Homosexuality is designed?

[noguru]

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.

But it would have to. Since if the designer is a physical entity then the design would have its/their "fingerprints" on the design. If the designer is a spirit, there would be no "fingerprints".

 

[Yorzhik]

But it would have to. Since if the designer is a physical entity then the design would have its/their "fingerprints" on the design. If the designer is a spirit, there would be no "fingerprints".

Quite wrong. Why would you assume that a design by a spirit would look any different than design by a physical entity?

 

[noguru]

Quite wrong. Why would you assume that a design by a spirit would look any different than design by a physical entity?

OK can you give a specific example of something designed by a spirit?

Then I can compare it to something designed by a physical being.

 

[billwald]

There can be no evidence of God as designer because God is spirit? God could "design" only after the incarnation?

"A physical entity can be detected through empirical evidence."

Electronic voice recordings of ghosts in graveyards is not "empiracal?"

 

[bob b]

I would have to agree that if something is designed by an entity, human or whatever, that this implies something about the designer, i.e.intelligence (ID=intelligent design).

 

[Yorzhik]

OK can you give a specific example of something designed by a spirit?

Then I can compare it to something designed by a physical being.

The principles of design are rooted in the principles of logic. There isn't "human logic" and "spirit logic". There is "logic" and "illogic". And both spirits working with physical design and humans working with physical design both have to produce designs that work according to the laws of physics.

Now, if we wanted to know about a specific designer, as you seem to be focusing on, then it would be nice to have an example of their specific work. But, again, that would be changing the subject.

 

[noguru]

The principles of design are rooted in the principles of logic. There isn't "human logic" and "spirit logic". There is "logic" and "illogic". And both spirits working with physical design and humans working with physical design both have to produce designs that work according to the laws of physics.

Yes, and evolution must work within this format as well. This would make a spirit designer working through nature transparent to our empirical analyses.

Now, if we wanted to know about a specific designer, as you seem to be focusing on, then it would be nice to have an example of their specific work. But, again, that would be changing the subject.

I'm not changing the subject. I am simply investigating your claim.

So can you give us a specific example of your proposed designer's work, so that we can compare to the object in question?

 

[bob b]

So can you give us a specific example of your proposed designer's work, so that we can compare to the object in question?

EMBRYO DEVELOPMENT
The field which deals with the development of multicelled organisms is called developmental biology. F.H.C. Crick, the co-discoverer of DNA replication, has defined the field as follows :

The aim of developmental biology is to explain as fully as possible how an egg and sperm are made, how they come together to form a fertilized egg, how the cell divides and divides again and again to form a small hollow of cells - the blastula; how this undergoes a complicated series of internal movements to form the gastrula, how the various cells change their shape and character to form tissues - and so on until the mature animal is built.6

This short description gives some idea of the enormous complexity of the process of embryonic development. Each embryo starts out as a single fertilized egg cell. As the cells divide and divide again, they reach a point where different types of cells :bone, blood, muscle, tissue, etc., are required. Somehow the cells seem to know how and when to form the required types, and also how to arrange themselves into the required structures. It is believed that the genes in each cell control this process, and that each cell is able to sense its position in the embryo and turn itself into the correct type of cell at the proper time. Sir Vincent Wigglesworth has described the role of the genes as follows :

... the genes as a whole constitute an hierarchical system, with genes in groups co-operating to give wide-ranging effects; genes controlling the timing of the activities of other genes; genes concerned in the formation of hormones which can bring about dramatic changes throughout the body; in short, a system of baffling complexity.7

Experiments have proven that each cell acts according to its own internally stored set of instructions. When cells from a developing animal embryo are experimentally moved to a different location during early stages, they are able to transform themselves into the appropriate size, shape and type to fit in with their new location. Similarly, certain animals are able to regrow severed limbs from the cells at the stump. And finally, a recent experiment successfully cloned an entire new toad by using the nucleus of a cell from the lining of the intestine to replace the nucleus of an egg cell.

These cases suggest several important things about the nature of the gene instructions inside each cell. These instructions stored in the genes are the same in each cell of the body, and are the complete set, capable of regrowing an entire individual. Only portions of this complete set of instructions are normally used by any particular cell, but each has access to the complete set if it is relocated as an embryo or later needs to regrow a severed limb. Information is passed to the genes from the world outside, so that they can tell the cell when to divide or to transform into a new type.

