Alvin Plantinga’s new book on Science and Religion is out.

[Howze]

This view carries too much 'to me . . .' bias from a theist perspective to consider it seriously.

That seems to me to be the only way to tell if something is designed - 'it looks that way'. Do you know a better way to tell a designed object from a natural one?

[shunyadragon]

That seems to me to be the only way to tell if something is designed - 'it looks that way'. Do you know a better way to tell a designed object from a natural one?

Easy, the only things i see that appear designed are designed and made by humans.

[Howze]

Do just the good parts look designed or the bad parts, too?

In my view ID <> Special creation, Darwin convincing killed special creation. I only really started this discussion with one point, that the idea of recognising intelligent design is well within the purview of science. Just because some organisations have misused the idea, doesn't mean it is forever banished from scientific thought.

[Tassman]

Life and the universe look designed to me, on the same basis that hand axes do. However the designs may have evolved over time.

Even if you are correct the ID “scientists” are not in a position to know because, unlike true scientists, they do not follow the scientific method in order to test their hypotheses. They do not have research programs capable of producing Scientific Theories that can be tested, replicated or provide predictions. Furthermore ID is based on the pre-scientific assumption that the universe must have had a creator or designer because it "looks like it must have". At bottom it is no more than a bare assertion.

[Howze]

Easy, the only things i see that appear designed are designed and made by humans.

'By humans' is irrelevant. You recognise them by the fact that natural processes do produce the complexity these objects have.

[Howze]

Even if you are correct the ID “scientists” are not in a position to know because, unlike true scientists, they do not follow the scientific method in order to test their hypotheses. They do not have research programs capable of producing Scientific Theories that can be tested, replicated or provide predictions. Furthermore ID is based on the pre-scientific assumption that the universe must have had a creator or designer because it "looks like it must have". At bottom it is no more than a bare assertion.

So you are saying science is unable to recognised intelligently designed things/messages because it cannot falsify the possibility they are natural?

[Whag]

In my view ID <> Special creation, Darwin convincing killed special creation. I only really started this discussion with one point, that the idea of recognising intelligent design is well within the purview of science. Just because some organisations have misused the idea, doesn't mean it is forever banished from scientific thought.

If you'll pardon, that wasn't my question.

You first said that if something "looks" designed, it must be. That's a main criteria, you say. So we have to narrow down what you're proposing, starting with a very coarse-grained analysis of the structures you think show design that can be tested in a lab.

Again, will you discuss the "undesignedness" of dysteleology or just the beauty and utility fingers and wings?

[Tassman]

So you are saying science is unable to recognised intelligently designed things/messages because it cannot falsify the possibility they are natural?

I’m saying that to say something “looks designed” is a bare assertion, unsupported by any tested scientific evidence.

ID “scientists” do not follow the scientific method in order to test their hypothetical assertions. Their methodology is grounded in the assumption that the origin of the universe was not natural but caused. And that the cause was not only intelligent but an intelligent deity. They, and you, make one unsupported leap-of-faith after another; with nothing to back up any of the assumptions other than “it looks designed to me”.

[Howze]

I’m saying that to say something “looks designed” is a bare assertion, unsupported by any tested scientific evidence.

ID “scientists” do not follow the scientific method in order to test their hypothetical assertions. Their methodology is grounded in the assumption that the origin of the universe was not natural but caused. And that the cause was not only intelligent but an intelligent deity. They, and you, make one unsupported leap-of-faith after another; with nothing to back up any of the assumptions other than “it looks designed to me”.

You didn't answer my question, just more of this sort of diatribe. In plenty of previous postings I have described how I think you can recognise design.

[Howze]

If you'll pardon, that wasn't my question.

You first said that if something "looks" designed, it must be. That's a main criteria, you say. So we have to narrow down what you're proposing, starting with a very coarse-grained analysis of the structures you think show design that can be tested in a lab.

Again, will you discuss the "undesignedness" of dysteleology or just the beauty and utility fingers and wings?

