Billk:> I don't base anything on location. I'm not sure that anything
>is truly random. You are the one who evidently bases design upon
>location. What I conclude is that there is a consistency of
>logic by concluding that all has design in it -- even that which
>appears to be random. I believe in a Designer who can design
>things much more intricately than I can recognize. Now, I
>recognize that my last statement involves faith, but I believe
>that this conclusion is consistent logically.
Pim: If you accept by faith that a designer can create something far
more
intrically than you can recognize then there is still the problem of
"is
what you recognize as design, actual design ? Or mere natural ?". You
have
to address the issue of appearance. Is what appears to be designed
actually designed or could it be a product of natural forces (random
is
too strong).
It seems to me that I have already "answered the problem of
appearance" in my own life -- I'm a Christian who believes
in a all- knowing God who has designed this whole world.
You're the scientist and I know that scientists must put a
lot of planning, time, finances and effort into testing
hypotheses. How about telling your boss about your real
doubts about the legitimacy of the work you do and see if
he provides you with script "undesigned" and "unrecognized"
by the U.S. Treasury (such as a few pebbles for money).
<grin> I think it is you who have yet to answer for yourself.
Science itself cannot test the difference between appearance of
design and design itself.
Bill: >You want to make "location" as the criteria. If I find a pair
of
> tennis shoes outside, am I to conclude that they evolved
"naturally"?
Pim: Perhaps if you can explain and observe tennis shoes having sex
and
multiplying ? Passing on their 'genetic' information ?
So "location" is not the criteria? If reproduction of living creatures
is the criteria for where a designer is not involved, then when about
those scientists who are cloning? Surely there is much time, money,
and
effort (that is, designing) going into the work. If humans can do it,
why could not the ultimate Designer who is much more intelligent do
that
and more?
Bill:
I don't care for your example of the layered deposits for a number
reasons:
1. Lack of verification of a Designer does not establish "natural
causes"
It merely leaves it as the most likely one. Especially of the causes
can
actually be identified.
Excuse me, but that is neither good logic nor good sense. Suppose a
haughty (but fairly intelligent) bug were to come across a baked cake
and tried to determine its origin, it might examine the cake and,
not finding the cook, conclude the the "natural causes" were: the
stove, or the heat, or fire, or electricity, or bouncing molecules.
This bug, being haughty, thought it was the smartest creature on the
earth and concluded nothing more intelligent could have done it.
The problem with your conclusion is that the Designer is pure spirit
and cannot be measured. Being the Designer, He is outside the realm
of matter and physical laws. Failure to verify simply means failure to
verify, nothing more. Now, it doesn't "prove" the Designer's existence
but neither does it leave "natural causes" "as the most likely"
conclusion. To make this conclusion makes the scientist as assuming
to know most or all the truths of the universe.
Billk: 2.> It would lead to a technical discussion of deposits and too
> easily lose the the logic in technical details.
Pim: Not at all. We observe deposits to be less than
random. Do we conclude that this proves design ? Especially
if the natural causes can be identified which explain the
observations ? See Bug illustration above.
You're the one who brought up the illustration. Does it
disprove design? Like I said in one of the other points for
not liking this illustration -- I'll see design and you
won't. I don't want to get into a discussion of molecular
structure of rocks nor the distances of electrons to
protons/neutrons, etc. nor into the technical process of
means of sifting.
Billk: >Your answer doesn't begin to answer my question. Is it an
>"unreasonable conclusion"? I would bet that my conclusions
>in this regard would be "reasonable" if I were to take the
>time and expense to research it out. I could take my
>"hypothesis" and test my conclusions. We all know what the
>results would be. However, it wouldn't be practicable to
>repeat this for each and every thing. Each verification
>should increase my confidence that for each design there
>is a designer.
Pim: Of course this presumes that you can identify 'design'.
Yes. Of course when I see design everywhere makes it the problem
of identifying it is made much easier.
Pim>> That you believe that something is designed does not make
>> it so. So my question stands, how do you conclude from
>> looking at something that there is an intelligent
>> designer ?
