ask because "design theorists" have been saying that can do that for about twenty years, but as far as I kinow, none of them have actually done it.

Then we use math and our data points to see if the processes we think can make the animal can in fact make it. But this is where we run into problems. We have to make some assumptions because we have no direct observations of the past. We guess on population sizes and death rates and life cycles. These are argued over but the disagreements are not far apart. The real problem comes from the mechanism that causes the change. Here if one assumes lucky mutations leading to a future animal then the currently known processes might be able to make what we see around us. But if we look at the math as a random process then the numbers tell us that the process is not able to make the end product.

Sounds like you have done (or seen) the maths. Can you show us the numbers?

[franktalk]

The Pixie,

I have posted some models on TWEB. I will try and find them for you. But they are an argument against conclusions not an argument for a conclusion. What I have done is to describe the problems with projections and I offered no solutions. I remain unsure of the past because there is too much that is unknown. I do think that great minds have tried to make a logical Picture of the past but I will not accept it based on reasons of lack of data. My belief that God made the world and life does not include how that was done. Since we live in a natural environment with natural laws one could say that God used them to make the fine detail. I sure don't know if that is true or false.

Let us take another example that is less emotionally sensitive. If one studies the Fibonacci ratio we can see the pattern all over the place in nature. It even spans areas like music as well. If you check out youtube videos of the Fibonacci ratio you will get a good feel for what I refer to. So let us for a moment examine the shape of a spiral galaxy to see if it is designed or not. Again we are faced with few facts and many unknowns but let us ignore that. The shape of the spiral matches the Fibonacci spiral which comes directly from the Fibonacci ratio. (or sequence) So we ask ourself the question: Is the spiral a natural feature or is the feature a demonstration of design. So we start to gather some data. We find that galaxies in general don't match our expectations of shape. We find that they are being held by unseen forces. These have been described as dark matter and dark energy. So we have reached the end of our trail. Even though we can observe the shape of the spiral arms we don't know enough about the forces which shape them to see if they may have been designed. We don't know if the unseen forces overlay the entire universe and cause patterns to emerge. We can see the patterns but we can't follow the cause.

In our search for design what are we actually looking for? We are looking for a designer and intent or purpose. If indeed there might be a designer who was able to make things like life and galaxies then we are at the mercy of that designer whether or not they want to be known. I think we fool ourself into believing that we can find answers to some questions.

[franktalk]

No, it doesn't. At least not any assumptions anyone seriously questions in day to day life.

So I am not serious when I post? Let us take your assumption and see where it leads us.

So you feel that some people that were trained by the same body of thought can take a vote and when they agree that is meaningful? There are groups today that wish to kill all Christains and Jews. If you took a vote in those areas I am sure you will find that they are all of one mind. Now I have to ask if you would agree with these men who wish to kill Christians and Jews? I would guess that you would not agree. But it does lead us to some interesting questions. What makes one form of group think better than another? You may say that your group is taught by science. To me that is a nonanswer. Just what makes your group right? Nothing as far I am concerned. They all subscribe to a body of thought that they think is correct. The other group is guided by cultural norms for them. As far as I am concerned they have just as much right to their opinion as your guys. Obviously the opinions from a moral sense are vastly different. But from a group think viewpoint they are the same.

Using group think is not helpful in these kinds of discussions. I will make make statements that you may FEEL are false but I challenge you to prove I am wrong. And using the opinions of others is not a valid argument.

Let us say you bring a rock to me and say it is 500 million years old when it formed.
I say: How do you know it is 500 million year old.
You say: Because we measured the ratio of the decay particles in the rock.
I say: How do you know the decay rates are the same going back in time?
You say: Because they are stable today.
I say: So you think they were stable in the past.
You say: No, they were the same.
I say: Prove it.
You say: You prove they were different.
I say: Your the one telling me this rock is 500 million years old. Now prove it.
You say: The data shows it to be 500 million years old.
I say: You assume the data says that.
You say: All the experts agree.

I saved some time by projecting your argument forward.

[shunyadragon]

Is it true that every design has a purpose or function? Is 'to invoke pleasure or emotional response' considered a possible design purpose?

Yes

What if we cannot fathom the purpose? Does that make it un-designed, or simply less obvious that it was designed?

Based on the above you cannot make any conclusions either way.

I don't think calling it 'a problem that God needed to solve' is necessarily accurate. I can say that our existence is meant to bring glory to God, though that's another can of worms by itself.

Does not address the issue of design vs not designed. There is just not any evidence of a purposeful design in nature.

[shunyadragon]

We can get into the math of chance and show that some designs are not likely but we have to make some assumptions in those calculations. If you feel that a process that requires billions of years is likely then you are speaking from feelings and not reality. The issue is once we have an item then how does one determine if it is designed. The discussion of methods does not require an acceptance or rejection of evolution.

No we cannot. Chance is not a factor in the natural processes that involve evolution and abiogenesis.

If we use a complex animal as an example of an item we which to determine design or not it is hard to stay on topic. But I can in a general sense discuss the methods that I would use. In the case of the animal it requires us to gather data on the processes that we might examine to see if the animal came from those processes. Many feel that man knows how mutations happen and can determine the rates in which they occur. I don't think we know enough about the mutation process to use it to project back in time. But ignoring that we can use them anyway. Then we can overlay some timeframes from fossils and rock dating to give us other data points. Knowing full well that such dating comes with its own assumptions. We can then examine the parts of the animal and determine in a mathematical way the complexity of the animal. Then we use math and our data points to see if the processes we think can make the animal can in fact make it. But this is where we run into problems. We have to make some assumptions because we have no direct observations of the past. We guess on population sizes and death rates and life cycles. These are argued over but the disagreements are not far apart. The real problem comes from the mechanism that causes the change. Here if one assumes lucky mutations leading to a future animal then the currently known processes might be able to make what we see around us. But if we look at the math as a random process then the numbers tell us that the process is not able to make the end product. So as I stated before it all depends on what one assumes to be true that will determine the results. To me this means that evolution is still not shown to be the mechanism which produced all of life, but on the flip side we do not know enough about the mechanisms of change. We may find something next week which will overturn our current understanding of the process. But that is just one problem with projections backward in time. Since we have no direct observation we do not know if the environment of the past is as uniform as we think. It may be more supportive of evolution or it may be that the past inhibited evolution. These unknowns to me make our results questionable. So to me using life as our example for questioning design is a waste of time.

