I think a lot of confusion is in the word “explain”. Scientifically, or philosophically explain? The distinguishing feature of ID advocates is that they believe design can be detected scientifically, using the tools of biology combined with information theory and so on. If you widen the net philosophical arguments for design, say based on metaphysical principles or something similar, then a lot of scientists would have no problem with it. For example, I believe that the existence of God is necessary for laws of nature to keep being true. I think “natural causes” are insufficient to explain the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics to model nature. But I base this on entirely philosophical arguments, not scientific ones. There is no clear-cut experiment or calculation that I can perform to prove or disprove this.
-
I did not say he should be moderated today.
-
While Ashwin’s points may be new to you, I am quite thoroughly familiar with them … and how he attempts to advance a progrssion of logic that admits no flexibility of accommodation.
- Before you know it he will grind finely the flour of his opposition:
A] He rejects science because it is Godless;
B] But then rejects the position that Christian Evolutionists adopt because they are adopting a definition of science rejected by the Godless Scientists.
C] And then, finally, he rejects any attempt at a distinction made between rain made by God-led NATURAL processes… and rain made by miraculous means… on the grounds that nobody can be sure how to make a distinction!
Fair enough.
Since the ID folks think that its possible to prove design, they have every right to try.
I think it’s worth investigating whether nature can create information to the tune required for life to exist on its own.
Assuming it can, is the same as making nature God (philosophically speaking).
Not at all. It is not equivalent. Why would you think that?
Because qualities are ascribed to nature that it does not have… Qualities that are Gods domain.
Just look at Dawkins claims of a blind watch maker. In the analogy, nature is the creator.
But God is not merely a creator, no?
Yes, nature itself is the blind watchmaker. The process of common decent through natural selection is the unintelligent designer of “all forms most beautiful”.
There you have it… Patrick has spoken. As far as people like Patrick are concerned, they understand evolution as something that addresses design. I have also read published papers thay claim nature designed stuff amazingly and so on…
@swamidass- what are your views on the design capabilities of Natural selection?.
My thoughts are that it is not surprising that an atheist says atheist things. What does that have to do with science? Absolutely nothing. As we have already pointed out ad nausium, natural selection is not enough to explain the diversity of life: The Neutral Theory of Evolution. And even if we have a natural explanation of life, this is not a statement that God was not needed. Science is silent on God.
So the real question is why in the world you would let @Patrick troll you so easily?
As an engineer I see design everywhere in nature. But I don’t see nature as a particularly good designer. Most designs are done haphazardly, more patches on top of patches. Not very efficient with resources, marginal at reusing old designs. As an engineer, I would give nature a C.
That is just silly, lol. LIfe is just designed in a different way than humans designed things. You are being very anthropocentric.
I am glad you say that. However, I have heard this kind of stuff ad nauseum from supposedly reputed scientists speaking in the public domain.
Yours seems to be a minority voice.
Perhaps it not… and within academic circles, this is a settled question. However textbooks at school level don’t say so. Scientists who appear to discuss this in public don’t say so… They all prattle on about the blind watch maker analogy… making public arguments about bad design and so on.
Why is this the case if things are as settled as you claim?
I know. But I am a licensed professional engineer so I sometimes look at nature as an engineering project. Sometimes I look at life the same way.
Some men see things as they are and say “why”
I dreamed thing that never were and say “why not”
So maybe amplify my voice and join it.
Yes Patrick… things like the cell are haphazard…
So we should have made a living cell hundreds of years ago… after all we have so many A grade engineers …
I would have designed cells with longer telemers. And with little self-destruct code in them in case of cancer.
Better yet, I would design a team of biochemists who could use CRISPR-CAS9 to modify my genome so that no human being could get cancer.
Awesome Patrick…why don’t you do a DFMEA on that and come up with the possible side effects this might have…
Let me make prediction… you will kill the cell.
@Patrick Cells do have a self-destruct mode to protect the organism from disease states. It’s just that successful cancer evades the self destruct signal. And “nature” has made teams of geneticists that no doubt are hard at work trying to make you (and every one else) cancer-free.
Am not sure about joining… But i will definitely make your point wherever i can.
Let me clarify that I don’t see your POV as fundamentally wrong.Perhaps you are right in saying that its impossible to detect Intelligent design through scientific methods.
However i think its definitely worth trying. And if someone more imaginative than both of us can come up with a method… why not… Science should encourage them instead of abusing.
Excellent. I hope those teams of geneticists continue to make unimpeded progress in the fight against cancer so that you can give all the credit to the Intelligent Designer.