Good point. The IRS knows it can ask these questions because answers do exist, which determines how much more money I pay and they get.

Yes. It is even worse for science because the college could ask the question of where the money came from for whatever reason knowing an answer exists. Science, however, sees no gain by asking a question that has no answer. Either way, the question of intelligence or not seems to be a mute one. Design can be a word with utility and without the need to look far beyond it to see its history, especially when it is well known that this question is beyond the furthest horizon for science -- it's way off the island.

The passifier was not intended for your use. "Natural" is a displacement for [an assumed] "intelligent". Though it is rather redundant, it's to help avoid confusion when using it in religious crowds, for example.

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board!

If you do not like the word design then stop using it. Natural.

What do you mean by "where" design comes from?

Why do you think science has nothing to say about it?

And from post 595 reformulated: Do you think there is an underlying difference between the 'intention' and processes that go into making a work of art, and the processes that combine to form a galaxy, or DNA strand. Is there a line drawn between the two types of design that needs to be erased or blurred?


If you had to choose another word to accompany "design" what would it be?

It might help us laymen in the field (which ever that is) to understand better what you mean by design.

Last but not least, where does design come from (if not nature)?


CC

This fourth and final section of Closing Arguments explores several ideas, two of which are that "design" is a natural phenomenon, and the other, that "design" has a metaphysical core.

The approach advanced by proponents of "design" from the outset of this thread has been one of confidence, of positivism almost, and I respect that. But the confidence was based on one affirmation only: that the interpretation of "design" was untouchable because science was not the field of purview, i.e., science could not prove or disprove "design." And since the supernatural connotation intrinsic to it⎯the intelligent⎯had been overtly removed, the concept of design alone was safe against attacks or incursions lead by the scientific approach.




Design was believed protected by a kind of theosophical Green Zone. Throughout this thread the "design" coalition had made daily excursions into the unsecured areas immediately outside the perimeter, outside of this once heavily fortified Green Zone of intelligent design, into the Red Zone of science from where they would engage the adversary with conventional weapons, teleological dumb-bombs, words commonly used in scientific discourse, but often in the form of unconventional metaphor. Then, they would retreat back defensively into the safe haven⎯which over the years had served as the headquarters and administrative center of successive theological and philosophical regimes⎯when the offense counter-attacked with the edge of its empirical sword. The walls of this refuge were thick, but debilitated, there were breaches in its foundation dating back over 2000 years. Feeble attempts were made to spackle over the breaches on a number of occasions, but that would make little difference in the final outcome. Science was able to see right through it.




The philosophical stance, hitherto, stood on the same rickety foot as intelligent design, even though it was not an overtly theological position. There was no empirical evidence, concerning design as a metaphor, that could be used to differentiate between philosophy and theology as fields of purview; at least none was forthcoming. That is where the philosophical stance was weak. The fact that virtually no scientists were looking for design obviously hindered the situation. The other similarity between the two (where "design" was treated as metaphor) is that philosophy, just as theology, constitutes a uniquely protected and isolated refuge, from where anyone could claim anything they liked or believed without the need to defend empirically, quantitatively or qualitatively, the assertions (and that, regardless of the purview where it belongs, which ever that was).

Indeed, the design claim was an argumentum ad ignorantiam, since it was though true but never explained and always unsupported (or 'explained' by conjecture). The claim was that the premise was true because it has not been proven false. That claim came from deep inside the fortified sanctuary. Said differently, there were attempts to use the "gap" in knowledge imposed by observational and experimental limitation as "evidence" in favor of the alternative view.

Nowhere has a proponent demonstrated that design could be, even remotely, responsible for the observed structures: something that surely would have been quite an achievement.




The false impression given all along was that design, even though admittedly not the purview of science, was still natural (not supernatural). But this was a classical ploy, one of tricksterism, sleight of Hand, an abundant dose of manipulative showmanship, and ventriloquism (originally a religious practice). Albeit, it in this case was a form of literary-ventriloquism: an act of stagecraft or performance in which a user manipulated typed words so that what was written appeared to mean something else. In this case the terms were chosen to make it seem like the discourse was scientific, but as it turns out the discourse was strictly philosophical, with forcedly suppressed theological undertones, and presented quasi-demagogically.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with that tactic, nor with employing a domain of purview other than science. It was in fact necessary, given the nature of the subject matter.

