Why I Am an ID Proponent

No. Design is everywhere in nature.

image

Both are exquisitely designed for the job - tear flesh and to tear wood.

3 Likes

I think we need another thread on why @Patrick is an ID proponent! :smiley:

2 Likes

@Mung

The notorious Pool Shot Model is one example of how Evolutionary processes can be harnessed by God to be a system of design.

Since most Evolutionists believe mammals were unlikely to develop as we know them until the Alpha reptile predators were extinct, the dino-killing asteroid would be part of God’s “design” invested into Evolution on Earth.

Where did I say it was? I said that the lens in the eye and in the refracting telescope serve a similar function, to bend light toward a focal point. And that is correct.

I did not say that an eye and a telescope were exactly alike. But you said they were not at all alike. I was guilty of no exaggeration, but you clearly exaggerated.

I am a D proponent not an ID proponent. Design is a human perceptual concept like beauty.

3 Likes

Agreed, but Dawkins, Crick, etc. all say that this only apparent design, not actual design. And our Scandinavian friend here won’t go even as far as you do – he doesn’t think there is even apparent design!

So if someone said that beauty is obvious you would not respond by saying you are a proponent of the claim that there is no appearance of beauty in nature?

Perhaps there is no design in the blowing of the leaves, but perhaps there is beauty. :slight_smile:

1 Like

@Mung

For many Christians, “beauty” is sufficient evidence of God’s design.

For me, it is the opposite, beauty is what my mind defines it to be. Strictly a human emotion, a feeling.

1 Like

I actually do not dispute this. There have been studies. I have posted this before:

A Natural History of Natural Theology: The Cognitive Science of Theology and Philosophy of Religion

…although natural theological arguments can be very sophisticated, they are rooted in everyday intuitions about purpose, causation, agency, and morality. Using evidence and theories from disciplines including the cognitive science of religion, evolutionary ethics, evolutionary aesthetics, and the cognitive science of testimony, they show that these intuitions emerge early in development and are a stable part of human cognition.

So Rumraket appears to be abnormal. :wink:

The question arises, why would these intuitions evolve in just such a way that they emerge early in development?

1 Like

And I am sure that Neanderthals had a similar view of beauty also. That is why I think that they were human also.

2 Likes

I would ask why. I don’t see a reason why God could not design something we would think is ugly. Should we say that if it is ugly then it was designed by Satan or in some other way a distortion of what God “really” intended? That, to me, smacks entirely too much of YECism. I am simply not willing to go there without some reason. God is author of what is beautiful and what is ugly.

I could really use a “not ugly” meter, if anyone is working on it.

Im just reporting the obvious. And part of the obvious is that it is a one-way thought process.

Its not science… its emotion.

If it’s emotional, then is the response likewise emotional? Is @Rumraket being emotional rather than scientific and objective? Does he know he is being emotional?

The beauty in nature can evoke emotion. So can the design in nature. That does not mean that the beauty in nature is “emotion.” So what exactly do you mean?

Is Lucy ugly or beautiful?

1 Like

@Mung
I have posted that some do know/realize!

20181121_222306

LUCY is very beautiful!

1 Like

Yes, No, Maybe.

Provide an objective measure that would allow us identify “beautiful” while also identifying “not beautiful” with the exact same measure.

I don’t see why something like a human mind couldn’t be behind the evolutionary process and its outcomes – unless it is the case that the evolutionary process is inherently irrational, chaotic, undirectable, etc., such that even the mind which started the process going would not be able to control its outcomes.

This leaves us with the same problem. “Something like a human mind” is too vague.

Science works with definitions that are precise enough that you can use those definitions in logic and in measurement/observation for testing. Yes, science has some vague terminology, too. But there needs to be a core that is precise enough that it can be used with logic, measurement, etc.

3 Likes