Jump to content


Photo

A Summary Of An Intelligent Design Paper For Peer Review


  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

#1 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,234 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 30 June 2017 - 10:19 AM

(I might submit this for peer review. This is only a summary-version of my argument. To write out all of the things I know about this issue would obviously take up a lot of room, the opening message would be the size of maybe five very long posts.)

 

I have watered it down. I happen to know it can't be refuted, logically, but here it the small version;

 

This brings me to the issue of identity/definitions, in argument.

 

What is the difference between evidence of intelligent design, and something being identified as designed, rather than merely evidenced?

 

It's when all of the features present in a thing, make that thing what it is by definition, rather than just some evidences of the thing.

 

For example if I say to you "this is a human hair" it may count as evidence of humanity, but if in totality, it has every feature that makes it a human hair upon scientific examination, then it is a human hair by definition, because your argument changes from;

 

"If this is a human hair then certain evidence P, it looks like a human hair."

"It looks like one therefore is." - Incorrect - Affirmation of consequent.

 

TO;

 

"A human hair by identity has human dna, is made from X, is P, is Y, et.c..."

 

But what is a better way of saying that?

 

A better way of saying that is this;

 

"A human hair is a human hair."

 

This is because all of the features together, according to the law of identity, make a human hair a human hair.

 

This is called The Law Of Identity. (X is X).

 

The law can also apply to intelligent design, by asking; "what is an intelligent design by identity?"

 

So for example, if you were talking to a person, would you argue, "their foot and their speech and their anatomy is evidence they are human!"

 

No, you wouldn't - you would infer they have all of the features of humanity, which is more than evidence, it means by the very definition they are human. (X is X because all of the features of X make that thing X)

 

SYLLOGISM;

 

If you are human you have features X,Y,P,Z,B,T,S etc.. (human DNA, sentience, blood anatomy)

If you have features X,Y,P, Z,B,T,S etc, therefore you are human.

 

This isn't affirmation-of-the-consequent, any more, because the real argument is this;

 

If you are human you are human.

Peter is human therefore is human. (Correct tautology, which is called The Law Of Identity.)

 

So then if a lifeform has SOME features of intelligent design it might only be evidence supportive of intelligent designbut if it has all of the features of design then by identity all of those features of design are what make something an intelligent design by definition.

 

You wouldn't say that someone is only evidenced to be human if they have all of the features of a human being and they walk past you in the street, you would say correctly; "by definition and by identity, they are human."

 

Lifeforms have all of the features of intelligent design. By definition, they are intelligently designed.

 

So how do we know what the features of intelligent design are? Sophisticated intelligent designs?

 

The same way we know what a human is by identity, or a human hair, or a rabbit or a mountain or a tin of beans. By examining what they are to see what makes them what they are by identity.

 

With intelligent design, sophisticated designs have all of the following features;

 

Contingency planning.

Specified Complexity.

Function. (if required)

Goals.

Viability.

Solutions to obscure problems innate to the design. (example; wheelspin in cars, is solved by the invention of a differential)

Correct materials.

Information

Information storage density

Directed energy (if energy is required)

Aesthetics and symmetry.

 

One of these alone might only imply/evidence design. All of them together are what intelligent design is, just as all of the features of human make a human.

 

These features aren't up for debate - they literally are the features in a helicopter or car, or whatever. By example, a car wouldn't have tyres made from jello (correct materials). A helicopter wouldn't have blades made from straw (correct materials). Specified complexity is easily found, the function is destroyed if you re-errange the parts, which shows direct teleology beyond chance. The parts are specifically arranged in order to lead to a function. (specified complexity, function and goals). An eyeball is arranged specifically to give sight, the parts are arranged to give correct function with the goal of sight. It's the same in our helicopter or car, the windscreen wipers are specifically shaped and places to give a function, which clears the windscreen for visibility. (Contingency planning) A contingency is, if you get cut you will bleed to death. Contingency planning deals with potentials. You aren't designed to get cut but if you potentially do get cut, the clotting cascade is a contingency plan. It's the same in a helicopter, the landing gear exists because without it the landing would be spoilt. Or headlights in a car. You don't have to drive in the dark but if you do, you will need light.

