Homosexuality is designed?

[Yorzhik]

Are you comprehending what I am posting? Or just brushing it off because you don't like what I am saying?

Do you comprehend that what you are saying is that we cannot detect design until we have first found out who the designer is? Doesn't that seem backwards on its face?

I will repeat myself once, and if you don't get it this time, I'm sorry. Designs accomplished by a non-physical entity and a natural law will look idenctical to us.

i.e., you are admitting that detecting design is outside the bounds of science.

You continue...

Before we understood the natural processes involved with a flower blooming, many thought it was due to supernatural design. And it may ultimately be (which is what I believe), but the laws and principles that cause a flower to bloom are entirely natural. God may have created these laws and principles (which is what I believe) but there is no logical imperative, from a material science standpoint to conclude this.

In that case, since everything including Paley's watch are also a result of laws and principles that are entirely natural, we cannot detect if Paley's watch was designed or not.

I was using "fingerprints" metaphorically. And detecting design is looking for the "fingerprints" of the designer.

Yes, I know it was a metaphor. But you are saying that we cannot detect design directly, but that we have to detect fingerprints instead. So will you concede that detecting design directly is outside the bounds of science?

Is it that I have answered nothing, or its it that you do not like my answers?

It is that you've answered nothing.

Nope, we do not have to know the designer.

This isn't true by what you say; you have to know something about the designer if you are searching for the designer's fingerprints.

We can detect design by intelligent physical entities. In order to do so we must make assumptions about their physical and mental abilites. If we went to another planet and saw something that looked like a beaver damn, we could reasonably assume that there was another similar animal responsible for this. We could do this because we know of the existence of beavers, and their abilities and purposes. Much the same way the SETI researchers assume certain things about the possiblity of intelligent life on other planets.

Does SETI assume physical entities? How could they be sure the entities are physical or not by the data SETI studies?

But in order to seperate design that results from a natural law or principle from design by a non-physical entity we need more information than can be obtained from the material sciences.

No, we would just need to detect design - regardless if the evidence was from a physical entity or not.

Yorzhik, if you don't agree with what I have to say could you give a reasoned response why that is. Or at least admit that you don't like what I say. Instead of pretending that I have answered nothing. Your strategy is very transparent.

I'm saying that you aren't answering the question. Is directly detecting design outside the bounds of science? You are implying it, sort of, and then kind contradicting yourself, and I'd just like you to state it emphatically.

 

[Yorzhik]

N-
Just curious: how do we know what the products of a non-physical entity would look like?

Physical products of the design of a non-physical entity?

 

[Yorzhik]

From Yorzhik: I tend to stop short of the deep philosophical discussions that ID generates. Scenarios are posed such as the discovery of some apparent device with complexity equivalent to a computer on some remote world, and then asking if it might be the product of purely natural processes. If such a thing were to be found, I would be as hard-pressed as anyone to ascribe it to just nature.

And why one is hard pressed to ascribe it to just nature is outside the bounds of science?

But scenarios like that are then misconstrued into the biological world. I have no problem saying the cell is an immensely complex machine, more complex than almost anything man has devised. It is invalid to say that finding something very complex and apparently designed in one area automatically necessitates design everywhere complexity is found. I can’t, under any stretch of the imagination conceive of natural process that might create a computer. But when I look inside a cell, I see thousands of well-understood processes at work, and for many of the more intricate ones, I can see very reasonable ways in which they could have come about naturally. Sure, there are a number of complex cellular processes that we do not understand well yet. Some cellular processes are highly dependent on the concurrent operation of other processes. But such codependency can arise very naturally in stages.

So when we get to the point where we can make a watch from DNA similar to a cell, we won't be able to know that we did it, or if nature did it?

When I first was exposed to Behe’s irreducible complexity, I had no answers. But in the years since, I have watched as one after another of his original examples of biological irreducible complexity have been proven to be reducible. He hasn’t been reticent about coming up with new ones to replace the original ones, but that reasoning could be used until every single biological system in existence has shown to be reducible.

Behe's examples have been proven to be reducible? I've seen attempts, but they either assumed the wrong question or just didn't make sense.

So, for me the question of ID is like the question of the possibility of finding a McDonalds on Pluto – I am not going to worry much about it as long as it is not much more than wildly abstract speculation. If it ever solidifies into a field where the inputs, outputs, and rules are subject to repeatable independent investigation, and consistent meaningful results start to emerge, then it will be closer to joining the world of science. Till then …

So finding a scientific explanation for apparent design would take it out of wildly abstract speculation. If it turns out that a cell fits within the theory as intelligently designed, then you would have doubts about evo.