These musings were exposed with a subtext whose error forms the very heart of its claim: that design was not the purview of science, yet it was natural. That though was just as silly as claiming it was the purview of science, but supernatural. There was a trend throughout this thread to use catchwords to imply a controversial "definition" of design so as to specifically avoid alienating it from science, primarily through use of metaphor. The result, as shown below, wielded a pretty censorious tone that would serve to avoid the failures of its intellectual forebears (the source of the "design" concept).

The subtext was frequently used as a method of subtly inserting philosophic or scientific commentary into fiction. Certainly, the subtext buried beneath the surface of dialogue made the topic interesting, but it was also the source of misunderstanding and inherent ambiguousness. What complicated the matter was that once a subtext was exposed, its authors would create a new subtext. The inclusion of such could have been easily overlooked by the laymen, but I doubt it slipped through unnoticed by the more scientifically minded.

The problem is, this kind of literary-ventriloquism is not very conducive to a meaningful discussions of scientific inquiry. It is this type of defensive verbiage that users usually generate when he or she has nothing useful to contribute to further the dialectical ends. It added complexity by several orders of magnitude to a premise that did not frankly deserve it. By meticulous use of highly symbolic and metaphorically bound subtext(s) to the description of design, with no empirical support, proponents were able to instill (so it seemed anyway) a sense of purpose or point of convergence to an anticipated future design revolution (), without the "Intelligent," and yet without bypassing the underlying dogma of Intelligent Design: that something beyond science is responsible. This tactic, though nothing new⎯indeed it has evolved little since the Old Testament was quilled⎯can be found all over the Internet.

Thoroughly, initial attempts to access science through the front door failed. After having concluded that the "intelligent" had to be removed it was realized [by Ken G] the "inescapable paradox that intelligence itself is natural." That raises an interesting question, I'm sure.

Whereas modern teleological ideas presented in this thread found a safe haven at the impenetrable beginning (t = 0) and end of the universe, design without Intelligent had no place to hide: and yet could not be found. And so...

The next step was to define "design" itself, as something natural for some, or something metaphysical for others, to detach it once and for all from its theological antecedence. Here the design proponent's attempt was to access science through the side door⎯in lexeme form with; symmetry, simplicity, beauty, parsimony, elegance, and efficiency⎯a tactic utilized [by Ken G] that would also be doomed to failure since it was all based on submerged metaphor, with nothing physical, nothing natural, nothing empirical: something that science detests.

Indeed it could be argued that these words were natural, relatively un-controversial, impervious to attack. It was just a series of words rhetorically grouped together and claimed to be the same as design, without any further ado. But the argument failed to explain why some things are symmetric, simple and beautiful, while others not.

If there was a rational argument linking the existence of symmetry, simplicity, beauty to the existence of "design," it was not spelled out by its proponent. So the quasi-demagogy was the bringing together of unrelated clues (a false resemblance) that sounded in favor of the "design" agenda. The folktale was that design could be found anywhere and everywhere, just be searching for it.




Proponents have systematically produced non-sequitur logic by making claims in which the conclusion (e.g., intent, reason, or First Cause are inherent in design) did not follow from the premises (e.g., that design is natural, or at least seen in nature). The contention was fallacious from the start due to the disconnection between the premise and the conclusion.


Subsequently, after finding both of those entrances bolted shut, the attempt was to access science through the back door⎯with the statement [again by Ken G] that "the laws of physics themselves show all the hallmarks of design." That didn't work because one was equally justified in stating the laws of physics show no sign of design. The resulting ambiguation revealed the semantic nature of the claim. Indeed, the laws of physics are generalizations based on observations of physical behavior. The laws are empirical in nature, in stark contrast to "design." If the laws of physics were a byproduct of design there was no way of demonstrating it. The concept was phraseological oxymoron, a logical fallacy. There was no a priori connection between the physical laws and design. And, respectively, the irrelevant conclusion served only to diverted attention away from the definition in dispute rather than address it directly.

That left open only the fire escape ladder, but the ascent there would be steep, perilous. If design was unable to sneak in via that route it would left out in the cold, like a great star blown tempestuously into the icy breath of solitude. That was not an option so Ken G gave it one of his best shots, this time in the form of a question, with: "does it inform good science to seek design in the universe?" and the query would be backed up the claim "many great scientists framed their endeavor precisely in terms of a search for design" and "science and design will always have an evolving relationship, as they are inseparable"

Unfortunately that didn't work either. This tactic couldn't fool a layman, let alone someone well versed in the domain of science. It was a rhetorical claim that obscured the logical arguments of particular scientists by quote-mining citations and presenting them out of context. It was obvious, in retrospect, that design did not inform science, or visa versa, that scientists were not looking for design for that very reason, and that science and design are by any rationale separate, distinct from one another.