From the article, "Computers and Evolution", 1983.

 

[noguru]

EMBRYO DEVELOPMENT
The field which deals with the development of multicelled organisms is called developmental biology. F.H.C. Crick, the co-discoverer of DNA replication, has defined the field as follows :



This short description gives some idea of the enormous complexity of the process of embryonic development. Each embryo starts out as a single fertilized egg cell. As the cells divide and divide again, they reach a point where different types of cells :bone, blood, muscle, tissue, etc., are required. Somehow the cells seem to know how and when to form the required types, and also how to arrange themselves into the required structures. It is believed that the genes in each cell control this process, and that each cell is able to sense its position in the embryo and turn itself into the correct type of cell at the proper time. Sir Vincent Wigglesworth has described the role of the genes as follows :



Experiments have proven that each cell acts according to its own internally stored set of instructions. When cells from a developing animal embryo are experimentally moved to a different location during early stages, they are able to transform themselves into the appropriate size, shape and type to fit in with their new location. Similarly, certain animals are able to regrow severed limbs from the cells at the stump. And finally, a recent experiment successfully cloned an entire new toad by using the nucleus of a cell from the lining of the intestine to replace the nucleus of an egg cell.

These cases suggest several important things about the nature of the gene instructions inside each cell. These instructions stored in the genes are the same in each cell of the body, and are the complete set, capable of regrowing an entire individual. Only portions of this complete set of instructions are normally used by any particular cell, but each has access to the complete set if it is relocated as an embryo or later needs to regrow a severed limb. Information is passed to the genes from the world outside, so that they can tell the cell when to divide or to transform into a new type.

From the article, "Computers and Evolution", 1983.

Bob do you have a copy of that article or a link? I would like to read it and decide for myself what it has to say.

 

[ThePhy]

Crankshafts used as windshield wipers

Crankshafts used as windshield wipers

Noguru asked:

So can you give us a specific example of your proposed designer's work, so that we can compare to the object in question?

Bobb responded with:

EMBRYO DEVELOPMENT
…
This short description gives some idea of the enormous complexity of the process of embryonic development. Each embryo starts out as a single fertilized egg cell. As the cells divide and divide again, they reach a point where different types of cells :bone, blood, muscle, tissue, etc., are required. Somehow the cells seem to know how and when to form the required types, and also how to arrange themselves into the required structures. It is believed that the genes in each cell control this process, and that each cell is able to sense its position in the embryo and turn itself into the correct type of cell at the proper time. …
Experiments have proven that each cell acts according to its own internally stored set of instructions. When cells from a developing animal embryo are experimentally moved to a different location during early stages, they are able to transform themselves into the appropriate size, shape and type to fit in with their new location. Similarly, certain animals are able to regrow severed limbs from the cells at the stump. And finally, a recent experiment successfully cloned an entire new toad by using the nucleus of a cell from the lining of the intestine to replace the nucleus of an egg cell.

These cases suggest several important things about the nature of the gene instructions inside each cell. These instructions stored in the genes are the same in each cell of the body, and are the complete set, capable of regrowing an entire individual. Only portions of this complete set of instructions are normally used by any particular cell, but each has access to the complete set if it is relocated as an embryo or later needs to regrow a severed limb. Information is passed to the genes from the world outside, so that they can tell the cell when to divide or to transform into a new type.

From the article, "Computers and Evolution", 1983.

I might question details of what is said here, but overall, my impression is – so what? I see nothing here that shows a designer at work. As a matter of fact, I think from a design standpoint it seems to be vastly overbuilt. If the cells in an infant’s optic nerve are to do a good job, is there any need for them to retain so much information that they can be moved to the heart and become good heart muscle cells? Do car designers build cars where you can take the spark plug out and use it in the place of a spare tire?

How about a design where there is a master germ cell that can pass on to each developing part just the instructions that part needs?

 

[noguru]

Noguru asked: Bobb responded with: I might question details of what is said here, but overall, my impression is – so what? I see nothing here that shows a designer at work. As a matter of fact, I think from a design standpoint it seems to be vastly overbuilt. If the cells in an infant’s optic nerve are to do a good job, is there any need for them to retain so much information that they can be moved to the heart and become good heart muscle cells? Do car designers build cars where you can take the spark plug out and use it in the place of a spare tire?

