Archaeology and forensic science- the who, how, why, etc. always comes after.
I agree that many fields of science study recognize “designed” object… I disagree that the who, how, why come after. In science it isn’t really possible to identify design without considering the who, how, why.
A better question: what field of science identifies “divine” design? Turns out there is none. The only way your argument works is if you ignore exactly how archaeology and forensic science identify design, and somehow equate human/animal design with God’s design.
Once again, why exactly is this so important to you? What do you do for a living? Are you a scientist like me? How did you become so opinionated about the technical details of science?
1 Like
Pfft- considering them isn’t knowing who they were. And we can determine design exists with only our knowledge of cause and effect relationships.
That is why ID leaves the divine out of it. We can determine design.
Archaeology’s saying “humans did it”, humans are a what not a who. And if forensic scientists knew the perpetrator before they examined the evidence the examination would be biased.
ID leaves the source of the design out of it as a political maneuver, plain and simple. I know no ID writer who thinks Aliens are the ones who designed life on Earth.
99.999% of ID writers personally believe the designer was God.
1 Like
That is your opinion andf only an opinion. Heck regular posters here claim that divine intervention cannot be tested.
ID leaves out the source because that always comes AFTER design has been determined. We don’t have to know anything about the designer in order to determine design exists.
That isn’t an argument
Then it should be easy for you to provide 10 such examples if it ALWAYS comes after the “detection of design.”
3 Likes
Stonehenge; Non Madol; fire investigations that turned into arson investigations; murders; robberies- that encompasses more than 10
No, you haven’t shown that for any of those cases.
1 Like
That is how it is done in all of those cases. No one knows who deigned Stonehenge. No one knows who designed Non Madol- yet both have been determined to be designed. With murders there is an investigation to find the murderer. With arsons there is an investigation to find the arsonist. With crimes there are investigations to find the perps.
None of that is controversial.
@Eddie, my point remains unsullied.
The extent that Intelligent Design supporters are correct, correlates to the extent that science cannot address the miracle or miracles that exist in the premise of Intelligent Design.
But Behe hasn’t done any work. He’s only produced rhetoric.
The fact that he used to be an empiricist says a lot.
2 Likes
Of course he has. How do you think that he determined certain biological structures are IC?
With rhetoric! Behe doesn’t even bother to read the primary literature relevant to points he claims are hugely important.
Do you realize, Joe, that the notion that IC structures could not have evolved is a hypothesis that Behe refuses to do any work to test?
1 Like
[quote=“Eddie, post:53, topic:22185”]
No, your point is still sullied by your lack of understanding of what ID claims.[/quote]
Your use of constructions like “what ID claims” are implicit admissions that ID is merely political rhetoric, not science. You’ll have a hard time finding anything like “developmental neurology claims…” or “biophysics claims…” in the professional literature.
2 Likes
[quote=“Eddie, post:51, topic:22185”]
But no secular archaeologist needs to know the identity of the man in order to demonstrate that the Pyramid is a designed object.[/quote]
But secular archaeologists are interested in the identities of the men and women, so your analogy fails.
As would one who argued, “I have detected design in the Pyramids,” so I fail to see your point.
[quote]And of course the Pyramid is childishly simple in comparison with even the least complex biological system. To argue that intelligence was needed for the Pyramid, but that none was needed for the first life, seems odd indeed.
[/quote]It only seems odd because you keep yourself removed from the actual evidence. Your approach is limited to textual analysis, so your conclusion is not surprising.
2 Likes
And what I’m saying is that no amount of gyrations and calisthenics can free the I.D. camp of their definitional linkage to miraculous activity.
If they are right about, say, a flagellum not being possible to emerge without God’s programming (we are setting aside Aliens as non-applicable to our discussions), then by definition, it required God’s involvement (above and beyond the mere sustaining of the natural order of the Cosmos).
Quod Erat Demonstrandum (Q.E.D.)
1 Like