Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Tuesday, June 13, 2006

ID PRATT list revisited

ID PRATT list: (Points Refuted A Thousand Times)

Who was/ is the designer?

If we knew the designer we wouldn’t have a design inference- ID would be a given. The only way to determine anything about the designer(s), in the absence of direct observation or designer input, would be to study the design.

Knowing who designed something adds nothing to the understanding of the design unless the designer conveyed all that information to you.
We can use known examples of designed objects to show that we don’t need to know the designer in order to understand the design.
Obviously knowing who designed something the detection process can be skipped.

In any investigation of a dead body, first you would attempt to determine the cause of death and attempt to identify the body. If homicide is inferred then you use the evidence to run an investigation to determine the killer(s). If they knew the killer before the investigation, what an easy job they would have.

Who designed the designer?

Who designed the designers of Stonehenge? We can only study what we can observe.


How was it designed?/ How was the design implemented?

Without direct observation or input from the designer, although interesting questions answering them is not necessary to achieve the objectives of ID- that is the detection and understanding of the design.

In the end we may be able to put together a reasonable way to implement the design, i.e. formulate a process that would yield the same result. And we may be able to verify that the method we constructed yields that result with regularity. However we will always have to use caution if we try to say our method was the method originally used.

Usually the reason for constructing an implementation process is to confirm your inference. For example the Easter Island figures were once thought to be deposited by ETs because no one thought humans of that era could produce them. Engineers & scientists demonstrated that with the technology of the era those figures could be accounted for by human craftsmanship. Does that mean that ETs didn’t put them there? No. It just means that other, more plausible explanations exist.

However interesting these questions are they serve to show that ID does not purport to have all the answers or attempt to answer any ultimate questions. Also if we knew the answers to those questions then ID would be a law, it would no longer be an inference. And if the only evidence that you will accept is to meet the designer(s), have that designer(s) show you the design and implementation process, and then tell you why, you are sadly looking in the wrong place. You are also applying a standard that no historical science can meet.

IDists know that only by studying the design is there any hope of coming to a scientific inference about the designer or the implementation process.

Also ID was no more formulated to answer those questions as was the theory of evolution formulated to answer abiogenesis. Pre-biotic natural selection is a contradiction in terms. What is fitness to non-living matter?

It is also not necessary to know how airplanes are designed, manufactured or who first designed them in order to understand how they fly, operate, maintain, or repair one.

ID is another way of saying “I give up looking.”

Nothing could be further from reality. In reality whenever design is detected the work is just getting started, just ask any archaeologist or SETI researcher. To say my car was designed affords absolutely no knowledge about the car. To gain that knowledge research must be conducted.

Once we determined Stonehenge was designed did all work on it stop?

The design is a poor design. Why would a good designer allow so many extinctions and so many obviously cobbled-together systems?

I would love to see the critics who use this line of attack do a better job. However I digress. No one says that the design had to be perfect or that even if it started out “perfect” that it had to remain that way. Some critics will point out what they perceive as faulty body parts, that a real intelligent designer would have designed something better. But in the real world we see design compromises all the time and we also see design mess ups. History is littered with intelligently designed things that didn’t work and/ or were dubbed “engineering blunders”. So what? That is why we use the term intelligent design- to rid the unnecessary baggage of someone’s idea of perfection and/ or optimality.

This list is sure to grow...

Added via edit:

Who designed the designer and why it is irrelevant to ID.

10 Comments:

  • At 10:47 AM, Blogger Richard H said…

    Joe said in a previous related topic:
    And science tells us the universe as we know it, ie nature, had a beginning, an origin. That which has (had) a beginning had (has) a cause. And it is obvious that nature could not have originated via natural processes as natural processes ONLY exist in nature.

    Joe - you have now explicitly confirmed that you believe in ID regardless of the evidence. Let me explain....

    For you, logic dictates that the universe cannot have originated via natural processes as natural processes only exist within the universe, and therefore an unnamed, irrelevant designer must have created the universe.