 

Lifeforms have all of these features. According to logical rules, by definition life is intelligently designed and it wouldn't matter if every peer on the planet disagreed, it means NOTHING to disagree with provable deductive reasoning.

 

The only real argument against this argument is this; "perhaps it appears to be designed but isn't because for example, evolution might give the appearance of design in life."

 

The problem with this counter argument is that we know of things which really do appear to be designed but aren't, and none of them have all of the features of I.D. by identity.

 

So we can actually determine if something appears to be designed, because something can't logically ONLY appear to be X and fully be X at the same time. (axiom)

 

So for example, you can't ONLY appear to be human and also fully be human. A waxwork appears to be human but what allows us to infer it isn't is that it doesn't have all of the features a human has. 

 

In the exact same way we know that when something only has an appearance of design, it can't also be fully designed. For example a natural bridge may look like it appears to be designed from a distance. Upon closer inspection, we can see that because it lacks the true features of I.D, it isn't really designed.

 

For example the surface isn't made to be flat for walking (specified complexity not present), in some superficial way it matches a true bridge's shape but it doesn't have rails so you can fall off, (contingency planning not present), it is eroding and doesn't seem to be made from lasting materials. (correct materials not present.)

 

So then to argue for evolution by saying by identity a fully designed organism just appears to be designed even though it has all of the identifying features, is basically to SPECIAL PLEAD on behalf of evolution theory. (special pleading fallacy). It also breaks the law of non-contradiction, for X cannot be fully X and also fully not X at the same time. The law of the excluded middle says that either X is true or it's negation is true. (not X).

 

By identity an organism is designed, in the same way that by identity a human is a human, you can't also say "but they only appear human", because if they did, then they wouldn't have all of the features a human has. For example a waxwork of a human appears human, but it can't also be human if it only appears it. Nor can you say, "Betty is a human but only by appearance". Nor can you say, "life is fully qualified as being defined as designed but only appears to be."

 

Furthermore there are no direct tests to find out whether evolution could create a feature such as the clotting cascade. That is to say, it is a posteriori (hindsight) argument, which is circular reasoning, to proclaim that evolution did create the cascade, "because it must have, because the cascade exists!" This doesn't actually demonstrate whether evolution was the cause.

 

On the other hand, what evidence do we have as an induction, that things with all of the features of intelligent design, are usually designed? An induction of millions of examples. The cause of intelligent design, is 100% of the time, intelligent designers. To GRANT that evolution somehow pulled it off, is really a circular argument, you must predict what evolution can potentially create, not just GRANT that it did create everything we find in nature, as though a contradiction in nature is a small matter, that an intelligently designed form wasn't intelligently designed. To grant something which contradicts the law of non-contradiction so readily, seems like a tenuous belief more than an argument, but design is proven.

 

(I have many more counter-arguments stored in my head, collected over the years, I can counter all of the complaints about design but I would only go through all of that if I really was writing a paper. Some arguments against ID are; the referee fallacy, "if I was the designer I would have designed X better", the argument of conflating design with the designer; "this doesn't evidence God, this is an implicitly religious argument." But of course, my argument stands whether you argue God or don't, the construction of an eyeball can be examined at any time, so it isn't a fantasy when I state it is constructed for the function of seeing, it is a fact of reality, religion really is not an issue here, so any talk of religion is to basically muddy-the-water, so as to cloud the issue. Religion is extraneous, a syllogism is only judged by the premises and conclusion it contains, not any assertions that are not claimed or even mentioned. What/Who the intelligence is, is a matter of belief.)

 

DISCLAIMER; As a paper for review this wouldn't be put forward as such, as a scientific argument. It is not a scientific argument just because it consists of scientific facts, but it isn't pseudo-scientific either. It isn't religious because the argument has no religious assumptions and the conclusion is only that life qualifies as intelligently designed. But the best description of this argument is that it is a deductive argument for intelligent design. I proclaim that it is a sound argument, even if peers THINK they have refuted it, they will likely be unaware that the problems they raise don't truly compromise the argument, which is directly factually inferred. 