After those setbacks, it appeared as though the critical bulk of the metaphor had perilously walked a tightrope stretched between two crumbling towers: one founded on belief and the other on bewilderment.

The concept of design, whatever it was (or wasn't) had receded further and further into the distance. When I challenged the comments above with basic questions to test the potential of those arguments; there was no answer⎯not a morsel of evidence or substantiation⎯the most revealing of all.




The OP could be interpreted however one likes: philosophical, metaphysical, theological (all together, or none of the above). Everyone perhaps had a different interpretation. That's fine. It broadened the scope of discussion. But it seems the three principle avenues, each in its own way, lead to a cul-de-sac.

Human beings can believe whatever they like. That doesn't make something like "design" more or less likely to be part of the real world, the physical world, the universe. To determine the likeliness that something like "design" is operational, or not, one must turn to science. And science has shown it unlikely. So, it is not philosophy or metaphysics that leads nowhere, it is "design" that leads nowhere (at least it is nowhere to be found).

This is not a critique of philosophy, metaphysics, theology, or theosophy; each has it's useful purposes, e.g., for human behavioral, social and moral issues and values, reason, mind or language problems. It is a critique of "design," it's quasi-metaphysical supernatural character; when the goal is to explain the observed structural formations, nature.

To some extent David Hume's argument is relevant; that all knowledge involves relations of ideas and/or matters of fact:

I find this argument a nice literary passage, even though it could be argued that what he writes is no more empirically verifiable than the metaphysical claims it addresses. Peu importe. What followed was just damage assessment.

Immanuel Kant's response to metaphysics was also eloquently put:

Kant argued that metaphysical propositions were strictly meaningless, since there was no way, empirically, to determine if they were neither true nor false; just as religious views. In another way, they are not falsifiable but nor are they testable or provable. They are meaningful only to those who believe the tenets of the statements.

These are some of the reasons why the enquiry of a non-empirical character into the nature of the physical world, of existence, or of the observed structural formations in particular⎯the metaphysical stance concerning design⎯is lacking, to say the least. Ontological arguments, too, are poorly placed to resolve the questions concerning whether design shares any characteristics with nature, whether it exists, can be said to exist, or whether scientists should even search for such a thing.

In principle, if it couldn't be tested, observed in nature, detected directly or indirectly, or extrapolated into a physical theory through interpretation of any kind or even elucidated in other fields of purview (like philosophy or theology), with or without a designer, with or without a physical core, then the question would inevitably arise: where was it?



Finally, on equating any search for design with a search for a designer. I agree that the designer (the Intelligent of ID) is not an option to consider since it leads to something all together otherworldly (we know who that is). I would argue for the naturalist approach anywhere and anytime.

Design is slightly different. Once the Intelligent is removed from Intelligent Design we are left with one word: Design. My opinion has been that if we remove the "I" we may as well remove the "D" since without the "I" the concept of design is nonsensical, no more natural; it would still possess intent, reason or First Cause. It seems one without the other is meaningless, i.e., "design" is meaningless, mythical and supernatural with or without a designer.

And if we remove intent, reason or First Cause, we are simply left with the standard scientific explanation for that which is responsible for the formation of the observed structures (e.g., galaxies, stars, planets, life, DNA, etc.), based on well-established physical laws and principles, in particular those inherent in and derived by general relativity, quantum mechanics, electromagnetism, statistical mechanics, thermodynamics/condensed matter physics, and too, astrophysics, evolution theory, and so on, i.e., based on empirical evidence and interpretations of which hypothesize natural causes and events, specific mechanisms, not indeterminate miracles.

I am quite certain that science has nothing to say about the origin of design in the laws of physics. Science simply doesn't do that kind of origin-- never has, never will. That isn't even how science thinks about origins-- to science, an origin is nothing but a causal relationship, but all science has always been built around a need for first causes. It just has, that's obvious.

