Homosexuality is designed?

[ThePhy]

Supplying unexpected assumptions

Supplying unexpected assumptions

From MS:

You're saying that I'm bluffing that there are assumptions made in scientific theories??? I thought that was a given. That's why they put all the disclaimers on the physics tests they gave in High School like "assume that this system is removed from the universe".

Sorry I was wrong. Oh, not on what you claim, for you would like to make me to be a fool for not realizing that science uses assumptions. No, in spite of your verbal sleight of hand, I was calling your bluff on whether you would provide such assumptions. Ah, but you did, alas. Mea culpa. (Actually I appreciate you putting the assumptions down.)

If you're going to advocate the idea that all life came from a single happenchance collision of molecules then you have to first off assume such a chance meeting, at some point in the universes history (depending on whether you see the preexisting 'seeds' for such items as already existing here on earth, in which case you'd need to present a way in which they got here and how they were initialy created, wherever that may have been, or whether you see them as for some reason defying probability on the scale of grandure of the divine).

You really need to practice moving the third finger of your left hand down one row on the keyboard and pressing the key. (I hope you have an American keyboard). Try it, see what happens. A little dot appears on the screen. It’s called a period, and it is immensely handy for breaking monstrous sentences like yours above into dainty understandable bites. Practice it a bunch of times.

Let me try to see if I can extract some bites from that mouthful.

If you're going to advocate the idea that all life came from a single happenchance collision of molecules then you have to first off assume such a chance meeting, at some point in the universes history …

Your ideas are having a problem, or maybe it’s just your terminology. Molecules do collide. Sometimes. Randomly. In nature. Even the very same ones that compose life as we know it. More than once a second. Hundreds of trillions of times a second, all over this earth, and all over the universe.

What you are really struggling to say is that the correct sequence of molecules would have to collide, and in that collision form chemical bonds so they stay together.

What is the correct sequence? The one we see in DNA today? That makes as much sense as saying the very first airplane was an Airbus A380 double-decker with all the advanced navigation and amenities in place. No, first we need just enough compatible molecules to stick together to form some kind of crude reproductive pattern that may occasionally spin off copies of itself. It has already been shown that things as simple as crystal growths in flowing water can accomplish that. Cell walls, mRNA - those are Cadillac features, not model-T Ford things. Excretion and intake - just put it where the environment itself washes the needed chemicals to it (food) and washes away waste. DNA could easily be so far ahead of the first reproducing structure that it looks like a hang glider by a Space Shuttle. Sure, there are a host of other requirements, but science has hardly found the approach of saying “wow, that’s complicated, let’s just declare it impossible and give up.” That approach is the one that is appealing to the bobbs of the world.

(depending on whether you see the preexisting 'seeds' for such items as already existing here on earth, in which case you'd need to present a way in which they got here and how they were initialy created,

This brings forth an interesting question. Is there just one unique sequence that would do the job? Early flying machines came in a variety of shapes. Do we know how many different ways the first primitive reproducing structure might have formed? The world of chemistry today (let’s say physical chemistry, just to stay away from organic molecules that we see today) is so complicated that there are thousands of chemists still probing its secrets. Not likely that of the billions of known chemical situations that have been observed in nature that only one will do the job.

… or whether you see them as for some reason defying probability on the scale of grandure of the divine).

Evocative phrasing, but not much good as science. One of things I would expect you to be able to show is why those astounding probabilities are stacked against evolution. In science it’s cheating when you declare the thing you are supposed to be showing.

You also have to assume that many more such happenstance occurances on a molecular and macro scale happened consistantly enough to produce changes on a scale never demonstraited in any lab or breeding expirement yet produced.

Stringing together lots of scientific sounding words does not constitute science. If what you are saying is that science has never successfully produced life (at least measured against what we usually define as biological life), then yeah, so what? That’s like telling a mountain climber that he can’t conquer a new peak because he has never before conquered that peak. Just a bit circular.

 

[Yorzhik]

Sorry, almost missed this one.

For intelligent design what I said is true. If the designer is not a physical entity, then it would not be possible to determine whether the design was due to an intelligent being or a phenomenon or law of nature.

Right. So? What does this have to do with anything we are talking about?

If the designer is a physical entity, then the designer would leave their "fingerprints" on the designed object. In the latter case enough must be known about the physical entity to give us an idea of what their "fingerprints" might look like.

No. If that were the case, then we are looking for "fingerprints", not detecting design.

In the SETI research program, assumptions about intelligent life are made. These assumptions are based upon what we already know about ourselves (the use of math, syntax, the senses..) and how these influence communication and the design.

So? You've answered nothing

Originally posted by Yorzhik
Are you conceding that science can never figure out how to detect design?

Originally posted by noguru
No. Just design by an intelligent "non-physical" being.