 

[Stratnerd]

Do you comprehend that what you are saying is that we cannot detect design until we have first found out who the designer is? Doesn't that seem backwards on its face?

Y-

you seem to be repeating yourself over and over. Tell us you do detect design from something we know nothing about.

cell fits within the theory as intelligently designed

how? what predictions does it make that separates it from evolution? how does it make these predictions?

 

[ThePhy]

Was Behe Intelligently Designed?

Was Behe Intelligently Designed?

From Yorzhik:

And why one is hard pressed to ascribe it to just nature is outside the bounds of science?

No, the reason I would be uncomfortable lies more in the realm of psychology or such. My point is that anyone that says that I have to be ready with an answer for finding a computer on Mars has an equal likelihood themselves of having to answer to a god who is actually a poldadot striped slug on a South Pacific Island. It just might really be true, and I might even try to convince you there are non-trivial similarities between what you envision as god and my buddy slug. But you aren’t going to spend a long time on the question, no matter how strongly I argue my case. Nor am I on ID, unless you can produce the goods.

So when we get to the point where we can make a watch from DNA similar to a cell, we won't be able to know that we did it, or if nature did it?

If we get to the point we can make it, then all that tells us is that it is something that can be done without divine intervention. Whether or not nature was likely to have used a similar process is another question.

Behe's examples have been proven to be reducible? I've seen attempts, but they either assumed the wrong question or just didn't make sense.

From Behe:

By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. Darwin's Black Box, p.39

This statement by itself seems to be fine. Now the question (and this is Behe’s contention) is whether or not to have occurred via evolution, all the parts had to come together in one highly improbable chance occurrence. Agreed?

One familiar example used by Behe was the mousetrap. Does it fit the definition?

So finding a scientific explanation for apparent design would take it out of wildly abstract speculation.

That’s what we are waiting for, and waiting for, and waiting for, and …

If it turns out that a cell fits within the theory as intelligently designed, then you would have doubts about evo.

Yes, but I have the feeling that I am going to be waiting a long time for that.

 

[noguru]

Do you comprehend that what you are saying is that we cannot detect design until we have first found out who the designer is? Doesn't that seem backwards on its face?


i.e., you are admitting that detecting design is outside the bounds of science.

You continue...

In that case, since everything including Paley's watch are also a result of laws and principles that are entirely natural, we cannot detect if Paley's watch was designed or not.


Yes, I know it was a metaphor. But you are saying that we cannot detect design directly, but that we have to detect fingerprints instead. So will you concede that detecting design directly is outside the bounds of science?


It is that you've answered nothing.


This isn't true by what you say; you have to know something about the designer if you are searching for the designer's fingerprints.


Does SETI assume physical entities? How could they be sure the entities are physical or not by the data SETI studies?


No, we would just need to detect design - regardless if the evidence was from a physical entity or not.


I'm saying that you aren't answering the question. Is directly detecting design outside the bounds of science? You are implying it, sort of, and then kind contradicting yourself, and I'd just like you to state it emphatically.

Yorzhik, I'm done explaining myself repeatedly to you. Usually I only have to repeat myself more than three times to children. If you don't understand what I'm saying I appologize. I don't think the other people reading this thread are having a difficult time understanding me.

Anyone else not understand my point?

 

[Yorzhik]

noguru, you keep repeating something along the lines of "Designs accomplished by a non-physical entity and a natural law will look idenctical to us."

Which is fine. I'm just asking you to take what you said to its logical conclusion and say that detecting design is outside the bounds of science.

Consider this, you find a watch on the beach. You assume it was designed. But it could have been designed by anyone, including God or aliens. What is it about the watch that we are sure it is designed, not knowing the nature of the designer?

 

[noguru]

noguru, you keep repeating something along the lines of "Designs accomplished by a non-physical entity and a natural law will look idenctical to us."

Which is fine. I'm just asking you to take what you said to its logical conclusion and say that detecting design is outside the bounds of science.

You are misrepresenting my opinion on this.

Yorzhik, please go back and read my previous posts. I am not going to repeat myself again. I think I was pretty clear about this.

Consider this, you find a watch on the beach. You assume it was designed. But it could have been designed by anyone, including God or aliens. What is it about the watch that we are sure it is designed, not knowing the nature of the designer?

I would assume that it was designed. Since from experience I know that it does not resemble a biological life form, I would assume that it was designed by a physical entity for some purpose. Because I understand that keeping time is an important aspect in our modern society I would also have insight (an assumption about it's designer) into it's purpose. This would confirm my belief that it was designed by an intelligent physical being for the purposes of keeping time.

 

[Yorzhik]

You are misrepresenting my opinion on this.

