looking at the evidence

Discussion in 'Creation vs. Evolution' started by Helen, May 2, 2003.

  1. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    So many times we are told in very authoritative ways that the idea of intelligent design in nature is a figment of our imaginations and collective desires as creationists.

    I just ran across this:

    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1853129011/iscid-20

    Design and Nature : Comparing Design in Nature with Science and Engineering (Design and Nature)

    The 43 papers of this proceedings volume were presented at a conference held in September 2002 in Udine, Italy. The papers discuss the relation of natural forms to those used in design as well as projects carried out by the contributors. The volume's main divisions are shape and form in engineering and nature, solutions from nature, design and sustainability studies, nature and architectural design, mechanics and thermodynamics in nature, biomimetics and materials, and vision in science and nature. The latter includes papers on human vision principles in computer-aided design, and the structure, mechanics, and aesthetics of peacock tail feathers.
     
  2. ChurchBoy

    ChurchBoy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2003
    Messages:
    598
    Likes Received:
    0
    It sounds interesting but I don't $223.00 to buy this! [​IMG]

    [ May 03, 2003, 12:48 PM: Message edited by: ChurchBoy ]
     
  3. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    So, Helen, out of all those that attended the conference and were suitably impressed with the marvelous designs found in nature, how many of them would you estimate believe that these designs were the outcome of millions of years of evolution?
     
  4. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    When we are talking about intelligent design, I don't think it matters. ID is not the same as YEC.
     
  5. mdkluge

    mdkluge
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Helen wrote:
    It certainly does matter whether we are talking about a few thousands or a few billions of years. When we speak of design we are not merely speaking of initial and final states. We also speak of process. Remember that "eneineering" is a process, so the papers comparing design in engineering with those of nature will (natuaally) consider processes as well as initial and final states.
     
  6. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    Helen, you made an assertion earlier, and I'd be interested in knowing where this happens:

    Barbarian asks:
    I can't believe that you're serious, Helen

    Do you really think that's what they teach in science classes?

    Barbarian observes:
    In fact, in all the textbooks and courses I see, the theory is supported by citing evidence.

    I'm not. You said that evolution is supported by fiat: I'm pointing out that people teaching it cite evidence, not "it's true because it's in our book". I'd sure like to know where that happens.

    Can you tell us about it?
     
  7. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    Galatian, suggest you post your responses in the right threads.

    Mark, ID does not care about ages. ID's only purpose is to use certain objective criteria to decide if anything we see right now meets those criteria which would then define that object as being intelligently designed. When it was designed and the course of development that design might have taken are not part of the ID purpose.

    It is the same, in a way, as forensics experts looking at a crime scene. The question is not 'when was a murder commited' or 'who is the murderer', but simply, 'is there evidence that a murder was commited in the first place?'

    ID looks for evidence of intelligent design. That's all.

    That's certainly enough to get evolutionists up in arms, though, even though it is simple science that is being employed.
     
  8. mdkluge

    mdkluge
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    I am well aware that the so-called "intelligent design theory" of the Discovery Institute and its fellow travelers seeks to ignore issues of age, and therefore also of process. While there is a certain austere elegance to such an approach,, it cannot be complete without considering processes.

    That is absolutely ordinary and mundane. When we see a nugget of gold or copper burried in quartz somewhere we do not infer design. Why? Because we (or some geologists whom we may consult) understand how natural processes could have produced the nugget. If, on the other hand, we had found a nugget of cobalt, then we would have inferred it to have been an artifact, since natural processes do not produce metallic cobalt, while human processes can and do.

    Anyway, Helen, the book you are citing talks of design in engineering. It will be about process. If you insist that your own brand of intelligent design theory does not deal with process, then you should not cite the book in support of your variant approach.
     
  9. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    I tried, but there's something wrong with it. It keeps saying that the thread doesn't exist. I'd be pleased to answer the questions you asked, too, if you'd like.

    I guess I'll ask one more time; where are these places where they teach what you claim they do? I'm very skeptical.

    I have a friend who is a forensics expert for a large city PD. He often is called on to answer just those questions. "When?" is always a question. "Who?" (or more often, "Who isn't?) is a frequent question.

    The difference is that forensics experts actually come up with scientifically defensible results. I have yet to see Dembski's "filter" work, unless the answer was assumed beforehand. Do you know of an example?

    ID has only to show a methodology that actually works. The real test, though, is to show that something natural is designed. That's been the hold-up so far.
     
  10. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, I suggest that it would be an interesting thing to debate just how much of evolution occurred completetly spontaneously and how much happened under God's active control to bring about a race in His image. I've always been a bit suspicious about the "accidental" nature of the killer asteriod 65 million years ago that wiped out the dinosaurs . . .
     
  11. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Paul of Eugene, if you look at the extinction rate befoer and after the Yucatan asteroid, you'll notice that most dinosauria were already ono their way towards extinction, due mostly to climate and environmental change. The asteroid just gave them a little "extra push". Had the asteroid not hit, they would have probably dies out on their own. The earth has been hit with asteroids countless times. The most recent major hit was in Tunguska (Siberia) in 1908. The geographical damage can still be seen today.
     

Share This Page

Loading...