 

To qualify to peer review my argument; The peer reviewer must understand deductive validity at least, and score at least 93% on this logical validity test, (my score was 93%, I got one question wrong because I am human, which always makes room for one question wrong.) Secondly on this logical deduction online game I scored first place and it has been played 26 thousand times. To show deductive acuity, the peer reviewer must score at least 6.2 on this game which shows you can deduce with acuity. If the peer reviewer can't do this, it shows s/he may not qualify to understand the logic I have used in my paper. You must have a high knowledge/ability in and critical thinking, any bias such as annoyance so you reject the paper, is highly unobjective! Rejecting the paper because evolution is accepted by science, is also fallacious, an argument's validity and soundness doesn't depend on what any theory states, only the arguments present are salient, not other theories and what they state, and who believes them, that is not how an argument is judged to be sound and those types of thoughts are illogical and extraneous!



#2 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 895 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 30 June 2017 - 12:28 PM

i believe you will have a hard time proving what "human DNA" is.
does a hair even HAVE DNA.
the follicle does, but i'm not so sure about the hair itself.

#3 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 743 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 30 June 2017 - 02:14 PM

SYLLOGISM;
 
If you are human you have features X,Y,P,Z,B,T,S etc.. (human DNA, sentience, blood anatomy)
If you have features X,Y,P, Z,B,T,S etc, therefore you are human.
 
This isn't affirmation-of-the-consequent, any more, because the real argument is this;

It is unless what you actually mean with the first statement is:

1. Each human has features X,Y,P,Z,B,T,S etc.. That is to say they are individually necessary to qualify as human.
2. Only humans have all features X,Y,P,Z,B,T,S etc.. That is to say they are jointly sufficient to qualify as human.
 

If you are human you are human.
Peter is human therefore is human. (Correct tautology, which is called The Law Of Identity.)

This isn't equivalent to the previous statement. The latter can be shown to be sound strictly by form. The soundness of the former relies on those definitions being robust enough to capture humans and only humans. In theory, you're helping yourself to the idea that you can define "all of the features of a human being". In practice, that continues to be a difficult thing to do. Arguments have been made that being of below average intelligence is enough to be disqualified and that as little as a single cell is enough to qualify. Whether a clone would count as human seems to come down to whether manner of reproduction is a defining factor. There's not an easy answer to that, since method of reproduction is a thing that up until the first clone was common to all of humanity, but doesn't seem to necessarily change anything about the person that resulted.
 

So then if a lifeform has SOME features of intelligent design it might only be evidence supportive of intelligent designbut if it has all of the features of design then by identity all of those features of design are what make something an intelligent design by definition.

I don't think you can demonstrate any necessary features of design other than the one that's true by definition, which is that the thing was designed. Anything else seems to inevitably involve assumptions about how the designer would necessarily design a thing, which gets at the assumed appearance of design rather than the fact of it.
 

You wouldn't say that someone is only evidenced to be human if they have all of the features of a human being and they walk past you in the street, you would say correctly; "by definition and by identity, they are human."

You will almost never have enough information to fully evaluate the features that define humanity in your previous example unless you are regularly committing some pretty serious crimes. Almost all of the time, you're making a leap from incomplete evidence. That leap is usually pretty reasonable, but it does leave open the possibility of being fooled.
 

With intelligent design, sophisticated designs have all of the following features;
 
Contingency planning.
Specified Complexity.
Function. (if required)
Goals.
Viability.
Solutions to obscure problems innate to the design. (example; wheelspin in cars, is solved by the invention of a differential)
Correct materials.
Information
Information storage density
Directed energy (if energy is required)
Aesthetics and symmetry.

It's trivial to disqualify many of these from being necessary conditions, in that there can exist things which are in fact designed (in the sense that they had a designer) but don't have that feature.

You're also missing a feature in everything we know for sure was intelligently designed, which is that we can identify (at least in a general sense) a designer.
 

Lifeforms have all of these features. According to logical rules, by definition life is intelligently designed and it wouldn't matter if every peer on the planet disagreed, it means NOTHING to disagree with provable deductive reasoning.