Yorzhik, please go back and read my previous posts. I am not going to repeat myself again. I think I was pretty clear about this.

I'm not misrepresenting you on this. You really are saying that we cannot detect design, we must detect a designer. I'm just asking you to take what you said to its logical conclusion and say that detecting design is outside the bounds of science.

If detecting design were within the bounds of science, then you would readily agree that it didn't matter whether an alien, a spirit, a man, or some other form of intelligence designed something, that we could detect that something as designed.

I would assume that it was designed. Since from experience I know that it does not resemble a biological life form, I would assume that it was designed by a physical entity for some purpose.

This is just it. Why would you assume it was a physical entity? Could you prove that the wind/waves/natural forces did not form the watch?

I realize it is a proving a negative, but it is identical to the reason used by evo's why biological machines are designed by nature.

Because I understand that keeping time is an important aspect in our modern society I would also have insight (an assumption about it's designer) into it's purpose. This would confirm my belief that it was designed by an intelligent physical being for the purposes of keeping time.

Great, so does this reason hold true for everything that is designed?

 

[Yorzhik]

From Yorzhik: No, the reason I would be uncomfortable lies more in the realm of psychology or such. My point is that anyone that says that I have to be ready with an answer for finding a computer on Mars has an equal likelihood themselves of having to answer to a god who is actually a poldadot striped slug on a South Pacific Island. It just might really be true, and I might even try to convince you there are non-trivial similarities between what you envision as god and my buddy slug. But you aren’t going to spend a long time on the question, no matter how strongly I argue my case. Nor am I on ID, unless you can produce the goods.

Well the question wasn't about what designed whatever, but if the design could be attributed to complete non-intelligence. The question doesn't involve having a ready answer for finding a computer on Mars, but it has to do with narrowing down some probable scenarios. For instance, I could say, without hesitation, that my brother Steve did not personally place that computer on Mars.

If we get to the point we can make it, then all that tells us is that it is something that can be done without divine intervention. Whether or not nature was likely to have used a similar process is another question.

Nature could have used a process of design like humans is another question? Wouldn't that have to be a rhetorical question?

From Behe:

By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. Darwin's Black Box, p.39

This statement by itself seems to be fine. Now the question (and this is Behe’s contention) is whether or not to have occurred via evolution, all the parts had to come together in one highly improbable chance occurrence. Agreed?

Almost. It could either have come together in one highly improbable chance, or in a number of steps where there was not only much useless waste, but a degradation in performance compared to others of the same type that didn't have to deal with the waste.

One familiar example used by Behe was the mousetrap. Does it fit the definition?

Yes.

That’s what we are waiting for, and waiting for, and waiting for, and …

Okay, so you would say that detecting design is, at least, within the bounds of science according to this statement.

Yes, but I have the feeling that I am going to be waiting a long time for that.

Fair enough.

 

[billwald]

First, I think SETI assumes physical entities.

Second, the watch example doesn't work because the watch has obvious tool marks. What about biological construction? It is not possible to look at a DNA sequence and tell if it is natural or lab work.

Third,
Quote:
By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. Darwin's Black Box, p.39

Third, note that Behe has redefined "irreducible complexity."

"By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. Darwin's Black Box, p.39"

(I am told that) It is a standard term in communications theory and it has the opposite meaning. Data is irriducibly complex if it can't be compressed. A random string is irriducibly complex.

 

[noguru]

I'm not misrepresenting you on this. You really are saying that we cannot detect design, we must detect a designer. I'm just asking you to take what you said to its logical conclusion and say that detecting design is outside the bounds of science.

You are.

If detecting design were within the bounds of science, then you would readily agree that it didn't matter whether an alien, a spirit, a man, or some other form of intelligence designed something, that we could detect that something as designed.


This is just it. Why would you assume it was a physical entity? Could you prove that the wind/waves/natural forces did not form the watch?

I realize it is a proving a negative, but it is identical to the reason used by evo's why biological machines are designed by nature.


Great, so does this reason hold true for everything that is designed?

You are being purposely obtuse. If you don't understand, at this point I can't help you. Maybe you should take some remedial reading comprehension classes.

 

[noguru]

Ah what the heck. I'll give it one more try.

If detecting design were within the bounds of science, then you would readily agree that it didn't matter whether an alien, a spirit, a man, or some other form of intelligence designed something, that we could detect that something as designed.

Detecting design is within the bounds of science. But when you make a claim that something is designed, you are implying that there is a designer. Science allows one to posit design by a physical entity because we have corroborating evidence that physical entities do exist. When one claims that the designer is a non-physical spiritual entity, we have no corroborating empirical evidence that anything spiritual exists. Assuming that there is a spiritual world, in the absence of empirical evidence for that world, places that conclusion/premise in the category of metaphysics.

