It is ok to use the word “design”!

To all non-creationists that are not anti-science:

With the way these creationists keep going on about “design” it is easy to be misled into thinking it is
anti-scientific to talk about the “design” of living things because you would be forgiven for falling into the trap of believing that it is only crazed creationists and morons that talk about the “design” of living things.

But the problem is that evolutionists often talk about the “design” of living things and this is perfectly scientific and legitimate to do so. They are not, of course, referring to some kind of “intelligent design” but rather evolutions “blind design” (which simply means “design without intelligence&rdquo😉 -it is only creationists that have hijacked the word and misrepresent its true meaning in this context by stupidly insisting that the word “design” MUST mean the same thing as “intelligent design” -it doesn’t.

What I am telling you is not to fall into that trap because that is precisely where those crazed creationists want you to be. It is ok to tell them that, yes, life was “designed”, but it was not design by an intelligence but rather the design is done by the blind mindless process of evolution.

If they insist that nature cannot “design” things, just mention the design of a snowflake that can clearly be seen under a microscope -is the process that produced that design an “intelligent process” or a “non-intelligent process”? -answer - it’s a non-intelligent process, thus, by definition, the design of a snowflake is a blind design and it is also produced by nature.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
To all non-creationists that are not anti-science:

With the way these creationists keep going on about “design” it is easy to be misled into thinking it is
anti-scientific to talk about the “design” of living things because you would be forgiven for falling into the trap of believing that it is only crazed creationists and morons that talk about ...[text shortened]... s, by definition, the design of a snowflake is a blind design and it is also produced by nature.

I am non-creationist and I am pro-science so I think I fit your description.

The problem when we discuss Intelligent Design and Creationism is that we haven't fully defined the word 'design' yet. If we discuss different things, then it is bound to go wrong.

But another thing about discussions between people not agreeing with eachother is that it's very often becoming a verbal fight of who is right and who is wrong, a matter of winning a discussion.

There are no wrongs here, and there are no rights. Do we talk about science, then we cannot talk religion. Do we talk religion we have to exclude science. Because science and religion cannot mix, ever.

Creation and Intelligent Design *is* religion. You cannot explain creationism scientifically because the creator is, scientifically speaking, not a supernatural intelligence. The game of Religion and the game of Science have a different set of rules that cannot be intermixed.

I have came into the conclusion that the people who want to convert anti-creationists into pro-creationists by using scientific arguments do not understand the rules Science people are using. They shouldn't. And here I think the fight starts.

If any of my friend says to me "Look how fantastically this leaf is designed!" I answer "Yes, I agree!".
But if he says something like "Look how fantastically god created this leaf" I would answer "Yes, evolution is extrodinary!"
Why bring in the difference between the views? Isn't it enough to marvel the evolution and/or creation itself?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
To all non-creationists that are not anti-science:

With the way these creationists keep going on about “design” it is easy to be misled into thinking it is
anti-scientific to talk about the “design” of living things because you would be forgiven for falling into the trap of believing that it is only crazed creationists and morons that talk about ...[text shortened]... s, by definition, the design of a snowflake is a blind design and it is also produced by nature.

You mentioned this to me before and it was a very thought provoking idea for me. Does design imply a designer - that is, some sort of person?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
To all non-creationists that are not anti-science:

With the way these creationists keep going on about “design” it is easy to be misled into thinking it is
anti-scientific to talk about the “design” of living things because you would be forgiven for falling into the trap of believing that it is only crazed creationists and morons that talk about ...[text shortened]... s, by definition, the design of a snowflake is a blind design and it is also produced by nature.

In this context, wouldn’t it be proper to think of the term “design” as referring simply to something like “patterned coherence”? I mean, the grain of an oak tree has a certain coherent pattern, such that it can be distinguished—by a knowledgeable observer—from, say, that of a maple tree, even though each individual pattern is unique. That in no way implies that such a pattern is a “design designed by a designer”.

Of course, “design” in ordinary parlance implies a “designer”. But scientists ought not to be expected to be philosophical linguists. “Chaos” generally (and philosophically) means something far different from the “nonlinear dynamics” of “chaos theory”.

The terms of discourse are not necessarily fungible across different domains of discourse.

'by the blind mindless process of evolution', lol, or by the blind and mindless processes of those who advocate this unscientific absurdity, (we shall return to the scientific basis or otherwise of the theory of natural selection, mutations, transmutation of species etc etc on another occasion), gee, how to win friends and influence others, anyhow

taking your own analogy, would you trust for example a blind designer to design your shirt, your new suit or perhaps your car? would you even get in a car designed by someone which had amalgamated the pieces of the design by a mere chance occurrence ?, no, then why the hell (if it actually existed, which it does not) would you attribute design in the natural world to the , in your own words which are hardly scientific in themselves, 'the blind forces of nature', its incoherent, illogical, unreasonable and a plethora of other adjectives which spring to mind.

it is truly pathetic (and i mean this in the original sense of the word, not the modern) that those who see design in the natural realm must attribute it to blind chance, they are in essence depriving themselves of the wonderment, awe and beauty which those who harbour a belief in a supernatural creator are able to attain to, for to them it is not only a confirmation of their faith but a kind of celebration of design and ingenuity, beauty, wisdom , power and even justice, things which may certainly evade the mere advocate of a materialistic disposition, this is the sadness my friend, this is the greatest sadness.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
would you even get in a car designed by someone which had amalgamated the pieces of the design by a mere chance occurrence ?, no,

You pretend to know what I would or would not do? In this case you are wrong. Since the actual existence of an ultimate designer is clearly in dispute, we shall assume that your question refers to a situation where I think that the object I am making use of is not designed. My life bears witness to the fact that I readily and regularly make use of objects, living or inanimate that I personally do not believe were designed. If I stand on a rock, I believe fully that the rock assembled by processes in the earths crust but was not designed by an intelligent entity. Yet I trust my weight and life to that rock. Why would I be less trusting of a car? I trust based on experience and observation of the reliability of an object and not by whether or not I believe its designer to be intelligent.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
You mentioned this to me before and it was a very thought provoking idea for me. Does design imply a designer - that is, some sort of person?