But you still haven't shown that those features are sufficient to qualify as designed, that is that no thing that is not designed has those features. Which is a tricky position, since that's what you're attempting to prove with this exercise.
 

In the exact same way we know that when something only has an appearance of design, it can't also be fully designed. For example a natural bridge may look like it appears to be designed from a distance. Upon closer inspection, we can see that because it lacks the true features of I.D, it isn't really designed.
 
For example the surface isn't made to be flat for walking (specified complexity not present), in some superficial way it matches a true bridge's shape but it doesn't have rails so you can fall off, (contingency planning not present), it is eroding and doesn't seem to be made from lasting materials. (correct materials not present.)

One could easily design a bad bridge that wasn't flat, was extremely unsafe, and didn't hold for very long. I'm pretty sure I made several such bridges as a kid, with varying success.

It's possible they wouldn't have appeared to be designed, but they were in fact designed, which I know because I designed them.
 

So then to argue for evolution by saying by identity a fully designed organism just appears to be designed even though it has all of the identifying features, is basically to SPECIAL PLEAD on behalf of evolution theory. (special pleading fallacy). It also breaks the law of non-contradiction, for X cannot be fully X and also fully not X at the same time. The law of the excluded middle says that either X is true or it's negation is true. (not X).
 
By identity an organism is designed, in the same way that by identity a human is a human, you can't also say "but they only appear human", because if they did, then they wouldn't have all of the features a human has. For example a waxwork of a human appears human, but it can't also be human if it only appears it. Nor can you say, "Betty is a human but only by appearance". Nor can you say, "life is fully qualified as being defined as designed but only appears to be."

The argument there is that the definition of X is wrong, specifically the 2nd part declaring joint sufficiency. Wrong in this case meaning that it doesn't conform to either a common understanding ("I can't define human but I know one when I see one and that isn't one") of the term or the literal definition ("a thing is intelligently designed if it had an intelligent designer"). See the controversy of whether a hot dog is a sandwich for an example of the former.

#4 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 713 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 30 June 2017 - 02:44 PM

I happen to know it can't be refuted, logically,


A master sculptor could work on a block and produce a perfect representation of a snowflake crystal. By your logic all actual snowflakes have been individually designed and made by an intelligent designer, rather than by natural processes.

Before you flash back with a snowflake being nothing like life in its complexity, yes obviously, but if it was, a snowflake would be life wouldn’t it. It’s only to show that just because you can make a comparison between two things, it doesn’t automatically follow that the cause of each is the same. So if you think your argument is irrefutable, you are wrong.

Also, your argument does nothing for the recent instant creation you believe in as the designer (who you assume happens to be the God of the Bible) could have just created evolution as the process to reach this complexity of life. With the evidence base being so overwhelming against what you believe I just don’t know why you can’t become one of those “oval earthers”, which would be fine in my book and would pleasingly annoy Blitzking.



#5 cheeseburger

cheeseburger

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 324 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • (private)
  • Atheist
  • Western Canada

Posted 30 June 2017 - 07:30 PM

Mike, why not publish through uncommon descent or a creationist site? That would at least get critical attention to your theory and help you refine your approach to getting into a mainstream journal (btw, who do you consider your peers?). Cosmoquest forum has a good "against the mainstream" forum that allows fresh ideas to be debated.
  • mike the wiz likes this

#6 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,885 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 01 July 2017 - 01:01 AM

To qualify to peer review my argument; The peer reviewer must understand deductive validity at least, and score at least 93% on this logical validity test, (my score was 93%, I got one question wrong because I am human, which always makes room for one question wrong.) Secondly on this logical deduction online game I scored first place and it has been played 26 thousand times. To show deductive acuity, the peer reviewer must score at least 6.2 on this game which shows you can deduce with acuity. If the peer reviewer can't do this, it shows s/he may not qualify to understand the logic I have used in my paper. You must have a high knowledge/ability in and critical thinking, any bias such as annoyance so you reject the paper, is highly unobjective! Rejecting the paper because evolution is accepted by science, is also fallacious, an argument's validity and soundness doesn't depend on what any theory states, only the arguments present are salient, not other theories and what they state, and who believes them, that is not how an argument is judged to be sound and those types of thoughts are illogical and extraneous!

