Why should they?
Just because there is pattern or organisation does not make it human.
Richard
The subject matter does not make it scientific or not.
I can philosophise on any subject and it is still philosophy not the subject matter.
However, it seems that philosophy is not part of science even if the subject matter is science.
Philosophy is not about evidence.
And the âargumentsâ are not about facts.
There is more to life than facts and evidence, but that seems to be where your arguments fail.
Richard
The fine tuning I had in mind was that balance between the members of a given ecology adjust mutation by mutation, generation by generation â tiny steps to which everything else has a chance to adjust.
I still respond to things all too often as though I was still on the debate team.
Better than debate is what one philosophy professor called disputatio, a discourse where the point was not to win but to clarify positions to reach understanding. It was a lot like a formally structured active listening process.
1 Like
Kinda depends on which humans are doing the designing. 
1 Like
In Finland, we use the word disputatio from the formal academic part of the doctoral thesis defence.
It includes:
Lectio praecursoria (a 20-minute introductory speech by the doctoral candidate, aimed to the audience);
General statement (a short speech by the official opponent);
Detailed examination (a rigorous, structured Q&A session where the official opponent critically questions the candidate on methodology, results, and limitations, and the candidate defends their work)
Concluding remarks (the opponent gives a final assessment of the work and the candidate invites members of the audience to raise any final comments or questions)
The current disputatio show (length as long as the opponent wants to use, normally at least 2 hours) originates from the old academic traditions. That is also why the dress code in the âacademic showâ has most often been tailcoats, the âcoverallsâ of our academic world 60+ years ago.
This is an example of how a word, even a traditional one, can mean different things in different contexts.
There is no pattern/organization in termite mounds. Theyâre completely random shapes. That 1 resembles the Sagrada familia shows design doesnât need a designer.
Interesting thought.
Well, termite mounds arenât random at all. They have remarkably consistent architecture for ventilation, temperature control, structural integrity. The Sagrada Familia resemblance is a red herring because itâs not about the specific shape but the functional design.
And speaking of patterns, look at monarch butterfly migrations. They seem random but are highly programmed, following precise genetic instructions to navigate thousands of miles.
âEach migration is by a new generation, so they cannot learn from others. Instead, they rely on their genes. Their antennae have a genetic clock that tells them when to migrate. To navigate, they measure the sunâs position on the horizon with their eyes.â
The fact that we can recognize patterns in nature, whether in termite mounds or butterfly migrations, actually supports the idea that thereâs real design at work. Randomness doesnât produce consistent, functional patterns. Why do you presuppose design without designer though? The fine-tuning is unexplained within a teleonomical framework but expected with teleology.
1 Like
Adaptation is exactly what would be expected given the feedback of differential selection. The ground is not designed for the puddle.
1 Like
The puddle analogy is a bit misleading imo. A puddle has no inherent structure, it just fills a space. But organisms have specified complexity with functional structures and intrinsic teleology. Adaptation through differential selection explains how organisms change, not how they got the information to adapt in the first place. The ground may shape the puddle, but the puddle doesnât have anything like DNA or the ability to evolve. And the puddle analogy ignores the fine-tuning of the laws of nature for a purposeful world that make adaptation possible. Natural selection is a mechanism but it needs something to select for, and that something is purposeful design.
Iâm not denying design, just the designer. Evolution can and has produced design e.g. the eye (for seeing), the ears (for hearing), etc. The termite mound is not a red herring. Itâs randomness producing design, but unlike the Sagrada familia there werenât termite engineers and architects who sat down in a room and planned the construction. Itâs interesting that you mention ventilation, temperature control, etc.. The termites which built those into their daily activities were selected for by evolution.
1 Like
Sure, Iâm not sure to catch why you presuppose design without a designer yet.
Yup evolution produces functional design like eyes and ears. But the point iâm making is evolution is more than just mutation and selection. Convergence shows this, same problems leading to same solutions across unrelated species. Thatâs not randomness at all, itâs problem-solving within physical and chemical constraints.
And natural selection is just a filter, it doesnât create the variations or the constraints. The termite mound isnât a case for randomness making design. Of course no termite engineers planned it, but their instinct to build that structure is itself a designed behavior. The fact that they can solve complex architectural problems through instinct points to something beyond blind processes, itâs teleology. Evolution produces design, but it needs the right raw materials with constraints to work with. Those point to design with designer not âappearance of designâ by chance and necessity.
Wait are you a Christian? You said you deny a designer. Im confused.
Fine tuning is what makes nature necessary and sufficient for the mechanisms of adaptation.
They have complex functional structures, but those do not require specification nor intrinsic teleology.
3 Likes
This strikes me as a metaphysics assertion.
1 Like
What else is there?
Correction, teleonomy (design without designer)
The gist of Darwinâs theory is that traits multiply in variety, thanks to mutation. The environment selects for traits that are pro-life. So in the case of termites, there were some termites that built their homes in a particular that was beneficial. These termites were selected for by environmental pressures and here we are - the occasional termite mound looking like a basilica.
Hmm
The Nature v Nurture debate has never concluded that genes can do what you claim.
I wonder how such a genetic trait could possibly evolve?
This is clearly an âall or nothingâ scenario and Irreducibility at its peak. It is not as if they could migrate halfway and survive!
I would love to see the narrative that just explains it away, How on earth could even one Butterfly âaccidentallyâ migrate so far and back, let alone pass it on and become the only type.
Richard
Edit
A quick survey about Migration reveals that its evolution is pure conjecture, because no one has seen how it started. Comments about it developing slowly defy all logic as they pass through, or over inhospitable areas that could not have been used. So, unless the climate changed slowly enough for the mid points to have deteriorated there is no chance that a part migration could survive.
Migration routes arenât constant. They change over time. They vary in length, timing and directionality. They can get longer. Some are very short - short enough that they could arise accidentally.
I suspect you surveyed creationist sites, not research journals.
Last time I looked the Britanica had no religious bias or allegiance.
Richard