This offers the simplest “neutral” colloquial mixture of “design” and “evolution” that I’ve seen in a long time. The site is no longer maintained, but the language persists.
“As a designer it is important to understand where design came from, how it developed, and who shaped its evolution. The more exposure you have to past, current and future design trends, styles and designers, the larger your problem-solving toolkit. The larger your toolkit, the more effective of a designer you can be.” http://www.designishistory.com/this-site/
Here, the term “evolution” as used just meant “history”. The author was not indicating “design theory evolution”, but rather instead the “history of designs” themselves, which have been already instantiated.
The topic “design is history” nevertheless enables an obvious point of contact between “evolution” and “design”. They both have histories that can be studied. Present in the above meaning of “design” are the origin, processes and agent(s) involved in the “designing”. This differs significantly from the Discovery Institute’s version of “design theory”, when it comes to history, aim, structure and agency, since the DI’s version flat out avoids discussion of design processes and agent(s). The primary purpose of the DI’s “design theory”, meanwhile, is USAmerican religious apologetics and “theistic science”.
The quotation above likely didn’t come from an IDist, and it isn’t referencing “Intelligent Design” theory as a supposed “scientific theory”. The “designer” in the quotation above is a (more or less intelligent) human designer, not a Divine Designer. This fact distinguishes it “in principle” from the Discovery Institute’s ID theory, which is supposed to be (depends on who you’re speaking with in the IDM) about first biology, then informatics, and statistics. The DI’s ID theory is not actually focused on “designing by real designers”, but rather on apologetics using “design” and informational probabilism.
The Discovery Institute’s failure to distinguish or even highlight the differences and similarities between human design and Divine Design, and instead their engagement in active distortion, equivocation, double-talking, and obfuscation between them, are marks of its eventual downward trend to collapse.
From the other thread:
You think Behe’s work is scientific? If it was, you’d link me to where Behe proposes and demonstrates his ‘filter’ in some actual journal or similar, not a youtube link ‘five minutes in where he talks about it a bit’. Sure, he’s capable of it but has it done it? Where has it been done for this ‘youtube’ filter you claim he has invented.
If I am the owner of truth you are the owner of science-via-youtube-arguments. I shall call you BornAgain88!
I notice that Gregory’s attempt to discuss design has been hijacked by the ID zombies.
You just admitted there is evidence in biology for Intelligent Design. You just prefer to call it illusory. As if that makes it go away.
Human designs are largely, though not entirely, the result of conscious intent. Let’s stay away from the “our universe” talk, shall we, as neither of us lives in an observatory looking through a telescope all day? What other “designs” did you have in mind (on Earth) that you can name than “human designs”? It may be that the conclusion is simply your definition of “design” is non-standard and marginal and that most people won’t adopt it for various reasons.
Please understand, if you have any other “designs” in mind than human(-made) design that, 1) you will be speaking as a vast minority, and 2) you are likely making the language up largely as you go ad hoc based on the advice of no wiser person than yourself. There’s little base to “design universalism” than sleight of word, and it’s just self-contradictory mushy logic for an atheist to speak of “the grand design without Design”, as Hawking did. There’s Einstein’s “philosopher’s god”, and then there’s more recent skeptical philosophistic woo.
Umm, yeah. Does this deserve a badge: “Obvious”? A distinction between “designed” and “non-designed” can and in some places should be made.
Except for “non-designed designs” is Dr. Seuss language. It is incoherent woo meant to play with the audience. It’s a “look at me” move that guarantees the proponent’s marginality away from the core of science, philosophy, theology collaborative discourse.
Does the linguistically marginal and confused “design” definition holder above also suggest the following?:
Written and unwritten writings – writings are written
Sung and unsung songs – songs are sung
Spoken and unspoken speech – speech is spoken
Isn’t the all-important question behind the question here whether or not a person believes they were and are, so to speak, as an individual, the result of conscious intent by a Divine Creator (the name in English = “God”), at any level?
It’s natural “design”. The evidence is overwhelming
No. I did not. I said there is design in biology, or rather the illusion of design.
I should of course rather have said the illusion of intentional design by some deity they cannot speak the name of, sure.
It’s a common idiom that you’ve heard many times in your decades in this. You know all this.
Is there a way to make you go away? I mean, here you are delighting in the idea you think you’ve “caught someone out” in something. No doubt gleefully typing away thinking that you can make it look like I’ve “admitted” there is evidence for Intelligent Design.
Fucks sake man, grow up. Gregory has written practically nothing except the difference between ID and id and the dodges the people you send money to do to obfuscate their meaning and here you are conflating it all just to make some fucking childish point.
Do you remember overwhelming evidence? Dembski’s “fart-joke”?
https://web.archive.org/web/20090612090913/http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/
https://web.archive.org/web/20090611050347/http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe/
I spent a ton of time on there in various guises….