How about a design where there is a master germ cell that can pass on to each developing part just the instructions that part needs?

Well there is that. And I think I asked for something for which there is conclusive evidence pointing to design by a "supernatural" entity. This way we can compare it to things for which we there is little or no empirical evidence for such a claim.

It seems that Bob is using circular reasoning here. Bob assumes this function is desinged by a supernatural intelligence, but there is absolutely no reason to assume that the empirical evidence suggests this presupposition. So as of yet his premise is not established. That premise being; "We know with virtual certainty that this functionality (embryo development) is designed by a supernatural being."

 

[Yorzhik]

Yes, and evolution must work within this format as well. This would make a spirit designer working through nature transparent to our empirical analyses.

Almost. The problem is that nature cannot actually do any design. If it were able to do so, then you would be right. Now, the same thing designed by a spirit being and a material being such as a human would not be distingushable.

I'm not changing the subject. I am simply investigating your claim.

So can you give us a specific example of your proposed designer's work, so that we can compare to the object in question?

Since I've never made a claim, yet, about a specific designer, then it would be a new subject. So, would you like to change the subject? I'm not opposed to doing so.

 

[billwald]

>The problem is that nature cannot actually do any design.

Thomas Edison didn't do any design work when he invented the light bulb. He tried various stuff until something worked. That's what "nature" does.

 

[noguru]

Almost. The problem is that nature cannot actually do any design. If it were able to do so, then you would be right. Now, the same thing designed by a spirit being and a material being such as a human would not be distingushable.

Who said that? I think Billwald explained this well. Neither human's nor nature really design anything. They just discover a system or methodology that works for the laws and principles of nature. Do you think a snowflake or any other crystal is designed by anything other than nature? Now if you want to investigate whether or not these laws and principles are designed by some intelligent being, then we are left with a metaphysical question.

At any rate, there is a profound difference between a watch, a beaver damn, or a birds nest and the actual living things that develop these things. We know from empirical evidence that there are livings, and we can anticipate their purpose.

Since I've never made a claim, yet, about a specific designer, then it would be a new subject. So, would you like to change the subject? I'm not opposed to doing so.

No but your claim that things in nature are designed by an intelligent being begs the questions. What being? What is his/her purpose for designing these things?

 

[Yorzhik]

>The problem is that nature cannot actually do any design.

Thomas Edison didn't do any design work when he invented the light bulb. He tried various stuff until something worked. That's what "nature" does.

Edison didn't do design work? Your definition of design is fatally skewed.

 

[Yorzhik]

Who said that? I think Billwald explained this well. Neither human's nor nature really design anything.

There is no such thing as design. I guess that answers the question.

They just discover a system or methodology that works for the laws and principles of nature.

That's just it. Nature doesn't do any discovery. It simply moves from high energy to low energy. If you call that discovery, then the word "discovery" has no meaning.

Do you think a snowflake or any other crystal is designed by anything other than nature?

That's the question. If science can demonstrate how to detect design, then we can answer the question.

Now if you want to investigate whether or not these laws and principles are designed by some intelligent being, then we are left with a metaphysical question.

Right. And that's a different question. Why don't you start a thread and ask it.

At any rate, there is a profound difference between a watch, a beaver damn, or a birds nest and the actual living things that develop these things. We know from empirical evidence that there are livings, and we can anticipate their purpose.

Right. Which is why we think that design exists, and should be able to be defined scientifically.

No but your claim that things in nature are designed by an intelligent being begs the questions. What being? What is his/her purpose for designing these things?

I don't think you meant to use the term "begs the question" here. The question might be forced or the question might be the only logical next step, or even more loosly; raising the question. But "begging the question" as in "submitting (begging) the point being raised (question)" would not be properly explaining the logic used.

 

[noguru]

There is no such thing as design. I guess that answers the question.

Design is a term we use to describe our discovery of theoretical concepts and the application of these ideas in the real world. As human's we make a conscious effort regarding this pursuit. In nature whether or not there is a cosmic consciousness making this effort at design is a mystery given our current understanding. If a person choses one side of the metaphysical question (that there is a God consciously involved with the material universe), then all empirical evidence will support this premise. If a person choses the other side then all empirical evidence will support this premise.