    Therefore, evidence of evolution is irrelevant. Why? Assume for a moment that in the next 5 years scientists prove without any uncertainty that the correct mix of chemicals in the correct environment can create life, and it is also proven that one organism can change into another organism over time. None of this disproves your belief that the universe was designed...

    ...I would expect to see a blog from you saying that clearly the unnamed irrelevant designer must have created these chemicals and these conditions for life to come into existence, and that was all part of the design.

    This latest topic ID PRATT also demonstates that you do not understand the relevance of your own belief...

    It is also not necessary to know how airplanes are designed, manufactured or who first designed them in order to understand how they fly, operate, maintain, or repair one.

    It is not necessary to decide whether something is designed or has evolved to understand how it works, or can be maintained and repaired. The origin of 'something', be it by Design or via a natural process, is irrelevant when it comes to acquiring knowledge about that 'something' and then applying knowledge about that 'something'. How something works answers nothing about whether it was designed or is part of a natural process - it only tells us how it works.

    IDists know that only by studying the design is there any hope of coming to a scientific inference about the designer or the implementation process.

    There can be no inference of unnatural design because we have no evidence or point of reference for anything outside of nature to compare it with. In order to confirm that the universe has been designed, you would have to identify the raw materials, tools and processes used and show how the universe was designed from these.

    If you believe, as you claim, that the universe by definition is nature and cannot have come from nature (ergo, itself) then everything else is irrelevant...to prove my point, list 3 scientific findings/evidences that would change your position that the universe was not designed.

     
  • At 11:47 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And science tells us the universe as we know it, ie nature, had a beginning, an origin. That which has (had) a beginning had (has) a cause. And it is obvious that nature could not have originated via natural processes as natural processes ONLY exist in nature.

    Richard:
    Joe - you have now explicitly confirmed that you believe in ID regardless of the evidence.

    If that is what you infer then I must infer your inference skills suck.

    Richasrd:
    For you, logic dictates that the universe cannot have originated via natural processes as natural processes only exist within the universe,

    In reality logic dictates that for everyone- that is that natural processes only exist in nature therefore natural processes cannot account for nature's origins. Therefore natures origins requires something outside of nature.

    Richard:
    and therefore an unnamed, irrelevant designer must have created the universe.

    Try to follow along. The debate is about intelligent, directed (goal oriented) processes vs. unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes.

    The designer is irrelevant for the many reasons provided. The most important reason is that one cannot establish the identity of the designer in the absence of direct observation or designer input EXCEPT to study the design in question.

    For example- without direct obserrvation or designer input what could we say about the Wright brothers by only studying the jets of today?

    Richard:
    Therefore, evidence of evolution is irrelevant.

    It isn't that evidence for evolutionism is irrelevant. It is that it is circumstantial at best and that same evidence can be used for other hypotheses.

    Richard:
    It is not necessary to decide whether something is designed or has evolved to understand how it works, or can be maintained and repaired.

    That is false. The ONLY way to truly understand something is by seeing it in the light of its reality. That is a fact. And that is why evolutionism has lead to nothing but BS and we are afraid of birds and mosquitos.

    Does ANYONE really believe that our knowledge of Stonehenge could have come about had we instead inferred/ determined it was due to unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes?

    History and reality again refute Richard. Both tell us that it does indeed matter how something originated- ask a forensic scientist- ask a fire investigator- ask patent attornies.

    Richard:
    In order to confirm that the universe has been designed, you would have to identify the raw materials, tools and processes used and show how the universe was designed from these.

    Scienec isn't about confirmation. It is about the best inference given the data.

    Evolutionism can't even tell us what mutations were responsible for what changes. IOW evolutionism cannot be confirmed. Heck we don't even know what makes an organism what it is.

    Richard:
    If you believe, as you claim, that the universe by definition is nature...

    Umm YOU said that the universe = nature.

    Richard:
    list 3 scientific findings/evidences that would change your position that the universe was not designed.