I wasn’t around back then I guess. I see Denyse O’Leary was the main contributor there. Something tells me I didn’t miss anything worth my time. 😂
This sort of response makes it clear that no amount of effort at clarity can clarify for someone determined not to understand.
In the very post you are referencing, I mentioned designs by fish, birds, and insects. I regard these as intentional designs with conscious and purposeful designers.
It also may be that you simply didn’t read.
You don’t think even the most complex birds’ nests or trapdoor spiders’ webs are designs? Or that they weren’t constructed for a purpose? Really?
Or, once again, you simply did not stop to think. A hoodoo rock formation is unquestionably a design. But it had no designer, it was not designed. So how can this be? Is it possible that this is a non-designed design? Why, yes, that’s exactly what it is. THINK! This is one concrete (or sandstone?) example of where what is unquestionably a design had no designer. It is a non-designed design.
LOL! Here you are making my precise point. There are different words for written and spoken material, different words for written and voiced songs. These different words make the distinction clear. But when the SAME word is used for two meanings, we end up with “non-designed designs” which strikes you as nonsense. Of course it does – you appear unable to separate the design from the designer. But maybe it’s not semantic confusion, maybe it’s theological blindness.
No. The all-important question is WHY someone believes in an imaginary agency that performs miracles at unknown times, in unknown places, by unknown means, which would be prima facie idiocy except they were brainwashed before the age of rationality. Even a believer like you would have not the slightest difficulty recognizing analogous claims by someone else as flat preposterous, head-slapping baffling, how could a supposedly intelligent person EVER swallow such claptrap.
Except, come to think of it, I have a President who has excreted out about 20,000 lies and counting, all of which have been fact-checked and debunked, most of them repeatedly. And yet about 40% of those polled claim to believe what he says, and apparent CANNOT learn better. This sort of willful blindness gives me more insight into religious faith than anything else. It says something truly depressing about people.
dazz,
LOL – big entry here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_design
The combination kinda reminds of Swamidass’ “peaceful science”. Opposite to Krishnamurti’s suggestion: “think not on these things.”
IDM collapses? Do you have any proof of that? Please don’t say something stupid like “popularity” or “Google hits”.
Dembski is doing other things. Behe is publishing, sure, but not papers. Other then that, I’m not sure what’s happening today in ID.
What’s the most important/significant development in ID in 2019? And so far this year? What would you say?
I’m sure if you ask anybody in a field that’s thriving they’d be able to say what is exciting them in that field. What’s executing you in the current world of Intelligent Design?
The proof of the collapse is the fact I can predict any response to this will not include two such items, because sod all is actually happening in ID of any significance.
Publications! Rather the lack of them. No new ideas beyond the slogans. No science behind the bluster.
It was only 15 years ago. You can’t be that young!
Do you think that if there is Intelligent Design that the evidence for it would be the lack of any appearance of design?
See above.
The only way Intelligent Design could be true is if there is no evidence of it.
Hilarious. Really.
Come on Mung, you’re not that stupid. The problem is that the mere appearance of design does not make it “Intelligent Design.”
Come on Mung, you’re not that stupid. The problem is that the mere appearance of design does not make it “Intelligent Design.”
I’d say.
No, just a lack of blinded children as a result of those same those designs from the all loving Intelligent Designer.
Nobody disputes that designers can make things that look like they evolved or were eroded. But nobody on your side wants to engage with the fact that when we evolve things ourselves, such as computer programs, the results are very messy and often impenetrable. Like biology. Whereas human designs are the opposite. People who do such work for a living know this.
So it’s basically a stupid question. The appearance of design could indicate Intelligent design or evolution, sure.
But only one side has a non-stupid explanation for that design itself, Mung.
Nobody is saying that.
And anyway, in that case Intelligent Design is true because there is no evidence for it!
Word lawyering prick.
He’s just trolling. It’s been a while since he’s had his fix. Nobody’s biting.
OMagain,
You’re forgetting that Nonlin has a hyper-circular argument that makes ID true no matter what.
OMagain,
Biology appears designed for a reason……but it’s not….how do you know….because a designer is too big of a concept….
Richard Dawkins…..
Liar For Jesus Bill fabricates a quote trying to score more Get Into Heaven points. 😀
Adapa,
Its actually pretty accurate. Do you have a problem with his reasoning?
Please, note the scare quotes around “design”. Thank you.
Haha, no. I mean I didn’t even know about ID back then.
Of course not, I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. It doesn’t follow from anything I said. TBH, I don’t know what the evidence for ID would look like, and I doubt you do either
That’s not his reasoning. Dawkins makes the argument that given a feedback process and a few billion years for it to work, the result is pretty much guaranteed to LOOK like something intentional. He also argues that people want simple answers, and evolution is not simple while magic is. Or at least, magic is a simple answer when nobody has any interest in how it works.
However, if you actually care to LOOK at the god argument, you immediately find yourself grappling with something enormously more complex than evolution, and it’s something about which you have zero evidence, permanently and inherently. Maybe that’s too big, and since reality provides sufficient explanation, maybe reality is enough.