Billk:> I didn't say that believing makes it true. I am questioning
>your comment to Stephen Jones in which you said, ""How you
>could conclude from looking at this that there is an
>intelligent designer is beyond me." Don't you make
>conclusions this way yourself?
Pim: >Not in the realm of science. Claims like 'wow, i have no idea
>how this could have happened naturally, therefor I believe
>in a designer' are not very appealing intellectually to
>me. My question is how do we/you/I recognize and identify
>design ?
First of all, the theist usually doesn't phrase it that way. While
the intellectual underpinnings logically are there, the sense of
wonder isn't directed primarily to the design, nor to the existence
of the Designer, but rather to the glory of the Designer. Also,
the sense of wonder wells up from the spirit of the
person. The Psalmist says, "O Lord our Lord, how excellent is thy
name in all the earth! who hast set thy glory above the heavens"
While there is some intellectual involvement in recognition
of design, I think much of it comes from a discerning
spirit in a man or woman, boy or girl. I don't know that
you can put a hard set of rules on its recognition. There
are so many forms -- through the eye, the ear, touch,
spirit, and varying from very simple to extremely complex.
Design is not limited to objects.
Billk:> I won't speak for Stephen, but as for myself, I see that
patterns
> imply design and design implies a designer.
Pim: >You presume design and therefor there must be a designer. How do
you
identify patterns of design and how do you distinguish them from
natural
'design' like the layers of deposits for instance ?
You keep asking me to distinguish, but I don't know your definition of
'natural design'. If it doesn't include God the Designer, then I don't
distinguish.
Bill:> My question for you would be, "Specifically what is it in the
>observation that would cause you, Pim, to conclude that
>the "invisible creator" conclusion in the tennis shoe case
>would not apply in the other cases?
Pim: It could or couldn't apply. Since there is no possible evidence
of a
supernatural creator we are left to guess at the evidence and how to
identify something as designed versus natural. My question is how do
you
decide that the object you found has a designer ?
I think your key word is "decide". A decision involves a
"choice" and that is a matter of the will. I decide because
I choose to decide (and so do you). The question now is,
"On what basis do I choose"? We choose on the basis of our
own paradigm. My paradigm includes God the Creator and
Designer and your paradigm leaves out God. Once that big
choice is made, it colors all of our other decisions. It
colors what literature we read and what literature we tend
to ignore. It colors what literature we digest for help and
what literature we read to criticize. It also colors how we
look at objects ("design" or not) When I look at something
I don't have to consciously decide whether it was designed
or not. All I might ask myself is whether it is a good
design, poor design, human design, God's design, Satan's
design.
Pim:> So my question stands, how do you conclude from looking
> at something that there is an intelligent designer ?
Once the big choice is made, the little choices don't pop
up. It's settled. As far as I am concerned, design implies
order and control; lack of design implies chaos or chaos
just around the corner. I don't like chaos.
Bill:> You're reading my messages. You are writing back. Don't
your responses back to me serve as evidence that you
believe that I am a human designer of sentences?
Pim: Still no response. How do we conclude from looking at something
that there
is an intelligent designer ?
What do you mean, "Still no response". I am reading your
response. You can't get away with saying "Still no
response" to mean that you haven't responded. To me all it
means is that you are too proud or something to admit that
you have made the choice to treat me as a human designer of
sentences.
Pim: To claim that just because it appears to me as designed it
therefor is
designed has little relevance in science which relies on objective
'facts'
rather than on what you or I want to believe.
So my question remains, how do we conclude from looking at something
that
there is an intelligent designer ?
On the contrary, science itself depends upon a designed
method of approach. If the scientific method is a mere
appearance of design, then science is a total sham for its
results are likely in total error. Let the lab run itself
and save the company all those unnecessary paychecks to
employees.
As far as recognition of design, I believe it ultimately
comes down to the spirit within us. Even a child recognizes
design at an early age. I don't think you can have a hard
set of intellectual rules. The Christian even sees design
in world events, in God's will for his/her life, etc.
Bill Kipp