My apologies … I thought you were going to take the OTHER side of the ID discussion …
Because that’s how a lot of IDers (typically at the “lay” level), think you can detect design. They think you can know it when you see it. They point to features of animals which are visible to the eye, and cite Richard Dawkins saying things like “the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker”.
So your observations have nothing to do with ID as practiced by scientists, only with possible misconceptions among laypeople.
[quote=“Biosemiosis.org, post:64, topic:4383, full:true”]
So your observations have nothing to do with ID as practiced by scientists,[/quote]
Yes they do. Just because something has the appearance of intelligent design, doesn’t mean it is intelligently designed. And to date, there is no robust model of intelligent design, despite all these “scientists” supposedly working on it. Over the last 20 years, how many ID scientists have published ID papers in the peer reviewed literature? How many papers are there? What has the impact of ID been on science? What are the results so far?
It’s not a misconception. When someone says they think X is intelligently designed because it looks intelligently designed, that’s not a misconception. That’s just what they believe. They’re not saying “The professional definition of ID as used by professional ID scientists is that if something looks intelligently designed, it is”.
Since you use the word “appearance” to include any observation or test of an object, then by your logic, no object can ever be determined to be designed. The word “design” can no longer effectively mean anything in any context, and we’ve slid off into absurdity. The Space Shuttle cannot be determined to be designed under your logic. Nice job.
Don’t tell SETI there are no robust models of intelligent design, they believe they can determine design based on a methodology using an unambiguous operational definition of intelligence. And they rely on universal experience for the robustness of their methodology.
No. Saying that just because something has the appearance of being intelligently design doesn’t mean it is intelligently designed, is not the same as saying “There is no way to detect intelligent design by any means of observation of test of an object”. I have already made it clear I believe intelligent design can be detected and tested for, and I have described one criterion. Here’s some more on the same subject.
I won’t. The intelligent design they’re looking for is entirely different to the intelligent design argued for by IDers. They’re not looking for evidence that biological organisms on earth are intelligently designed, they are looking for evidence of radio signals exhibiting signs of intelligent origin. These are two completely different concepts, using completely different criteria. The SETI program has a robust model of intelligent design, but IDers like Behe do not. Talk to Eddie, he’s the one who acknowledged they don’t have a robust model of intelligent design.
Hello Eddie,
You actually wrote,
“You appear to be given…” makes it an explicitly personal attack.
Please stop.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.