They look designed because they were designed through natural processes. Things were designed through genetic variation and a form of selection to have a reproductive advantage in their environment.
This is slight of hand.
"Design" presumes an active intelligence behind it. The subtle attempt by ID opponents to do what you have done here is probably behind the need for redundancy in the term "Intelligent Design."
As such, you have to sneak in the notion that "nature" has some kind of ethereal intelligence guiding the process so as to reach some desired end.
If you really allowed the term "design" to be defined properly, you would realize that the theory of evolution does not grant "nature" some inherent intelligence by which to guide the processes toward designing anything.
Noguru said:
The vast number of species that have gone extinct is evidence for a natural process...,
Nobody in ID is denying that natural processes occur or that extinctions have occurred. I don't know what theory you are objection to here, but its not ID.
Noguru said:
...rather than a process humans assume God "would" use based on their human "purposes" for design.
Its next to fruitless hypothesizing what "God" would do unless you are sufficiently informed about what God says He has done. It is entirely disingenuous for a scientist who embraces methodological naturalism to argue from what God would or would not have done.
Noguru said:
Why does "design" have to be "supernatural" for it to be "designed"?
It doesn't, it just needs intelligence to be designed.
Noguru said:
What empirical evidence is there for "supernatural" design?
You are misrepresenting ID by assuming that the theory makes claims about the supernatural nature of the designer. All ID suggests is that evolution is insufficient to explain the complexity that can be detected in fields like biology and that said complexity is best explained by design (which again, logically entails a designer if you define "design" properly). ID theory does not claim to identify the designer nor does it even insist that the designer is supernatural.
Of course that is what I believe, I am pretty confident that most ID folks believe that the Designer is supernatural, but ID, as a theory, does not purport to make such an identification.
Noguru said:
Alternative does not mean equal in regard to scientific investigation.
No, of course not. ID is superior when it comes to what we know about the causation of design in the universe as the only known cause of design that we can verify through observed and repeated experience is "intelligence."
Noguru said:
No, it is called methodological naturalism. Precisely because the "supernatural" cannot be investigated with the scientific method.
First, methodological naturalism is a philosophical presupposition that is not scientifically derived nor can it be scientifically supported. It is a philosophical construct that has outlived its usefulness precisely because of its interdependent relationship with ontological naturalism.
As I have stated before, naturalism (be it methodological or ontological) has not always been the prevailing attitude of scientists nor must it always be in the future. I think ID provides an excellent challenge to naturalism and reveals that a less biased paradigm is needed for science to answer questions of origins.
Essentially, the way naturalism binds science today can be illustrated in the following way. Lets presume that a group of mathematical philosophers proposed a philosophy of mathematics which concludes that - no matter what - the number 333 cannot be the answer to any mathematical problem. Those mathematicians who adhere to that philosophy can conceivably go about their work for some time without ever running into trouble but eventually they will come across an equation where the obvious answer is 333. The question then becomes, will they do what naturalistic scientists are doing with the challenges ID theory presents?
Will they say, "we aren't quite sure what the answer to the problem is, it sure looks like the answer is 333, but we've already ruled that answer out as a matter of philosophy, so we'll hold out for another answer."
Noguru said:
Tell me how you propose to verify/falsify a claim about the supernatural using the scientific method?
First, ID doesn't hypothesize that the explanation for apparent design in nature
is supernatural, it hypothesizes that the explanation for apparent design in nature is intelligence. That intelligence
may be supernatural but nearly all ID folks I have read or heard from agree that the second question is beyond the theory.
Second, ID is falsifiable as it can be falsified by showing how random pathways of evolution could have assembled the apparent design. Incidentally, many have unsuccessfully undertaken to do just that which is why it is more than a little disingenuous for the defenders of the status-quo to claim that ID isn't science because its not falsifiable in one breath, and then claim to have made headway in falsifying it in the next.
:chuckle:
Noguru said:
The scientific method is an inherent methodology for its goal. Its goal is to understand the natural world. Francis Bacon, who was also a Christian, pioneered the concept of empiricism as a way to falsify/verify claims about the natural world. He would have considered your attempts to sneak the supernatural in as "junk" philosophy.