That's just it. Nature doesn't do any discovery. It simply moves from high energy to low energy. If you call that discovery, then the word "discovery" has no meaning.

I would say that nature does "discover" things about itself. But perhaps not in the same way that human's do. IOW nature may not be aware of it's discoveries. But their success is all that is needed for them to take hold.

Nature does not always move from higher to lower energy. In the material universe energy moves towards equilibrium. But there are also phenomenon that create concentrations of energy to be dispersed into areas of less energy. Your simplistic view of the universe does the truth a great disservice.

That's the question. If science can demonstrate how to detect design, then we can answer the question.

So far I have not seen a feasible way to detect design by "non-physical" spiritual entities. If you have a way I would certainly like to know.

Right. And that's a different question. Why don't you start a thread and ask it.

It's a different question, but not irrelevant to your claim. Just because you keep trying to divorce this from your claim, does not mean that it can logically be done.

Right. Which is why we think that design exists, and should be able to be defined scientifically.

I think you could say that we are virtually certain that design exists. We see many physical application of ideas that serve a purpose to physical beings. I think this is pretty clear. This is how we identify design.

I don't think you meant to use the term "begs the question" here. The question might be forced or the question might be the only logical next step, or even more loosly; raising the question. But "begging the question" as in "submitting (begging) the point being raised (question)" would not be properly explaining the logic used.

That's your opinion, not mine. But again if you would like to convince me otherwise, go ahead and give it a shot.

 

[billwald]

Is not "design" popularly equated to "manufactured?" Isn't that how we identify designed things? They look manufactured? (Some things . . . chemicals . . . might require experts to find evidence of manufacture?)

 

[Yorzhik]

Design is a term we use to describe our discovery of theoretical concepts and the application of these ideas in the real world. As human's we make a conscious effort regarding this pursuit. In nature whether or not there is a cosmic consciousness making this effort at design is a mystery given our current understanding. If a person choses one side of the metaphysical question (that there is a God consciously involved with the material universe), then all empirical evidence will support this premise. If a person choses the other side then all empirical evidence will support this premise.

Nature doesn't discover anything. It just goes from high energy to low energy. That's it. There is no thought involved.

I would say that nature does "discover" things about itself. But perhaps not in the same way that human's do. IOW nature may not be aware of it's discoveries. But their success is all that is needed for them to take hold.

Not only does nature not discover things about itself, but if you try and say nature does discover things about itself then the word "discover" loses its meaning.

Nature does not always move from higher to lower energy. In the material universe energy moves towards equilibrium. But there are also phenomenon that create concentrations of energy to be dispersed into areas of less energy. Your simplistic view of the universe does the truth a great disservice.

Yeah yeah yeah. We've been over this before. Overall, everything goes from high energy to low energy. The universe, in the end, will die of heat death when all energy is at equilibrium. When speaking in this context, only the overall view should be used.

So far I have not seen a feasible way to detect design by "non-physical" spiritual entities. If you have a way I would certainly like to know.

Neither have I. Which is why I didn't bring it up.

It's a different question, but not irrelevant to your claim. Just because you keep trying to divorce this from your claim, does not mean that it can logically be done.

I am not saying that it is not the logic next question. But it is the next question which the first question doesn't rely on to be answered.

I think you could say that we are virtually certain that design exists. We see many physical application of ideas that serve a purpose to physical beings. I think this is pretty clear. This is how we identify design.

Okay then. We agree.

I don't think you meant to use the term "begs the question" here. The question might be forced or the question might be the only logical next step, or even more loosly; raising the question. But "begging the question" as in "submitting (begging) the point being raised (question)" would not be properly explaining the logic used.

That's your opinion, not mine. But again if you would like to convince me otherwise, go ahead and give it a shot.

No, that isn't my opinion, it's logic. I'm not submitting the point being raised, so it isn't question begging. If one wants to know if we can detect design scientifically, it doesn't matter who did the designing in the answer to the quesiton any more than we can detect if something is a painting without knowing the artist. Now, who the designer or who the artist is may be the obvious next question.

 

[Yorzhik]

Is not "design" popularly equated to "manufactured?" Isn't that how we identify designed things? They look manufactured? (Some things . . . chemicals . . . might require experts to find evidence of manufacture?)

Is this your proposal? If something looks manufactured, then it is designed? I'm not sure that is a robust way to lock down design.