Certainly. I also think there are processes that go into what you are calling "intention" that have nothing to do with what you imagine "intention" is. As I've said, the distinction you make can be useful in some contexts but not in others, and is an artificial distinction. I'm not saying that a distinction imposed by the questions we ask cannot be useful for those questions-- I'm saying it does not require that such a distinction be useful for other questions, if those are not the questions for which the distinction was artificially generated.
Lines are drawn for many reasons-- in many situations they are useful, but in other contexts the same lines might be artificial and useless.

I wouldn't accompany it with any other word, it stands on its own. I'm saying we are having a conversation with nature in the language of design, because design is the language we are hoping for nature to respond in. We are not interested in what is at the other end of the conversation, we are interested in the answers we can comprehend.
What I said I mean-- pattern, efficiency, symmetry, function, parsimony, aesthetics, completeness, simplicity, predictability, understandability. All the things we associate with design, because those are all the same things we put into our own designs.
As I said, I could as easily claim that nature comes from design as that design comes from nature. Nature is what we can understand of it, and that is, design.

__________________
Logic is the grammar of truth.

Meaning and absolute certainty are incompatible, and profound meaning and absolute certainty are profoundly incompatible.

The only thing intelligence is capable of is recognizing itself.

Hi Jim,
First of all, am not one who had a professional life, I just read a lot from the age
of four. Never took on rote learning, questioned everything, educated myself.
Your statement quoting the keen edge of science, am not familiar with that expression
within the context of your post.
All I see, is a progam within the genetic code for more complex life to evolve.
There is no intelligence as we understand it, and no creator we may attribute to.
Nokton.

Hi Ken,
Am a bit tired of all the contest here. Why? It is all based an the assumption
that we know everything there is to know.
No one is prepared to say, 'at this time, I do not understand', no.
Let us evaluate, We describe a black hole as a singularity surrounded by an event
horizon, we have no idea what the singularity is, and the event horizon is just an
idea.
My contention Ken, is we have about as much understanding about life and evolution,
as we have about the quantum physics of a black hole.
Nokton.

I'm am perfectly happy to agree that we do not know everything there is to know, and there is much we do not understand and probably never will. We don't have to give up trying, that's all.

You know, I think I disagree, but it might be a question of wording rather than a real disagreement. I wrote somewhere earlier in this thread that if there were design, we might find it by scientific research. For example, suppose that we discovered the universe was just repeating itself after a time, or suppose we found a stamped code in celestial bodies, or suppose that one of the Voyagers suddenly hit a wall and there was a door saying "do not proceed beyond this point. It would prove design at least in our local universe. But science could never disprove design. I have a feeling that what you're saying is about first principles. That science can never answer certain first questions like why does the universe exist, and if a creator created the universe, who created the creator? Or the nature of reality. I suppose it may also hinge on the definition of universe, because even if we were to discover that what we see as the universe is a designed simulation in a computer, it still leaves the question of what about the universe that the designer lives in.

__________________
As above, so below

I agree that we could find design of the kind that comes from an intentional and conscious purpose in the universe, but we could never find that the universe itself was designed that way. Even if you bumped into such a sign, you could always rationalize it, perhaps superpowerful aliens playing a joke on us (a la the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy)-- but you'd still have the question what designed the designers. There's no way to close that regression once you start looking for designers. We could see the presence of designers, there's no guarantee we are alone in the universe-- but they would not be designing the universe itself. No designer can design themself. So the search for designers is ultimately fruitless, though of course we do want to know everything we can about any intelligences at large in this universe.
Exactly, that's the First cause that physics is always looking for. First from the point of view of physics, anyway, it can say no more.

You have anticipated all my points here.

Thanx your reply Ken G. Would make a point, apart from where and how in the
understanding of the universe, would you not concur that life is an anomaly in any
scheme of so called design. If the universe was designed for life, and the intelligence
to understand it, why are the parameters so compromised by so called design?
By that Ken, I mean, we are evolving in a scenario that is rare in the scheme of
things. Our distance from the sun, just right. Liquid water, mineral resources to
create our technology, you will understand. Am not about the theories of multiple
universes, or even brane theory, we are a species that thinks, comprehends, and
grasps concepts like no other species on earth. We will understand.
Nokton

We will understand what? I'm sorry, but I really don't understand what you mean to say.