If you went to another planet, and found somethings that looked and functioned like a beaver lodge and dam. But did not see any animals like a beaver. Would you assume that a non-physical spiritual entity was responsible?

Or would you assume that some physical entity, with purposes that are shared by a beaver, was responsible?

Either case may or may not be accurate. But, based entirely on the empirical evidence, which one of these is a more reasonable assumption/conclusion?

 

[Yorzhik]

Almost missed this one.

Ah what the heck. I'll give it one more try.

Detecting design is within the bounds of science. But when you make a claim that something is designed, you are implying that there is a designer.

Yeah. So what. It doesn't matter.

Science allows one to posit design by a physical entity because we have corroborating evidence that physical entities do exist.

Knock yourself out. Figure out who the designer is. But that is an extension of detecting design.

When one claims that the designer is a non-physical spiritual entity, we have no corroborating empirical evidence that anything spiritual exists. Assuming that there is a spiritual world, in the absence of empirical evidence for that world, places that conclusion/premise in the category of metaphysics.

That's just the thing, I'm not claiming the designer is a non-physical spiritual entity because I'm not claiming anything about the designer.

If you went to another planet, and found somethings that looked and functioned like a beaver lodge and dam. But did not see any animals like a beaver. Would you assume that a non-physical spiritual entity was responsible?

Or would you assume that some physical entity, with purposes that are shared by a beaver, was responsible?

Either case may or may not be accurate. But, based entirely on the empirical evidence, which one of these is a more reasonable assumption/conclusion?

It wouldn't matter that the empirical evidence point to a physical entity most likely.

 

[billwald]

There is no pragmatic use to detecting design unless the primary interest is in the designer. In other words, unless the ultimate objective is to prove the existance of God then why bother? The ID people have shown no interest in detecting an intermediate designer.

 

[noguru]

That's just the thing, I'm not claiming the designer is a non-physical spiritual entity because I'm not claiming anything about the designer.

You are claiming that the designer did design. That is claiming something about the designer.

It wouldn't matter that the empirical evidence point to a physical entity most likely.

Yes it does. A physical entity can be detected through empirical evidence. A non-physical entity cannot.

 

[noguru]

If you went to another planet, and found somethings that looked and functioned like a beaver lodge and dam. But did not see any animals like a beaver. Would you assume that a non-physical spiritual entity was responsible?

Or would you assume that some physical entity, with purposes that are shared by a beaver, was responsible?

Either case may or may not be accurate. But, based entirely on the empirical evidence, which one of these is a more reasonable assumption/conclusion?

It wouldn't matter that the empirical evidence point to a physical entity most likely.

Yorzhik you either forgot or refused to answer these questions. These questions are relevant to the point I am trying to make. How about if we try one more time.

"If you went to another planet, and found somethings that looked and functioned like a beaver lodge and dam. But did not see any animals like a beaver. Would you assume that a non-physical spiritual entity was responsible?

Or would you assume that some physical entity, with purposes that are shared by a beaver, was responsible?

Either case may or may not be accurate. But, based entirely on the empirical evidence, which one of these is a more reasonable assumption/conclusion?"

 

[Yorzhik]

There is no pragmatic use to detecting design unless the primary interest is in the designer. In other words, unless the ultimate objective is to prove the existance of God then why bother? The ID people have shown no interest in detecting an intermediate designer.

If you aren't interested in the uses that detecting design can have, then you are free to ignore it. There is at least one use, and that is in how the mind works. Some things we see are designed, and others natural, but we immediately decide which based on information inside our heads. It is good science to know how it is we know (when we are right) and better science to know by testing if something is designed or not.

 

[Yorzhik]

You are claiming that the designer did design. That is claiming something about the designer.

Yes, but that does not dwelve into whether the designer is spirit or not.

Yes it does. A physical entity can be detected through empirical evidence. A non-physical entity cannot.

Fine. So what.

Yorzhik you either forgot or refused to answer these questions. These questions are relevant to the point I am trying to make. How about if we try one more time.

If we are trying to find out the nature of the designer, then your questions are relevant. But the question of whether something is designed is not a question about the nature of the designer, so they are not relevant to that topic.

But if you'd like me to change subjects for this post, then I can do it. I would assume it is a physical entity.

 

[noguru]

If we are trying to find out the nature of the designer, then your questions are relevant. But the question of whether something is designed is not a question about the nature of the designer, so they are not relevant to that topic.

But if you'd like me to change subjects for this post, then I can do it. I would assume it is a physical entity.

OK then could you please explain how we would determine whether something was designed or not, if we do not know something about the nature of the designer?