So you are conceding that science can never figure out how to detect design until we know the designer. In other words, just detecting design is outside the bounds of science; since is what you've strongly implied, could you state it emphatically?

 

[Yorzhik]

ThePhy, would you agree with noguru that detecting design is outside the bounds of science?

 

[Stratnerd]

So you are conceding that science can never figure out how to detect design until we know the designer

that's what I would say. Specifically if we are talking about biological entities. Do you agree?

 

[Yorzhik]

that's what I would say. Specifically if we are talking about biological entities. Do you agree?

Of course not. If we had to figure out who the designer was before we could detect design, then there could be no design detection because, by definition, it would be 'designer' detection. So will you concede that science is only capable of pursuing designer detection, and design detection is outside the bounds of science?

 

[Stratnerd]

Y-

uhhhhh what??? to put it in simplest terms: to evaluate the supposition that biological entities were designed we would need to know how a designer would go about designing them. that knowledge would allow us to predict certain properties of biological entities that we can then go look for. of course we don't know how a supernatural entity would create so that makes the enterprise unscientific. so design detection is outside the bounds of science, sure. that's what scientists have been arguing all along. as for designer detection I'm not sure how that is accomplished either. any suggestions?

 

[Tori_105]

Homosexuality is designed? Ok, well lets look at it from both sides of this $$$$ little coin shall we? If it wasnt designed... it wouldnt exist. And to all u Christians out there... If it was designed it was because your Lord designed it and created it like he did 'all things'. If it was designed... why dont u sit and wonder why? Cant u see... 'it just is' same as God exists 'just coz'?

:banned: Knight was here! :knight:

 

[billwald]

"Design" can only be determined by inspection. Tool marks and brush marks help.

 

[Lovejoy]

Homosexuality is designed? Ok, well lets look at it from both sides of this $$$$ little coin shall we? If it wasnt designed... it wouldnt exist. And to all u Christians out there... If it was designed it was because your Lord designed it and created it like he did 'all things'. If it was designed... why dont u sit and wonder why? Cant u see... 'it just is' same as God exists 'just coz'?

:banned: Knight was here! :knight:

Another kid with all the answers, and none of the necessary grammar to express it. Just how are we to take anything seriously, particularly about our dearest beliefs, when it contains the phrase "just coz?"

 

[Agape4Robin]

Another kid with all the answers, and none of the necessary grammar to express it. Just how are we to take anything seriously, particularly about our dearest beliefs, when it is contains the phrase "just coz?"

:darwinsm:

 

[Lovejoy]

I tell you, A4R, I would start lobbying for a ban on members under 25 if we did not already have such wonderful young Christians on the board. Some of the kids are just so dense! How can a 20 year old use such a pitiful argument, and so incoherently, while an 18 year old like Christine can be so very impressive? Maybe I am being unfair, but there has been a run of kids like this lately. I am ready to believe that our homeschoolers here are the exception.

 

[Agape4Robin]

I tell you, A4R, I would start lobbying for a ban on members under 25 if we did not already have such wonderful young Christians on the board. Some of the kids are just so dense! How can a 20 year old use such a pitiful argument, and so incoherently, while an 18 year old like Christine can be so very impressive? Maybe I am being unfair, but there has been a run of kids like this lately. I am ready to believe that our homeschoolers here are the exception.

It is what it is, Lovejoy. I tend to think that kids like Christine are the exception, and unfortunatly, not the rule. Some times you just have to consider the source.

 

[SOTK]

Another kid with all the answers, and none of the necessary grammar to express it. Just how are we to take anything seriously, particularly about our dearest beliefs, when it contains the phrase "just coz?"

:crackup:

 

[noguru]

For intelligent design what I said is true. If the designer is not a physical entity, then it would not be possible to determine whether the design was due to an intelligent being or a phenomenon or law of nature.

Right. So? What does this have to do with anything we are talking about?

Are you comprehending what I am posting? Or just brushing it off because you don't like what I am saying?

I will repeat myself once, and if you don't get it this time, I'm sorry. Designs accomplished by a non-physical entity and a natural law will look idenctical to us. Before we understood the natural processes involved with a flower blooming, many thought it was due to supernatural design. And it may ultimately be (which is what I believe), but the laws and principles that cause a flower to bloom are entirely natural. God may have created these laws and principles (which is what I believe) but there is no logical imperative, from a material science standpoint to conclude this.

No. If that were the case, then we are looking for "fingerprints", not detecting design.

I was using "fingerprints" metaphorically. And detecting design is looking for the "fingerprints" of the designer.

So? You've answered nothing.

Is it that I have answered nothing, or its it that you do not like my answers?

