Intelligent Design.

[Furrowed Brow]

Ok, some have tried to prove God's existence others have tried to prove the opposite. IDers argue that life needs a designer. They usually deny they are sneaking God into science, but you can make your own mind up. The ID type arguments also struggle to gain acceptance as science within the larger scientific community. Questions of predictions and falsifiability arise. There are also points about ID being a lazy answer, and closing down enquiry. But these ID guys and girls don't like to give up easy.

So is it possible to prove that science does not need Intelligent Design argument to explain nature?

[NB I am not asking whether it is possible to prove nature does not need a designer/God. I am really thinking about our methods of enquiry and explanation.]

[micatala]

You are evading the question.

Take the context away. I am not asking about the computer screen or any other part of the context of where you are seeing the blank space.

Suppose I show you a picture of a blank space but do not tell you where the picture is from. How would you know whether the blank space (not the picture of it or the computer screen on which you see it) is intelligently designed or not?

For the sake of your argument I wouldn't have to observe a blank space in order to recognize and acknowledge all of the other intelligently designed objects in the world.

jcrawford continues to evade the question with non-answers. Other objects that may or may not be intelligently designed are not the blank space.

Without definitions or at least a common understanding of a concept, debate is meaningless. If you are unwilling to define what you mean by ID then the rational conclusion is that you really don't know what it is, or are engaging in deliberate ambiguity or obfuscation.

If you cannot define ID or even intelligence, how can you say whether or not it exists?

The human capacity for intelligence, rationality and design is a self-evident metaphysical presupposition on our part and a foregone conclusion by scientists. The only thing left to be determined and established is whether some object under observation is or has been rationally and intelligently designed or not.

The why, how or whodunnit is another question and is up to rational and intelligent human beings to speculate or to theorize upon.

For the sake of argument, I will agree that intelligence exists, even if jcrawford is not able to define what it is.

Still, jcrawford is unable to tell what is or is not intelligently designed.


How would you tell if a blank space is intelligently designed or not?


Is an individual snowflake intelligently designed?

You can leave ou the why, how or who if you wish.

[micatala]

I am not denying intellegence and design. Beavers build dams. They do so with intellegence and design. It is also vwery natural for them.
How am I refusing to put two and two together? Another nonsense statement from you.

Combine the intelligence of beavers and bees who respectively build dams and bee's nests (also honeycombs) with their respective ability to erect structured designs for their habitats and you get two separate cases of intelligent design.

In other words, intelligence plus design = intelligent design.

I would guess we all agree that an intelligence using this intelligence intentionally to produce a 'design' would result in intelligent design.

What is lacking is any indication of how we would determine whether or not this is the case for objects or phenomenon where no such intelligence and design process have been identified.



How can you tell from the object itself without knowing how it was produced or if it was produced by an intelligence?


If I showed you two snowflake patterns, one from nature and one produced by a computer, how could you tell which was which?

[jcrawford]

I am not denying intellegence and design. Beavers build dams. They do so with intellegence and design. It is also vwery natural for them.
How am I refusing to put two and two together? Another nonsense statement from you.

Combine the intelligence of beavers and bees who respectively build dams and bee's nests (also honeycombs) with their respective ability to erect structured designs for their habitats and you get two separate cases of intelligent design.

In other words, intelligence plus design = intelligent design.

I would guess we all agree that an intelligence using this intelligence intentionally to produce a 'design' would result in intelligent design.

Finally.

What is lacking is any indication of how we would determine whether or not this is the case for objects or phenomenon where no such intelligence and design process have been identified.

The case would be self-explanatory based on the absence of an intelligent design.

How can you tell from the object itself without knowing how it was produced or if it was produced by an intelligence?

Upon the discovery of an object on earth or in space which possessed qualities, attributes and characteristics of having been intelligently manufactured or designed, one would investigate further in hope and expectancy of discovering and accounting for the origin of the intelligently designed object.

If I showed you two snowflake patterns, one from nature and one produced by a computer, how could you tell which was which?

Having to be hexagonal in design in order to qualify for the universal pattern of a snowflake, it wouldn't matter which was man-made or natural, since both would qualify as being representative of typical hexagonal patterns found in all snowflakes.

Now if you can generate a four-leaf clover on demand, I would suspect it of being man-made and rather artificial, to say the least.

[jcrawford]

jcrawford continues to evade the question with non-answers.