    1) Demonstrate that the laws that govern nature could arise via unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes
    2) Demonstrate that Information could arise via unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes
    3) Demonstrate that life could arise from non-living matter via unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes

    Ya see Richard I was an evolutionist for many years. I am now an IDist due to the data.

     
  • At 6:47 PM, Blogger Raevmo said…

    Joe:

    "1) Demonstrate that the laws that govern nature could arise via unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes
    2) Demonstrate that Information could arise via unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes
    3) Demonstrate that life could arise from non-living matter via unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes"


    Do all 3 have to be satisfied or is 1 out of 3 enough?

     
  • At 4:31 AM, Blogger Richard H said…

    Try to follow along. The debate is about intelligent, directed (goal oriented) processes vs. unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes.

    Joe, putting aside your arrogant, rude and childish remark....

    You have clearly misunderstood the point I was making and for the record I have infered correctly...I will simplify for you here....

    Your quote to my comment confirms my assessment:

    Therefore natures origins requires something outside of nature.

    You claim that you believe that the universe HAS NOT come into existence via unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes. Have I infered correctly?

    You believe that the universe HAS come about because of intelligent, directed (goal oriented) processes. I am I still infering correctly? Is this simple enough for you?

    I can understand this view and accept today that the origin of the universe is still a mystery - humans have infered/concluded the possibility of a big bang, etc based on the evidence, however, our human tools are very limited; humans have not even put another person on a planet in our own solar system, let alone managed to obtain any first hand data directly from any other solar system, and let alone from any of the other countless galaxies. It is therefore premature to make any extraordinary inference that the universe must have come about by an intelligent, directed process.

    However, my key point still stands about the ID debate and Evolution. You are saying that if Humans prove that life can arise by putting the right combination of naturally available chemicals in the right naturally existing environment that you will concede that the universe could have come about via unintelligent, undirected processes?

    You see my point is that if I believed as you do about the universe, and to be honest, I have an open mind on the subject....I would not be convinced that the universe came about by unintelligent, undirected processes just because life has arisen within that universe based on the natural elements within that universe. The only conclusion would be that that goal-orientated design of the universe included a universe that could conceive life in the right circumstances - afterall - what is the point of having a universe that has come about via intelligent, goal-orientated processes, that does not itself contain any intelligence?

    I am unclear about your religious beliefs, but if you dispute the last statement above, then I would infer that, for you, it is essential to show that humans did not evolve to support your own belief in a divine creator, otherwise, the logic/data of evolution would clearly not exclude the possibility of the universe arising because of an intelligent, directed process.

    Go ahead Joe - use sarcasm, arrogance and childish remarks to put your point across instead of an adult, professional, scientific logical response. Give it your best shot.

     
  • At 9:22 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    1) Demonstrate that the laws that govern nature could arise via unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes
    2) Demonstrate that Information could arise via unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes
    3) Demonstrate that life could arise from non-living matter via unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes"


    Raevmo:
    Do all 3 have to be satisfied or is 1 out of 3 enough?

    Present what you have. Then we can discuss it.

     
  • At 9:52 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Therefore natures origins requires something outside of nature.

    Richard:
    You claim that you believe that the universe HAS NOT come into existence via unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes. Have I infered correctly?

    There isn't any scientific data that supports that premise. THAT is my point.

    Richard:
    You believe that the universe HAS come about because of intelligent, directed (goal oriented) processes. I am I still infering correctly?

    There is scientific data that supports that premise.

    Max Planck:
    "All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this minute solar system of the atom together . . . . We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind."

    Of Newton, Kepler, & Galileo in the book Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty by Morris Kline, Kline states that these scientist-mathematicians believed that "God had designed the universe, and it was to be expected that all phenomena of nature would follow one master plan. One mind designing a universe would almost surely have employed one set of basic principles to govern all related phenomenon."

    The bottom line is that if inferring the universe is the product of ID means I can only be as good of a scientist as those guys, I can live with that. I would wish such a thing on all humanity.