Since Bacon isn't here to verify or dispute how
you think he might respond to ID, we'll have to go on what Bacon actually said.
"I HAD rather believe all the fables in the Legend, and the Talmud, and the Alcoran, than that this universal frame is without a mind. And therefore, God never wrought miracle, to convince atheism, because his ordinary works convince it. It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion. For while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them, confederate and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity. Nay, even that school which is most accused of atheism doth most demonstrate religion; that is, the school of Leucippus and Democritus and Epicurus. For it is a thousand times more credible, that four mutable elements, and one immutable fifth essence, duly and eternally placed, need no God, than that an army of infinite small portions, or seeds unplaced, should have produced this order and beauty, without a divine marshal."
(Bacon, On Atheism)
Bacon's thoughts are far more concomitant with ID than you have imagined as Bacon concluded that the chain of secondary causes together logically leads one to conclude that the universe was the product of an intelligent design.
Wasn't Bacon pretty influential in developing the scientific method?
Noguru said:
I never said they did. Many other types of movements have done this as well throughout the history of the world.
Theists (not all theists, only those who use theism as a way to externalize their desires rather than a process of introspection) however, have an unverifiable method should they choose to corner the market on "group-think" and "mob mentality", because they can claim divine authority. And there would be little any opposition could do, once they have seized control of capital and government.
Nevertheless the seizing of control of the capital and government and the establishment of a theocracy is a very unlikely consequence of teaching multiple, competing hypotheses and allowing students to make up their own minds, don't you think?
Noguru said:
That's why it took empiricism in science, and utilitarianism (which is actually the foundation of modern democracy) as a competing system of ethics to take control out of their grubby little hands.
Wrong.
If you want an example of a democratic movement that followed the same principles of vilifying religion, as you advocate here, just look at the French revolution.
Contrast that with the American revolution which did not see theism or religion as a competing authority but rather the basis for liberty.
Noguru said:
And there are some, like you, still trying to fight this. Precisely because you have an emotionally imbalanced authoritarian perspective on the world.
:chuckle:
Noguru, if I was looking for an assessment of my emotional state, you would be the very last person I would ask to make it.
Please stop making wild and outlandish accusations about others of whom you have absolutely no knowledge, it makes you look foolish and desperate.
There is no "conspiracy" to take over the world using ID.
Noguru said:
And the claim of "divine authority" suits your purposes very well, as long as you can find a sneaky way to appear to align yourself, in the eyes of your peers, with God's purpose.
What are you talking about?
What "purposes" do you presume to project on to me? Hmmm?
These comments are nothing more than
circumstantial ad hominem attacks. and are therefore fallacious comments.
Noguru said:
Because ID is not any different than natural evolution through single common ancestry in regard to its explanatory power. Every time there is something attributed to natural evolution, all one has to do is say "Well God designed it that way."
Except that this isn't what ID claims. ID isn't an intellectual jump to 'God did it,' it is an inference to the best explanation. It is the scientific process of using abductive reasoning. This, in contrast to inferring the conclusion beforehand (which is what evolution must do) as evolutionary naturalists admit that they don't know why things
look designed, only that it couldn't possibly
be designed and that random processes must be able to account for these phenomena somehow.
ID recognizes what Richard Dawkins recognizes, which is that: "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." The difference is that ID does not rule out intelligent causes as a possible explanation beforehand.
Noguru said:
Not so. Your agenda has been seen for exactly what it is. You might not like it, and you can whine all you want about it.
Ad Hominem, not worth addressing...
Noguru said:
But the reality is that you top "ID scientists" failed to show up and even testify at the court case that was your chance to make your case for the public. I wonder why that is?
Perhaps because they, like me, think that federal court is a notoriously horrible venue to decide matters of science.
Noguru said:
How is it falsifiable? How do you falsify the idea that "Everything that happens in nature is God's plan."?
That's not a claim that ID makes anyway, so its irrelevant.