Well, you don't have to broadcast it to the world and tell everybody.

Other objects that may or may not be intelligently designed are not the blank space.

For the sake of your argument then, I concede that blank spaces may not necessarily be intelligently designed.

For the sake of argument, I will agree that intelligence exists, even if jcrawford is not able to define what it is.

That's a plus and proves that Christians can argue constructively even if not with died-in-the-wool evolutionists.

Still, jcrawford is unable to tell what is or is not intelligently designed.

QED and I both agree that genetic algorithms appear to be intelligently designed. I would go further and state that the computer which generates them is also intelligently designed. Further still, I would venture to say that honeycombs and spider webs appear to be intelligently designed by their creators.

How would you tell if a blank space is intelligently designed or not?

A blank space without any perimeters is more than my limited intelligence can comprehend.

Is an individual snowflake intelligently designed?

You can leave out the why, how or who if you wish.

Computer generated simulations certainly seem to be since they must all conform to the natural hexagonal snowflake pattern.

[micatala]

If I showed you two snowflake patterns, one from nature and one produced by a computer, how could you tell which was which?

Having to be hexagonal in design in order to qualify for the universal pattern of a snowflake, it wouldn't matter which was man-made or natural, since both would qualify as being representative of typical hexagonal patterns found in all snowflakes.

I wasn't asking whether or not it mattered which was which, I was asking for how a proponent of ID would determine which was which. If it doesn't matter to you if intelligent design exists or not, then perhaps we can both dispense with any further participation in the thread.

Of the two snowflakes . . .

One would be the result of random, 'unintelligent', combining of molecules into crystals and crystals into a hexagonal pattern. No designer. No intelligence unless you posit that an intelligence designed the structure of the molecules.

The other would be the result of an intelligent placement of similar looking shapes into a similar hexagonal pattern. Identified intelligent designer and design process.

Subjectively, they would look the same. However, one would be unable to determine which one had the

qualities, attributes and characteristics of having been intelligently manufactured or designed

that you alluded to previously, without identifying what these qualities, attributes, or charcteristics were.

[Confused]

Jcrawford:
You continue to evade what everyone has requested. Can you show proof that something designed requires an intelligent designer? The existence of something, the shape, the size, the color, etc.... doesn't require an intelligent designer to exist. Does a hurricane require an intelligent designer? In the Atlantic ocean the conditions can be perfect for the formation of a tropical wave off the coast of Africa to develop into a depression, then to a tropical storm, then to a hurricane etc.... However, not all tropical waves will develop into a hurricane, despite identical condtions in the ocean and atmosphere. This is what makes predicting them so difficult. The same can be said about a tornado. Does the human eye require an itellingent designer? If so, then why are some species born blind? By random chance, genetics, or evolution? The point of all this is that simply because something exists that appears to be intelligently designed doesn't point to an intelligent designer. Nature can make some profound monuments. In Nevada, at Red Rock in Las Vegas, the wind has formed some rocks to look like behives etc... That doesn't mean the wind intended to do this, it just happened.

[QED]

I've tried to get jcrawford to comment on the six items ENIGMA presented to us to determine which were intelligently designed by human or algorithm. I have resorted to posting the image here and in another thread today because the same question seems to be repeatedly overlooked. I apologise for posting quite a large image (on more than one occasion) but I'm getting a little tired with the nil returns on it when presented as a link.

If the advocates of ID wish to insist that we can infer intelligent design form appearances then they should be able to suggest an underlying principle by which we could determine which of the following products were of human design and which were created by Genetic Algorithms:

[QED]

QED has already established the fact that genetic algorithms are capable of generating intelligent designs, and without defining any of the terms involved.

They sure can appear to be intelligent, but I don't mind betting that you'd be the first to divest them of the sort of intelligence that we possess.

[Confused]

QED has already established the fact that genetic algorithms are capable of generating intelligent designs, and without defining any of the terms involved.

They sure can appear to be intelligent, but I don't mind betting that you'd be the first to divest them of the sort of intelligence that we possess.

Intimidation factor back to 100%


Which terms does jcrawford wish defined. Perhaps I can expand. Though likely minimally.

[faithman]

They usually deny they are sneaking God into science, but you can make your own mind up. ]

Excuse me furrowed. But why does God have to be snuck into science? God created science. I dont appreciate the constant comment of the seperation between faith and science. They work together if you define the word "science" correctly.