I have talked in previous postings about how I think you can recognise design. Eventually because no-one was prepared to go out on a limb and say how they thought science recognises design (as it undoubted does) I decided it must be because 'it looked that way'. It was tongue in cheek really!

As for purposefulness, I see it everywhere in the living world. Its as simple as a dog has legs so it can move, the legs are purposeful. Purpose is a hallmark of ID as it is usually understood.

[Doug Shaver]

So far as I am aware, supernatural creation has never been witnessed. But, natural processes that are capable, given sufficient time, of producing apparent design have been witnessed.

Intelligent design has been witnessed.

You say so. That doesn't make me aware that it has been, given that I have no good reason to just take your word for it.

There is no doubt a cell could be a designed thing.

I'm not sure anyone has ever expressed such a doubt. But if we're talking about what probably is the case, speculations about what could be the case are irrelevant.

Supernatural creation is not really what I am on about.

Call it whatever else you'd like. You are on about denying the sufficiency of natural processes to account for life as we know it. If that is not advocacy of something supernatural, please do suggest an alternative terminology.

My only question here is can an intelligently designed object be told from one produced by natural processes and the answer is yes.

Fine, that is your answer. Mine is: It depends your presuppositions about the capabilities of natural processes.

Could evolution account for everything we see in life, maybe, but you would have to be more sceptical about the possibilities of chemicals evolving into life.

I would have to be more skeptical? Because you say so?

Have evolutionary processes actually been observed 'creating' new living organisms, well not really, nothing terribly convincing.

Not convincing to you, obviously.

If there is a difference between what convinces me and what convinces you, am I supposed to conclude that there must be something wrong with me?

Not to say it is impossible, given sufficient time, but do we overthrow something that is clearly a possibility, ID simply because the identity of the designer is unknown to science?

What do you mean, "overthrow"? I am not trying to overthrow any alternative to naturalism. I don't need to. The mere possibility that some other explanation could be true is no threat to my worldview.

[headheart]

I listened to this and found it interesting but painful. I caused me to question whether Darwinism has anything worthwhile to contribute to society. Most of the moral hypothesis seemed negative and cynical, and many of the philosophers who held them (eg Ruse) seem to me morally reprehensible.

I also think 'Meme theory' is bunkum and pseudo-science. It seems to me the last refuge of scoundrels who wish to get around the inability of Naturalism to account for morality.

BTW nothing here is aimed at you, listening to this was worthwhile exercise, even if my reaction was negative. He did have some interesting tie-ins to the Bible though, perhaps I have been too harsh.

That's okay. Yeah, I think I enjoy his approach to a subject though I wouldn't lay my hat there.

Peace,
Eric.

[Tassman]

You didn't answer my question, just more of this sort of diatribe. In plenty of previous postings I have described how I think you can recognise design.

No diatribe; merely pointing out the obvious namely, there is no verified scientific evidence supporting the notion of Intelligent Design. Re the bolded: If by “recognize design” you mean this: “Life and the universe look designed to me, on the same basis that hand axes do”. This is an analogy, not scientific evidence.

[shunyadragon]

'By humans' is irrelevant. You recognise them by the fact that natural processes do produce the complexity these objects have.

No, very much relevant. No you cannot recognize similar examples of complexity as found in natural processes.

God is not an engineer nor designer. God is a Creator.

[Whag]

I have talked in previous postings about how I think you can recognise design. Eventually because no-one was prepared to go out on a limb and say how they thought science recognises design (as it undoubted does) I decided it must be because 'it looked that way'. It was tongue in cheek really!

Okay, you were being tongue in cheek.

As for purposefulness, I see it everywhere in the living world. Its as simple as a dog has legs so it can move, the legs are purposeful. Purpose is a hallmark of ID as it is usually understood.

You're still just talking about teleology. Why haven't you addressed dysteleology? What of the flea that bites that dog? Or a parasite that munches on a child's eye?

The problem with ID is it wants all the good bits. When they shrug their shoulders at dysteleological examples, they show how truly useless they'd be in the lab.