(2017-11-16, 07:41 PM)nbtruthman Wrote: [ -> ]The key characteristic of "design" is that it embodies large amounts of complex specified information in the form of complicated intricate mechanisms, often irreducibly complex.
Complex specified information is not well-defined.
Quote:The complete statement is, "the only source of such designs that we know of through direct observation and experience is conscious intelligent agents." The first Webster definition of "to know" is "to perceive directly, have direct cognition of". If you know of any other source of design that similarly qualifies as being known through direct observation and experience please describe it.
The statement is irrelevent since the concept of complex specified information is not well-defined.
However, I'd be perfectly happy to see a proposed definition of it so we can discuss it.
~~ Paul
(2017-11-20, 09:16 AM)DaveB Wrote: [ -> ]The point is not whether people have referenced the DI, but whether they agree with them that Yaweh designed the whole of life, and everything else.
Non Christians - such as myself - can admire the DI for the way it marshals evidence, not so much in favour of the idea that God did it, as against the conventional theory of evolution solely by natural selection.
Sometimes the right way forward in science, is to stop claiming that something is understood, and to return to the default position that the explanation is yet to be determined. In that way, people are freed off to look at the subject afresh.
In the same way as non-Christians such as yourself, can admire great cathedrals as works of art without feeling that they are supporting Christianity.
David
Referencing the Discovery Institute think tank would not be a point if this think tank did not associate itself with Christianity. Each and every member believes in God and has a vested interest in putting God back into all of society. Their goal is not to iron out the how of evolution to better understand how species arose. It is to undermine and put it on equal footing with TOE plus a whole lot more as you see when reading further.
Both Sparky and me posted excepts from the D.I. Wedge Document which sets out the goals of the D.I. Unfortunately it's seems to have gotten lost in all the back and forth. A quote from part of it to refresh everyone's memory.
Quote:Governing Goals- To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
- To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God. (note they specifically single out humanity to be special)
Five Year Goals- To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory.
- To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science.
- To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda.
Twenty Year Goals- To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.
- To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its influence in the fine arts.
- To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.
https://ncse.com/creationism/general/wedge-document
Evolution is a well established fact even if you choose not to believe that.
(2017-11-20, 11:39 PM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]Referencing the Discovery Institute think tank would not be a point if this think tank did not associate itself with Christianity. Each and every member believes in God and has a vested interest in putting God back into all of society. Their goal is not to iron out the how of evolution to better understand how species arose. It is to undermine and put it on equal footing with TOE plus a whole lot more as you see when reading further.
Both Sparky and me posted excepts from the D.I. Wedge Document which sets out the goals of the D.I. Unfortunately it's seems to have gotten lost in all the back and forth. A quote from part of it to refresh everyone's memory.
Just amazing, really. You still completely missed the point of everyone's responses to you. I'm honestly incredulous at how entirely oblivious to your own blind spots you are, even when they are directly pointed out.
Quote:Evolution is a well established fact even if you choose not to believe that.
Ah, but, as nearly everyone has mentioned, that isn't the issue here, is it? It's a nice way for you to try to demean your opponents (by saying something that is not debated, as far as I can tell) and make yourself feel safe and sound, but in fact, that is not the issue at all, as Dave, Stephen, Michael, nbu and others have mentioned. It's painfully obvious that you're struggling to sort out what's at issue here, or what ought to be.
(2017-11-20, 09:16 AM)DaveB Wrote: [ -> ]Non Christians - such as myself - can admire the DI for the way it marshals evidence, not so much in favour of the idea that God did it, as against the conventional theory of evolution solely by natural selection.
I think "marshals the evidence" is an excellent way of putting it. Preparing selected evidence for war and spinning it a certain way, whilst ignoring the weight of contrary evidence. The conclusion always comes first, and is sacrosanct.
(2017-11-20, 10:10 PM)Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Wrote: [ -> ]Complex specified information is not well-defined.
The statement is irrelevent since the concept of complex specified information is not well-defined.
However, I'd be perfectly happy to see a proposed definition of it so we can discuss it.
~~ Paul
Here is an interesting paper on Demski's "Complex Specified Information".
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/eandsdembski.pdf
(2017-11-20, 10:08 PM)Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Wrote: [ -> ]Then evolution is not a design process. If you find an evolved thing that you think is designed, you are simply projecting human design onto it.
~~ Paul
Natural design in living things predates human design by 3 billion years. I don't see how it is not the other way around, where human design is understood in terms of biological logic!
Paul, you are an intelligent guy; can you see why this ancient idea that human mentality is "so special" is bunk in the modern day? The design skills of humans evolved just like any other bio-function. Darwin believed this.
It's those crazy neoDarwinian's chopping mice tails who made this b.s.-up? Mind is an active player - right from the start of bio-evolution.
(2017-11-21, 01:29 PM)stephenw Wrote: [ -> ]Natural design in living things predates human design by 3 billion years. I don't see how it is not the other way around, where human design is understood in terms of biological logic!
You said "Design has a definition in terms of enforcing purpose and intent, ..." So now you are claiming that nature has purpose and intent, without any evidence except to compare it to human design. You are making a just-so claim.
Quote:Paul, you are an intelligent guy; can you see why this ancient idea that human mentality is "so special" is bunk in the modern day? The design skills of humans evolved just like any other bio-function. Darwin believed this.
I agree that the design skills of humans evolved. What does that have to do with whether there is design in nature?
~~ Paul
(2017-11-21, 01:29 PM)stephenw Wrote: [ -> ]Natural design in living things predates human design by 3 billion years. I don't see how it is not the other way around, where human design is understood in terms of biological logic!
Paul, you are an intelligent guy; can you see why this ancient idea that human mentality is "so special" is bunk in the modern day? The design skills of humans evolved just like any other bio-function. Darwin believed this.
It's those crazy neoDarwinian's chopping mice tails who made this b.s.-up? Mind is an active player - right from the start of bio-evolution.
Looking over neo-darwinism I see nothing wrong. What is the your bone of contention?
As I recall Wiseman removed mice tails to demonstrate mutilation is not a inherited trait. If it were, all Jewish men would be born circumcised.
(2017-11-21, 03:36 PM)Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Wrote: [ -> ]You said "Design has a definition in terms of enforcing purpose and intent, ..." So now you are claiming that nature has purpose and intent, without any evidence except to compare it to human design. You are making a just-so claim.
I agree that the design skills of humans evolved. What does that have to do with whether there is design in nature?
~~ Paul
What we might regard as evidence for design, Dawkins (and you) would call the "appearance of design". However, the whole argument is that such elegant and complex systems don't come about by accident. You seem to ignore that and cling to RM/NS as the only possible way to account for that appearance of design. My contention is that you do so, not because that is the only possible explanation but the only explanation which satisfies your atheist/materialist ideology.
It further seems to me that the whole point of so-called skeptics hanging around on a forum like this is to defend that ideology to the last. The posts by Steve001 are an extreme (and often clumsy) example of that but the rest seem just as closed-minded. Your presence and input is fine by me but I wish you could be honest about your motives.