    Richard:
    It is therefore premature to make any extraordinary inference that the universe must have come about by an intelligent, directed process.

    Not really. However it is premature to blatantly disregard the design inference based on our current knowledge. And THAT is what is being done.

    Richard:
    You are saying that if Humans prove that life can arise by putting the right combination of naturally available chemicals in the right naturally existing environment that you will concede that the universe could have come about via unintelligent, undirected processes?

    It follows from the premise of "The Privileged Planet". That being the universe was designed for discovery and therefore would require discoverers, such as us.

    So if life could arise from non-living matter via unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) proccesses I would say their premise is wrong. And it is their work that demonstrates the universe is the result of intelligent design. Start chipping away at the premise and soon enough the whole deal falls.

    Richard:
    I am unclear about your religious beliefs,...

    I don't really have any, so you position is OK- being unclear on my religious beliefs...

     
  • At 7:10 AM, Blogger Richard H said…

    Joe:
    Therefore natures origins requires something outside of nature.

    Richard:
    You claim that you believe that the universe HAS NOT come into existence via unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes. Have I infered correctly?

    Joe:
    There isn't any scientific data that supports that premise. THAT is my point.

    Consider the following very plausible explanation - ie. as plausible as the existence of a designer outside of our known universe and outside of known natural laws....

    Our universe (ie. it's entirety that you claim is designed) could have come into existence by the natural laws that apply in the environment outside of our universe - ie. the same environment in which the designer must exist to have designed and created our universe. There is nothing to state that the unknown and irrelevant natural laws of that environment could not have given rise to our universe.

    You cannot disprove this hypothesis anymore than you can prove that an unnamed irrelevant desinger exists outside of our universe.

    It meets your criteria that nature cannot create itself, as it was the natural law of the environment in which our universe sits that would have given rise to our universe. And in the same way as you say the unnamed designer is irrelevant - ie. we do not need to prove that the designer was capable of designing the universe - we do not need to prove that the natural laws outside of our universe are capable of giving rise to our universe and its laws.

    Prove that the universe did not evolve based on the natural laws outside the universe and I will accept the inference of ID.

     
  • At 9:59 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Therefore natures origins requires something outside of nature.

    Richard:
    You claim that you believe that the universe HAS NOT come into existence via unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes. Have I infered correctly?

    Yes.

    Joe:
    There isn't any scientific data that supports that premise. THAT is my point.

    RH:
    Consider the following very plausible explanation - ie. as plausible as the existence of a designer outside of our known universe and outside of known natural laws....

    Our universe (ie. it's entirety that you claim is designed) could have come into existence by the natural laws that apply in the environment outside of our universe - ie. the same environment in which the designer must exist to have designed and created our universe. There is nothing to state that the unknown and irrelevant natural laws of that environment could not have given rise to our universe.


    Where did those natural laws come from? Again I remind you that some of the greatest scientists to ever grace this planet saw those laws as evidence for a Designer or Creator.

    Of Newton, Kepler, & Galileo in the book Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty by Morris Kline, Kline states that these scientist-mathematicians believed that "God had designed the universe, and it was to be expected that all phenomena of nature would follow one master plan. One mind designing a universe would almost surely have employed one set of basic principles to govern all related phenomenon."


    RH:
    You cannot disprove this hypothesis anymore than you can prove that an unnamed irrelevant desinger exists outside of our universe.

    Science is about proof. And in your scenario you have to explain how the laws that govern nature arose without intelligence.

    RH:
    It meets your criteria that nature cannot create itself, as it was the natural law of the environment in which our universe sits that would have given rise to our universe.

    There is the explanation of those natural laws as well as the origin of matter, energy and information- the 3 fundamental entities of our universe.

    RH:
    And in the same way as you say the unnamed designer is irrelevant - ie. we do not need to prove that the designer was capable of designing the universe - we do not need to prove that the natural laws outside of our universe are capable of giving rise to our universe and its laws.