Technically - no. But if you are a creationist - always.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
'by the blind mindless process of evolution', lol, or by the blind and mindless processes of those who advocate this unscientific absurdity, (we shall return to the scientific basis or otherwise of the theory of natural selection, mutations, transmutation of species etc etc on another occasion), gee, how to win friends and influence others, anyhow

of a materialistic disposition, this is the sadness my friend, this is the greatest sadness.

have you got an argument?

…taking your own analogy, would you trust for example a blind designer . ….

What has “trust” got to do with it?

Suppose a blind human designer really DID design my shirt and I didn’t “trust” him -he would have still designed my shirt -right?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
have you got an actual logical argument?

sorry i don't do personal attacks myself, i thought that the clue was in the wording, i am sure given enough time and perhaps reflection you may come to some type of realization as to the import of the words, if not, then i guess i will need to simplify even further!

Originally posted by twhitehead
You pretend to know what I would or would not do? In this case you are wrong. Since the actual existence of an ultimate designer is clearly in dispute, we shall assume that your question refers to a situation where I think that the object I am making use of is not designed. My life bears witness to the fact that I readily and regularly make use of objects ...[text shortened]... the reliability of an object and not by whether or not I believe its designer to be intelligent.

actually, not that i am a protagonist of the ideas, but now that you mention it, in platonic philosophy which i read when i was about fourteen it was ascertained that to base anything on an assumption was clearly erroneous, therefore i suggest that you start again from a different premise, then we can talk!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
sorry i don't do personal attacks myself, i thought that the clue was in the wording, i am sure given enough time and perhaps reflection you may come to some type of realization as to the import of the words, if not, then i guess i will need to simplify even further!

…i thought that the clue was in the wording, . ….

You mean wording with words like “truly pathetic” and “sadness” ?

You stated your beliefs as if they represent facts but stated no objective arguments.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
actually, not that i am a protagonist of the ideas, but now that you mention it, in platonic philosophy which i read when i was about fourteen it was ascertained that to base anything on an assumption was clearly erroneous, therefore i suggest that you start again from a different premise, then we can talk!

You need to go back to your platonic philosophy and check that. Your interpretation or understanding of the claim, is in error. There is nothing erroneous about basing a discussion on an assumption. There is also nothing erroneous about basing an argument on an assumption as long as the assumption is clearly stated as a precondition for the arguments conclusion. In this case, I did not base my argument on an assumption, only the discussion, and I clearly stated that my argument, though completely valid and not based on an assumption was only intended as a counter to a particular set of conditions.
When you are ready to defend your argument we can talk. As long as you continue to follow your usual path of trying to avoid defending your claims then there really is no point to the discussion.

If you object to my assumption however, it only makes your argument ridiculous, as the existence of an ultimate designer that designed everything would make your analogy impossible.

Originally posted by vistesd
In this context, wouldn’t it be proper to think of the term “design” as referring simply to something like “patterned coherence”? I mean, the grain of an oak tree has a certain coherent pattern, such that it can be distinguished—by a knowledgeable observer—from, say, that of a maple tree, even though each individual pattern is unique. That in no way impli ...[text shortened]... ”.

The terms of discourse are not necessarily fungible across different domains of discourse.

…That in no way implies that such a pattern is a “design designed by a designer”. …

Correct - that is basically what I have been saying.

…Of course, “design” in ordinary parlance implies a “designer”. ….

That may or may not be true and I am not saying it isn‘t. But, if that is true, there is still nothing wrong with using a word but giving it a slightly different meaning in a narrow context as long as everybody that uses that word in that narrow context agrees to use that word to represent that precise meaning. There is nothing wrong with, say, evolutionists using the word “design” to represent the “blind design” (I.e. design without intelligence) that the process of evolution creates in life because they generally all agree that, in THAT narrow context, it doesn’t refer to design with intelligence or purpose or plan or intent etc behind it.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…i thought that the clue was in the wording, . ….

You mean wording with words like “truly pathetic” and “sadness” ?

You stated your beliefs as if they represent facts but stated no objective arguments.[/b]

these are subjective truths and incontrovertible as such and were never intended to be 'facts', whatever they are? i will be more careful with my adjectives in future, as to whether these statements in themselves are objectively 'true', we may consider a diamond, when in its natural state it is nothing short of ordinary, however when it is cut, polished and shaped so that when it is held to the light the refraction causes such a brilliance to the examiner that he is held in awe and it brings him to wonder at its aesthetic qualities, so it is with a merely one dimensional view of life based on a premise that life originated in a material way, devoid of intelligent design, it limiting and certainly misses out on certain qualities which others percieve to be evident, although granted this is a matter of perception and although this was not my intention until you struck a chord with it in my mind where 'trust', comes in, is that we, of necessity, have taken it upon, 'trust', from others concerning our belief systems, whether its you, me, the atheists, the Christians, because you cannot re create life from non-living matter, they cannot prove the existence of God, nor the atheists categorically deny such.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You need to go back to your platonic philosophy and check that. Your interpretation or understanding of the claim, is in error. There is nothing erroneous about basing a discussion on an assumption. There is also nothing erroneous about basing an argument on an assumption as long as the assumption is clearly stated as a precondition for the arguments conc ...[text shortened]... e existence of an ultimate designer that designed everything would make your analogy impossible.

swings and roundabouts, just swings and roundabouts!