You need to post a link to the test and the game if you wish for anyone to actually test to see if they qualify to be your "peers".

 

For everyone else wondering where this is coming from: In the "arguments not to use (peer review)" topic my claim was that peers should be experts in the field under discussion.

 

Until either Mike the Wiz continues I'll not post. It seems most issues with the "paper" are already covered. :)



#7 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,234 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 02 July 2017 - 03:23 AM

 

 

Popoi: It is unless what you actually mean with the first statement is:

 

No, affirmation can't be committed as a fallacy with a definition because everything in the consequent 100% represents everything in the antecedent.

 

EXAMPLE;

 

By definition a tree is X,T and P.

If you have X,T and P therefore you have a tree.

 

A tree is a tree, therefore if it's a tree then it's a tree.

 

If you have everything a tree has present, you have a tree or it's a contradiction. For example if I show you a door and it qualifies as being a door to say it's "not a door", is a contradiction. A definition isn't the same as individual evidence, as I explained.

 

A better way to understand it is this - if you meet someone will everything that qualifies them to be human, they can't "not" be human but they possibly can be "not female" because by definition, you can be either male or human if you are human. 

 

The rest of your complaints are basically misunderstandings or don't mean mean anything logically consequential because you're struggling to understand the paper. For example you complain about a syllogism that is sound which in it's full form is this;

 

If it's human then it's human.

Peter is human

Therefore he is human.

 

This is a pretty basic syllogism,  the premises are true, the modus ponen rule is observed and the conclusion follows.

 

As for something which can appear to be designed and is, I never argued that it isn't possible to have something which appears to be designed and is also designed, I argued it is not possible to have something which ONLY appears to be designed and is also designed. 

 

I am not arguing you can't have something which appears to be designed, and is. I'm arguing you can't have something upon inspection, that IS designed, which you then claim is "only appearance", any more than you could inspect a football which is fully a football and then say, "it only appears to be one".

 

If you don't test the football, it might only appear to be one, because it might be made of iron, and only looks like one, but if by definition it has all the features of a football, it must be one. This is correct deductive reason.

 

I am NOT saying a car can't appear to be designed and be designed, it's more complicated than that.

I am NOT saying something can't NOT appear to be designed and be designed.

 

 

 

Fjuri: It seems most issues with the "paper" are already covered

 

I can understand why it may SEEM like that.

 

It wouldn't be easy to refute a paper like this. 

 

So unless you can produce the same acuity, it's insufficent to make comments about the arguments. The complaints made so far may seem like fresh complaints, but like I say, I already am aware of the average and elementary complaints against my argument. 

 

Popoi's point that something basic like a bridge can still be designed, yes I was aware of that already, I would say something can still be designed even if it doesn't have all the features of design.

 

Popoi doesn't know he argued this fallacy in it's form; (his argument in red)

 

If you have features X,y,Z etc, then you have an intelligent design.

Life has features X,Y,Z,

therefore life is intelligently designed.

 

If you don't have all of the features X,Y,z therefore you don't have an intelligent design. (denial of antecedent.) I would never argue that because obviously I am aware that there are simple things which could be designed, unsophisticated designs, which only have a few features of design so it may not be possible to know if they are designed, such as a sculpture of a face by a child which looks more like a random lump of clay, or a simple bridge, etc..but can you show something with all the features of I.D. which only appear to be designed? (that's like asking can you show me a human that qualifies as human, that is not human?)

 

(I apologise that I didn't include the above form of my syllogism in the opening message. people will know that is the syllogism I have argued for I.D now for years but I should I have shown it in message one but I was too busy describing the difference between definition and evidence.)

 

This paper here, hasn't been put forward to argue with people at EFF forum. It has been put here to read, which is why I didn't include the links to the logical validity test and the deduction game, because if I put this paper forward for review it would be the person that read the paper, I would give the links to.

 

It is a misunderstanding for people to try and refute my paper in this topic, it would be more appropriate to say something like this; "could you explain more, this part of your paper, because it seems to me(1) mistake X might be a problem here."