    LoL! I say the designer is irrelevant to the detection and understanding of the design. Reality supports that claim. If we knew the designer then we wouldn’t have a design inference, ID would be a given. And again that those laws exist are evidence for a designer and therefore evidence for ID.

    RH:
    Prove that the universe did not evolve based on the natural laws outside the universe and I will accept the inference of ID.

    If that is what it takes then it is obvious you are NOT interested in science.

     
  • At 6:49 AM, Blogger Richard H said…

    RH:
    Consider the following very plausible explanation - ie. as plausible as the existence of a designer outside of our known universe and outside of known natural laws....

    Our universe (ie. it's entirety that you claim is designed) could have come into existence by the
    natural laws that apply in the environment outside of our universe - ie. the same environment in which the designer must exist to have designed and created our universe. There is nothing to state that the unknown and irrelevant natural laws of that environment could not have given rise to our universe.

    Joe:
    Where did those natural laws come from?


    Interesting Joe. When I ask you to explain where the designer came from - ie. who designed the designer - you say that is irrelevant, as design is about the inference of design and not the designer. However, when I pose the possibility that natural processes outside of our universe could have resulted in out universe you then immediately ask the same question about those natural processes that you consider to be irrelevant about the designer.

    If that is not a double standard - I do not know what is!!

    RH:
    You cannot disprove this hypothesis anymore than you can prove that an unnamed irrelevant designer exists outside of our universe.

    Joe:
    Science is about proof. And in your scenario you have to explain how the laws that govern nature arose without intelligence.


    Why in my scenerio do I have explain where the natural laws outside our universe came from in a scientific way, but you do not need to prove where the designer, that exists outside our universe came from in a scientific way?

    RH:
    It meets your criteria that nature cannot create itself, as it was the natural law of the environment in which our universe sits that would have given rise to our universe.

    Joe:
    There is the explanation of those natural laws as well as the origin of matter, energy and information- the 3 fundamental entities of our universe.


    Sorry Joe - I am talking about the laws that are outside of our universe. If you are saying that the laws outside of our universe must be identical to those inside of our universe, then the designer who exists in that evironment must also be governed by those same laws. Is that what you are saying?

    RH:
    Prove that the universe did not evolve based on the natural laws outside the universe and I will accept the inference of ID.

    Joe:
    If that is what it takes then it is obvious you are NOT interested in science.


    Sorry? You claim that a supernatural designer created the universe and life on earth and when I ask you to prove that the universe could not come about by natural processes outside of our universe you accuse me of not being interested in science?

    In another post I have clearly stated that in order to infer design you need to discount all possible natural processes....I am actually asking you to be scientific. The fact that you refuse says significantly more about your interest in science than mine.

     
  • At 9:31 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RH:
    Interesting Joe. When I ask you to explain where the designer came from - ie. who designed the designer - you say that is irrelevant, as design is about the inference of design and not the designer. However, when I pose the possibility that natural processes outside of our universe could have resulted in out universe you then immediately ask the same question about those natural processes that you consider to be irrelevant about the designer.

    I will type slower for you- That which has a beginning requires a cause. We know this universe had a beginning therefore it requires a cause. Also the laws that govern nature are evidence for an inetlligent designer, just as the greatest scientists who graced this planet inferred.


    RH:
    Sorry? You claim that a supernatural designer created the universe and life on earth and when I ask you to prove that the universe could not come about by natural processes outside of our universe you accuse me of not being interested in science?

    I did NOT make any claim about a supernatural designer and it is obvious that natuarl processes cannot exist outside of nature. Therefore nature's origins requires something outside of nature.

    RH:
    Sorry Joe - I am talking about the laws that are outside of our universe.

    What laws are outside of our universe? Can you name these laws?

    RH:
    In another post I have clearly stated that in order to infer design you need to discount all possible natural processes....I am actually asking you to be scientific.

    I know what you said and I know that it is incorrect. What you are asking for is proof. Science does not require proof. That you think we need such data demonstrates you are not interested in science.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home