So you are conceding that science can never figure out how to detect design until we know the designer. In other words, just detecting design is outside the bounds of science; since is what you've strongly implied, could you state it emphatically?

Nope, we do not have to know the designer. We can detect design by intelligent physical entities. In order to do so we must make assumptions about their physical and mental abilites. If we went to another planet and saw something that looked like a beaver damn, we could reasonably assume that there was another similar animal responsible for this. We could do this because we know of the existence of beavers, and their abilities and purposes. Much the same way the SETI researchers assume certain things about the possiblity of intelligent life on other planets.

But in order to seperate design that results from a natural law or principle from design by a non-physical entity we need more information than can be obtained from the material sciences.

Yorzhik, if you don't agree with what I have to say could you give a reasoned response why that is. Or at least admit that you don't like what I say. Instead of pretending that I have answered nothing. Your strategy is very transparent.

 

[billwald]

SETI only needs to assume that life evolved on other planets.

 

[Stratnerd]

N-

Designs accomplished by a non-physical entity and a natural law will look idenctical to us.

Just curious: how do we know what the products of a non-physical entity would look like?

 

[ThePhy]

I am not designed

I am not designed

From Yorzhik:

ThePhy, would you agree with noguru that detecting design is outside the bounds of science?

I tend to stop short of the deep philosophical discussions that ID generates. Scenarios are posed such as the discovery of some apparent device with complexity equivalent to a computer on some remote world, and then asking if it might be the product of purely natural processes. If such a thing were to be found, I would be as hard-pressed as anyone to ascribe it to just nature.

But scenarios like that are then misconstrued into the biological world. I have no problem saying the cell is an immensely complex machine, more complex than almost anything man has devised. It is invalid to say that finding something very complex and apparently designed in one area automatically necessitates design everywhere complexity is found. I can’t, under any stretch of the imagination conceive of natural process that might create a computer. But when I look inside a cell, I see thousands of well-understood processes at work, and for many of the more intricate ones, I can see very reasonable ways in which they could have come about naturally. Sure, there are a number of complex cellular processes that we do not understand well yet. Some cellular processes are highly dependent on the concurrent operation of other processes. But such codependency can arise very naturally in stages.

When I first was exposed to Behe’s irreducible complexity, I had no answers. But in the years since, I have watched as one after another of his original examples of biological irreducible complexity have been proven to be reducible. He hasn’t been reticent about coming up with new ones to replace the original ones, but that reasoning could be used until every single biological system in existence has shown to be reducible.

So, for me the question of ID is like the question of the possibility of finding a McDonalds on Pluto – I am not going to worry much about it as long as it is not much more than wildly abstract speculation. If it ever solidifies into a field where the inputs, outputs, and rules are subject to repeatable independent investigation, and consistent meaningful results start to emerge, then it will be closer to joining the world of science. Till then …

 

[noguru]

N-
Just curious: how do we know what the products of a non-physical entity would look like?

We don't know, that's exactly my point. The problem I have with the whole YEC school of thought is that they use natural mysteries as evidence for an intelligent non-physical designer. That is why I used the example of a flower blooming because it can now all be explained naturally. Whereas if we were to find a beaver damn, but see no beaver, it is a valid assumption that an "intelligent" physical entity is responsible for the structure.

YECs want to claim that the complexity of nature is evidence for intelligent design. But I do not see that as evidence for such. All I see is that it is the result of many compound and intricate natural processes. Now the natural laws that govern these processes may have been created by a non-physical intelligent entity (refer to St. Thomas Aquinas's writings on divine, natural, and human law), but that is a metaphysical question. It is not a question that can be answered from inquiry into the material sciences. Once you place an entity outside of the bounds (and I think you agree with me here) of the material universe, or as MS puts it on the fringes, you place it outside the realm of the material sciences.

In my mind this strategy of theirs is a type of political "smoke and mirrors"; First claim that the "supernatural" is responsible. Knowing full well that this cannot be investigated as thoroughly as the "natural". Then claim that the "supernatural" explanation is superior because of the mysteries regarding the natural world. The argument does not hold water even in a purely metaphysical philosophical arena.

I believe that this strategy is an intellectually dishonest attempt at Chrsitian apologetics. I prefer a more honest approach to apologetics, if they are at all needed.

On the other hand I do understand the motivations of people who make such claims. I find their goal to be noble, but their methodolgy lacking.

 

[billwald]

If the Church Fathers had seen the drawings and construction details of a CPU chip would they not conclude that it was produced by God?

 

[noguru]

If the Church Fathers had seen the drawings and construction details of a CPU chip would they not conclude that it was produced by God?

I think so. And ultimately it may be. However, it can be seen (If you believe in God) as being constructed indirectly by God through another entity that God created, man. Just like a flower can be seen to be produced indirectly by God through nature.