Liar. Supply the actual quote verbatim.
Flint,
You have a universe full of evidence. You have not evidence you can explain life as a random accident. How many times have you seen living organisms pop into existence.
Evidence for lots of things, but not ID.
Why would we want to explain life that way? Do you really think that no natural phenomena can have a direction? Is gravitation random?
Yet that’s what you believe.
This is the Marks and Gauger approach – make a false claim about how evolution works, then show that the false claim is not plausible. I don’t believe life was an accident, and I don’t believe it was random. I think the principles of chemistry played a role, and these are not random.
Beyond that, Entropy is right. YOU believe life just popped into existence. Magic.
Flint,
No this is what you guys believe. I have assigned and intelligent cause. You believe in a process with essentially no
logical cause for what you are observing. Life is not just physics and chemistry. Where did those laws come from in your model? Where did matter come from?
Right. Bill Cole’s famous “A disembodied mind used MAGIC to do it!” hypothesis. 😀
Let’s try to get past telling one another what the other one believes. You don’t know what I believe, and I can’t believe you can believe what you say you do.
But the argument that “we don’t know where matter came from, therefore Jesus!” seems to leave a few steps out of the logical derivation. Care to fill them in?
Nope. That’s what you believe. I have never read of any proposal for the origin of life that involves popping into existence except for religious beliefs, like yours.
That popped life into existence. Ergo you believe that life popped into existence despite it’s never been observed to happen.
That you haven’t been paying attention doesn’t mean that we believe such a thing. Stop projecting and start reading explanations next time around. If you find it ridiculous to believe that life popped into existence, then stop believing that and start studying the scientific proposals.
Of course not. It’s interesting physics and chemistry, not “just” physics and chemistry.
Those laws came from humans observing phenomena, gathering data, noticing that the gathered data could be fitted to a model, then calling that model a “law.” That’s where those “laws” come from.
In the model of inflation/expansion from the condensation of enormous amounts of energy as the universe cooled down.
Flint,
There are a few steps in-between :-). How do you account for what we are living in?
How do you account for the intelligent cause?
newton,
Through the evidence of what was caused. Atoms, molecules, planets, stars, light and life.
Bill Cole barfs up another blithering non-answer becasue he just has to say something back. 🙂
Oh come on, give your side some credit. The atheist “liar” proclamators, have done a pretty decent job of hijacking. Granted their exemption from any rules restrictions gives them a leg up, but still, impressive.
Do tell.
I had no idea you were a closet theist.
Entropy,
Come on, you are not that stupid Entropy. Right?
Probably Omagain isn’t even THAT stupid?
That is called begging the question.
Did the intelligent designer cause its own intelligence, or did that intelligence have some other cause?
To believe in a disembodied mind is already to believe in magic.
That simply doesn’t follow, unless you buy this stupid dichotomy of God vs total chaos that so many theists love to bring up as if it was some sort of killer argument.
They have so little that these sorts of word games, also favoured by Mung, seem worthwhile.
Sal also has a thing about ‘unwitting’ support. This paper ‘unwittingly’ supports ID. Over at UD, ET has a thing about all science in fact being ID science.
So they know they have literally nothing and are reduced to these sad fucking games.
Yeah, Holloway pulled that same shenanigan here a while back when he claimed that everyone working on or using information theory (or something along those lines) was applying ID theory. You couldn’t make this shit up.
I do not believe this is playing games or dishonesty. Look at Bill: according to him everything is evidence of design. Organisms are evidence of a designed universe. Atoms are evidence of a designed universe. The universe itself is evidence of a designed universe. This is not circular reasoning, they maintain: it is obvious to anyone who is not blind to it.
If literally everything is evidence of Intelligent Design, then studying something, no matter what, is doing ID research.
I think to a certain extent is is. When pressed for evidence for his claims regarding biology colewd falls back to ‘atoms were designed’. People with integrity abandon claims they cannot support, they don’t retract back to a claim that cannot be disproven as support for a claim that can be disconfirmed.
Atoms might well be designed by an Intelligent Designer, as well the universe might be too. None of that has anything to do with the origin of life or biology. There is either evidence for ID in biology or there is not. And so far there is no such scientific evidence, only youtube specuations. And colwed still can’t understand why it’s not suitable to teach!
IDers tend to have a peculiar lack of focus, it’s true. Many exchanges end up eventually discussing the origin of life, cosmic fine tuning or the meaning of life. I guess that’s a side effect of having a unifying theory of everything, which as a bonus also fills your life with beautiful purpose.
Corneel,
This ‘omnievidence’ (a purposeful arrangement of quarks?) always puts me in mind of this.
Gregory,
Gregory, how do we know if something is designed? Do we have to know the designer?
What’s the definition of designed, the one you hold your faith in?
Actually it is more like this: the designed universe itself is evidence of the designed universe.