__________________
As above, so below

Simply that 'We will understand'... The tendency of the scientific community to find, test, and answer the questions posed.
Is there design... or, Is there evidence of design., and then establishing that as yet, none has been found. The point being made that science by its very nature can not ever be found as wrong. Its adept ability to adapt and, adopt the best conclusion thus far is sound and reliable. Never does the true scientist just believe and except conclusions as found. Testing and questions are the only acceptable rout... Imho...
Now with apoligies... As an aside issue;
Today we remember Carl Sagan; His words flowed from his mind as a stream of intelligence and wisdom. His concern is mine. Just two weeks before his death a thought provoking speech of considerable strength. I can not even speak for Nokton and would not dare to. Carl Sagan would have posted here himself... This OP would have pleased him.

Lunar Jim, Intelligence as we understand it, is non sequitur in the evolution of life on
this planet, neither is so called intelligent design, both are suspect in our understanding
of why and how we have evolved, more than suspect.
There is a parallel between that and your above. You are correct that Dark Matter
is a theory, as is Dark Energy, and defies, at present, a logical explanation.
So does a black hole.
But I am convinced that you are correct in your belief that we will answer these
problems. If I may, Jim, repeat to you what an old distinguished Prof told me,
there is no argument in reason and logic, that can open a closed mind.
Nokton.

Astromark, Carl Sagan a hero of mine, a man with a vision of much we not understand,
as yet. And also no follower of fools who rather dwell in established mores, than question
current ideas and thinking. Science is about discovery, and also about being open minded
about the results of investigation. But to be open minded one has to let go of
preconceived rote learning in the quest of true understanding.
That to me, was what Carl was all about.

In science one takes previous solid observations and theories expands, modifies and or improves them and on occasion throws them out and starts again. The exciting part is when new discoveries are made and whole new ideas and theories are required to explain, predict and define them. I guess one would consider a sign of intelligence to be creating oder out of chaos. Problem being, who defines what is chaos and order within our universe?

__________________
ooops..... wrong forum!!!

That's what my sig is about: we do. And so I'd say intelligence does not create order, it recognizes order, defined to be: it.

__________________
Logic is the grammar of truth.

Meaning and absolute certainty are incompatible, and profound meaning and absolute certainty are profoundly incompatible.

The only thing intelligence is capable of is recognizing itself.

Hi Ken, as always, enjoy your post.
Point is, think you are putting yourself in the position of the independent observer.
The independent observer would recognise order, and evaluate it.
That does not mean the observer can understand the meaning of it.
The point I am trying to make here Ken, The observers intelligence is in question,
when trying to understand, that is what Albert never alluded to.
Hope you understand my direction Ken.
Nokton

Hi all,

Total (orbiting) chaos.

Bebe

Forgive me but....

What do you mean?

Hi astromark, I really do get sick and tired of all this.
Dwell with me if you will, intelligent design would have a purpose, it would not take
hundreds of millions to achieve that purpose, and so many life forms that incapable
of intelligence. Would reiterate my contention that life is a program within the genetic
code. The program is to generate life in all forms, it is self learning and adaptive to all
environments. There is no intelligence behind it as we understand it, that is why we
fail to understand it. Myths and legends cloud the search for truth.
Nokton

Just my take on the design...there are celes objs orbiting, but in the end matter still collides...kind of like a chaos theory.

Am totally with you on this astro, no one is listening to the other. Why? A closed
mind can only accept the doctrine it was taught. True thinking is grasping thought
and concept beyond teaching and rote learning.
Nokton.

Delicate Arch

Here is a beautiful object, unutterably efficient all excess mass trimmed away... It maintains an internal structure with mechanical properties, pattern, a sort of symmetry, simplicity, understandability even, a biped might even see some convergence... but, where is the Design; the information that specifies it. There is none. It is just an accumulation of a vast number of unconnected contingent events, such are most physical objects in the universe.

It would though seem that Design is a valid subject of study in science, the field that deals with this is Semiotics..

__________________
plenty of woo, at the hotel hoagaland...

Great clouds in that photo

In the atoms and molecules, which of course can also be naturally formed into many larger objects of different random shapes.

Then you need to look at it with different eyes. A geologist schooled in the laws of erosion and fluid flow would know all about the "information that specifies" that pattern. Those rocks did not just land that way by chance, they followed very definite rules to come to be in that form, and the goal of science has always been to find those rules. Where there is pattern, symmetry, simplicity, and convergence, there is also always one other thing: a reason.

I'd say a cause. But that's me. Language, what good is it anyway.

__________________
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" -- Charles Darwin
"Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
Meet the OOONG TOE.

Ah Pandas Thumb....soooo many nice memories from there.