The problem is using life as an example supporting design is a waste of time.

[Seasanctuary]

So you feel that some people that were trained by the same body of thought can take a vote and when they agree that is meaningful? There are groups today that wish to kill all Christains and Jews. If you took a vote in those areas I am sure you will find that they are all of one mind. Now I have to ask if you would agree with these men who wish to kill Christians and Jews? I would guess that you would not agree. But it does lead us to some interesting questions. What makes one form of group think better than another? You may say that your group is taught by science. To me that is a nonanswer. Just what makes your group right? Nothing as far I am concerned. They all subscribe to a body of thought that they think is correct. The other group is guided by cultural norms for them.

That's a retreat to cultural relativism, where no one is wrong or right or at least no one is any more justified in thinking they are right.

Let us say you bring a rock to me and say it is 500 million years old when it formed.
I say: How do you know it is 500 million year old.
You say: Because we measured the ratio of the decay particles in the rock.
I say: How do you know the decay rates are the same going back in time?
You say: Because they are stable today.

There isn't just one 'hourglass' with a certain rate strictly measured in the last 50 years which could just as easily have been much faster or slower before that time. It's more like finding a whole series of drawings which record the state of a number of hourglasses with differently calculated rates...which are the same today. And, further, seasonal markings which allow independent dating of these hourglass drawings 10k to 50k years prior. And, even further, study of the hourglasses today show them to be difficult to intentionally affect.

Plus some other considerations I won't try to fit into an analogy. It's better to just learn the science before claiming it must be mere cultural opinion.

[shunyadragon]

So I am not serious when I post? Let us take your assumption and see where it leads us.

So you feel that some people that were trained by the same body of thought can take a vote and when they agree that is meaningful? There are groups today that wish to kill all Christains and Jews. If you took a vote in those areas I am sure you will find that they are all of one mind. Now I have to ask if you would agree with these men who wish to kill Christians and Jews? I would guess that you would not agree. But it does lead us to some interesting questions. What makes one form of group think better than another? You may say that your group is taught by science. To me that is a nonanswer. Just what makes your group right? Nothing as far I am concerned. They all subscribe to a body of thought that they think is correct. The other group is guided by cultural norms for them. As far as I am concerned they have just as much right to their opinion as your guys. Obviously the opinions from a moral sense are vastly different. But from a group think viewpoint they are the same.

Using group think is not helpful in these kinds of discussions. I will make make statements that you may FEEL are false but I challenge you to prove I am wrong. And using the opinions of others is not a valid argument.

Let us say you bring a rock to me and say it is 500 million years old when it formed.
I say: How do you know it is 500 million year old.
You say: Because we measured the ratio of the decay particles in the rock.
I say: How do you know the decay rates are the same going back in time?
You say: Because they are stable today.
I say: So you think they were stable in the past.
You say: No, they were the same.
I say: Prove it.
You say: You prove they were different.
I say: Your the one telling me this rock is 500 million years old. Now prove it.
You say: The data shows it to be 500 million years old.
I say: You assume the data says that.
You say: All the experts agree.

I saved some time by projecting your argument forward.

This line of reasoning is a terrible misunderstanding of science, willful ignorance as to how the dating methods of anything in science works.

First, nothing is ever proved in science, you have to go to math and philosophy, or maybe good whisky to look for proof.

Second, you seem to question the assumption of uniformity of natural laws and processes over time. I do not think such skepticism is warranted, and reflects a religious bias against the evidence, and not based on scientific knowledge, or an objective view of the evidence. In a way your proposing God is a trickster placing false evidence in the nature of our natural existence. It is a problem that only those who look at the evidence from a conservative theological perspective question the uniformity of natural laws and processes over time.

Third, there are far more sources of evidence that date rocks other than radio active decay, and all these methods pretty much agree.

[franktalk]

No we cannot. Chance is not a factor in the natural processes that involve evolution and abiogenesis.

You have indicated that evolution is directed. If indeed mutations are directed then please provide supporting information. If indeed life is directed then there must be a purpose. Can you tell me what that purpose is?

[franktalk]

First, nothing is ever proved in science, you have to go to math and philosophy, or maybe good whisky to look for proof.

We agree on this. Now go tell the people who constantly tell me that science offers proof.

[franktalk]

That's a retreat to cultural relativism, where no one is wrong or right or at least no one is any more justified in thinking they are right.

We end up arguing over our assumptions when all is said and done. Let us take my example for a moment and see if it is designed. Is there a purpose for one group to hate another? Sure, in a world with limited resources it can be linked to survival. Now is that purpose linked to a designer? That is a much more difficult question to answer. If we limit our answer to the physical world then the boundaries of resources caused the hate. Can a limit or boundary be considered a designer? Sure it can. We see this in natural selection. Many say that natural selection is the designer of life because it sets the stage for winners and losers. But natural selection is not an intelligence. So natural selection has no purpose. So does purpose rise from natural limits? One might be tempted to say so. But why would survival of the fittest give us purpose? This assumes life has some worth. And if life then culture as well. This is where cultural relativism comes in. Do you deny the effect that culture has on evolution?