More troll gobbledygook...
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Intelligent Design is not creationism
- Thread starter Teleologist
- Start date
Quote from Teleologist:
TraderNix wrote:
The design inference came first. No one goes looking for designers before they determine something is designed. To make this perfectly clear let's move stonehenge to the Moon. If Stonehenge had been discovered on the Moon, archaeologists would still have inferred it was designed even though they had no idea who designed it. The inference to design would be based solely on features of Stonehenge itself. Thus, you do not need to know the designer to infer design. To infer design you need to recognize the characteristics of an artifact.
They were able to distinguish Stonehenge from the natural environment because they recognized it as an artifact. And they recognized it as an artifact without knowing who designed it.
TraderNix wrote:
Yes, they did know who designed it. Humans.
The design inference came first. No one goes looking for designers before they determine something is designed. To make this perfectly clear let's move stonehenge to the Moon. If Stonehenge had been discovered on the Moon, archaeologists would still have inferred it was designed even though they had no idea who designed it. The inference to design would be based solely on features of Stonehenge itself. Thus, you do not need to know the designer to infer design. To infer design you need to recognize the characteristics of an artifact.
Quote from Teleologist:
If Stonehenge had been discovered on the Moon, archaeologists would still have inferred it was designed even though they had no idea who designed it.
Right. Exactly the same situation that archaeologists encountered at Stonehenge. They knew it was designed even though they had no idea who designed it! Specifically, that is. They probably put the chances that is was designed by space aliens at less than 0.000001% and by a sophisticated but extinct species of apes at something close to that. Therefore, it was overwhelmingly likely that it was designed by humans.
Quote from Teleologist:
The inference to design would be based solely on features of Stonehenge itself. Thus, you do not need to know the designer to infer design. To infer design you need to recognize the characteristics of an artifact.
Ah, the characteristics of an artifact? Hmmm... now this becomes a bit problematic. What are the characteristics of an artifact to you? What is the definition of an artifact? This seems a bit like the proverbial foot in the door. I mean, if sentience is, for you, a characteristic of an artifact, then you can put a bow on ID and shove it under the tree.
If you want to call something an artifact, you have to prove that it is so. You can't just say, "This has the characteristics of an artifact, so it is an artifact". That wouldn't be very scientific.
Quote from Teleologist:
The inference to design would be based solely on features of Stonehenge itself
Oh, actually no. There are plenty of things in the natural world that, if you didn't know any better, you would swear are artifacts. In fact they are naturally occurring things. Nature has a wondrous symmetry sometimes.
I think we've hit a crucial point. Opponents of ID will reject this idea outright. The 'features' of a thing are not enough to say that a thing is the product of intelligent design, not for those who don't have faith that a certain set of features could not be the product of anything other than intelligent design.
Quote from Teleologist:
If Stonehenge had been discovered on the Moon, archaeologists would still have inferred it was designed even though they had no idea who designed it. [/quote
TraderNik wrote:
Right. Exactly the same situation that archaeologists encountered at Stonehenge. They knew it was designed even though they had no idea who designed it! Specifically, that is. They probably put the chances that is was designed by space aliens at less than 0.000001% and by a sophisticated but extinct species of apes at something close to that. Therefore, it was overwhelmingly likely that it was designed by humans.
I don't dispute this logic. If something looks designed and humans were around at the time and capable of designing it then there is no good reason to go looking for non-human desigers. But if Stonehenge had been discovered on the moon, archaeologists couldn't invoke humans as the designer. In this case archaeologists would conclude that Stonehenge was designed by a non-human intelligence. Their design inference would be based soley on their recognizing Stonehedge as an artifact. Why would they recognize Stonehedge as an artifact and not just a pile of rocks?
Welcome to your self induced ignorance by intellectual design, accepting and believing in spontaneous random mutations as some "fact" of life, as unscientific as it is...
For those still with their head in sand, randomness is a human concept, not a fact of biological life...
For those still with their head in sand, randomness is a human concept, not a fact of biological life...
Quote from kjkent1:
You're welcome to your "opinion," unscientific as it is.
Quote from kjkent1:
I think you are giving the cosmological constant way too much evidentiary force. I see nothing inherent in the existence of a cosmological constant that leads inescapably to the conclusion that the constant must have been designed into the universe. It could just as easily be the product of random chance.
And the string theory which suggests multiverses, with potentially different cosmological constants, gives as much support to random chance of universes containing variant life forms (or no life forms), as it give support to an intelligent designer behind all of those universes.
In the end, you are still stuck with the fundamental problem: were all the universes created by a designer or were they always just "there?"
If you have a hypothesis which can be experimentally verified and which will answer the above question, then you will have the world's attention.
Until then, however, all the cosmological constant proves is that there's a cosmological constant.
So, to bring this back to my point: no ID advocate has yet produced any verifiable experiment to prove that organic life is designed. And, the existence of a cosmological constant brings them no closer to that verifiable goal.
I am not making the argument that all te universes are designed. (they may be but i would tend to doubt it.)
What the argument is - is that the new argument about millions of universes is untestable unverifiable bullshit - proposed by the best minds in physics.
Why? Why would scientists propose untestable faith based hope into the field? Because they recognize that due to the conclusions one must make after understanding the cosmological constant. There is only one conclusion one can make if we only have one universe.
The cosmological constant forces one to conclude the univese is designed. (or you have to speculate that we live in one of an almost infinite amount of univeses.)
this is not me making that statement -- it is todays highest level physicists.