 

(1) = People often read things on the average level and things will occur to them to be mistakes, but really the paper is on a higher level of thought, to presume the writer of the paper doesn't know what you PERCEIVE to be a mistake may seem correct to you, but for those who know the subject they only smile because they are aware that you only raise that point because you are thinking at a level that is insufficient. It would be like if I said to Bonedigger, "but that bone isn't the same shape even though they are both an ulna so your argument is wrong, the are not both ulna". He would just smile, because he would know the person complaining isn't in a position to review his paper. The person needs more knowledge.

 

In the same way my paper is a logical argument which requires not only high knowledge of logic, but high ability to deduce correctly, otherwise you will just tangle yourself up by getting stuck on things which seems counter intuitive to you, or seem like mistakes. This isn't a science paper, or a religious paper, it's a logic paper so should be reviewed by a logician. I am not a logician, my knowledge isn't high enough but my knowledge is decent, and your complaints highlight that your own knowledge isn't sufficient. It would require a qualified reviewer, and if he made complaints I myself knew were logically correct, I would accept refutation. I know the evolutionists here have no respect for me, but that won't change the fact I have studied the subject of logic and critical thinking for many years now. I wasn't lying, I can write out the full paper here but it will take a lot of reading.



#8 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 895 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 02 July 2017 - 03:41 AM

on design:
anything that cannot be obtained naturally is designed.
i believe that pretty well sums it up.

#9 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,234 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 02 July 2017 - 04:06 AM

 

 

What If: on design:
anything that cannot be obtained naturally is designed.
i believe that pretty well sums it up. 

 

That would depend what you meant by, "obtained naturally".

 

I would say you are in danger of committing the fallacy of composition, but intelligent design contains more than the sum of the parts present.

 

You can't make the whole thing about materials, because even the materials in artificial things we agree are designed, ultimately are obtained naturally because every material in nature is from nature, even the contrived ones.

 

Think about it - my argument still holds true, because a protein is contrived amino acids, just as a wooden table is contrived wood.

 

You have the same specified complexity in both, and it is sophisticated specified complexity with proven teleology which makes everything in your room, count as designed, not what they're made from. If I am wrong, show me one human-made object which doesn't have specifically arranged shaping or parts. Even a piece of paper is just wood the same as a tree, does that mean that paper arose naturally? No, even paper has specified complexity and therefore teleology.

 

Very quickly the probability of something being designed can approach 100%, even with the most basic ordering. If it can be shown the ordering has a clear purpose, the chances are now so close to 100% it's unthinkable to suggest it happened naturally.

 

EXAMPLE; several stones placed on the floor saying, "help". (Note that stones can be obtained naturally).



#10 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,234 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 02 July 2017 - 04:42 AM

If you doubt I am aware of the arguments pertaining to design, the main arguments for example aimed at poor design in human anatomy, argued by evolutionists are the blind spot, the wiring of the photo-receptors in the eyeball, the vas deferens wiring, and the path of the recurrent laryngeal nerve. Choking (complaint of the pharynx design)

 

I have the refutations stored in my memory to be accessed at any time. Collectively the arguments represent slothful induction, if measured against the successful designs in the body of which these several complaints would constitute perhaps 0.0001% of the anatomy in humans.

 

The second major problem with all of the common complaints is that they don't represent any design malfunction, nor do they lead to any. Expert anatomists in the eyeball for example, have shown that the photo-receptors in the retina, must be refreshed by the blood supply from the choroid, and the special design of the Mueller cells, allow all of the light to penetrate the nerve net, in front of the receptors, leading to 0% opaqueness with vision, which is actually brilliant design, especially considering the shape of the Mueller cells, which are trumpet-like structures that ingeniously "collect" the light and transport it to the receptors, bypassing the nerve net.

 

I mean it's just so simple yet so elegant as a solution.

 

(you can see a picture of the trumpet like cells here, in this link if you scroll down;

http://creation.com/...etina-v-dawkins

 

 

Indeed, Müller cells are even better than optical fibres, because they are funnel-shaped, which collects more light for the receptors. The wide entrances to Müller cells cover the entire surface of the retina, so collect the maximum amount of light.

One of the research team, Andreas Reichenbach, commented:

Nature is so clever.(logical contradiction) This means there is enough room in the eye for all the neurons and synapses and so on, but still the Müller cells can capture and transmit as much light as possible.


#11 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,885 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 02 July 2017 - 09:52 AM

Alright, I'll ask some questions which might need clarification prior to peer review then:

With intelligent design, sophisticated designs have all of the following features;

 

Contingency planning.

Specified Complexity.

Function. (if required)

Goals.

Viability.

Solutions to obscure problems innate to the design. (example; wheelspin in cars, is solved by the invention of a differential)

Correct materials.

Information

Information storage density

Directed energy (if energy is required)

Aesthetics and symmetry.

 

Are these the features of intelligent design or the features of sophisticated designs?

Can an intelligent designer design something that would have none of these features and still have it called intelligent design?

 

SYLLOGISM;

 

If you are human you have features X,Y,P,Z,B,T,S etc.. (human DNA, sentience, blood anatomy)

If you have features X,Y,P, Z,B,T,S etc, therefore you are human.

I think you would do well to elaborate more on this example of the same logical structure. If the structure is accepted any equivalent syllogism should also be accepted, no? 

Since you are excluding the designer from your intelligent design definition, perhaps you should also exclude human DNA from your human feature syllogism?

 

Also, you did put forward in a later post the full form, which might need improvement or clarification:

If you have features X,y,Z etc, then you have an intelligent design.
Life has features X,Y,Z,
therefore life is intelligently designed has an intelligent design.

An intelligent design is intelligently designed,

therefore life is intelligently designed.

 

I added the latter 2 lines to go from intelligent design to intelligently designed. While the difference might be trivial at first glance, it is a not insignificant change with regard to the syllogism form. Would you agree with the change?



#12 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,234 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 02 July 2017 - 10:05 AM

 

Fjuri: Are these the features of intelligent design or the features of sophisticated designs?

Can an intelligent designer design something that would have none of these features and still have it called intelligent design?

 

There are designs which can have one feature of design, simple designs. A child can create a simple rudimentary sculpture of some sort which may be indistinguishable from that shape just being randomly made when someone took the clay out of the packet.

 

With sophisticated intelligent designs, your question is asking for the identity of what they are? You are essentially asking, "what makes a sophisticated design?". When we examine things we already know are sophisticated designs, we find that what makes them sophisticated is several features.

 

Obviously to create something which is animated, immediately there is a step up in the requirements for viability. For example if we wanted to make a simple robot that walked with two legs, we would have to figure out the correct mechanics, and shape the parts to fit correctly (specified complexity), if the legs worked (viability) then this would show (function). If the legs had to work from certain materials. (correct materials). For example a helicopters blades can't be made from spaghetti just as a human tongue can't be made from enamel or our eyes from wood.

 

The more sophisticated the design the more these features show up. So when we examine sophisticated designs such as mechanical devices, we know that these features are what make them designed that way.

 

As for those other complaints, I would argue that the three laws of logic apply;

 

Either something is X or it's negation. (excluded middle)

Something can't be X and not X. (non-contradiction)

X is X. (Identity).

 

Is is a coincidence that they all agree with me? I think not, and so I would say that really those complaints might mean something to you subjectively but in reality, life is designed in all the usual ways we would identify design.

 

It seems to me there are two options. Accept reality or don't accept reality.

 

:acigar:

 

;)



#13 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,885 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 02 July 2017 - 11:45 AM

It seems we're going to go 1 question at a time.

Next question:

Can an intelligent designer design something that would have none of these features and still have it called intelligent design?
 
edit: If of course you intended to answer this question with your previous post already, it needs further elaboration.
Probably by defining:
- simple design
- intelligent design
- sophisticated design
And their relationship/dependency with/on an intelligent designer.


#14 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 743 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 02 July 2017 - 12:18 PM

By definition a tree is X,T and P.
If you have X,T and P therefore you have a tree.

You didn’t provide a definition before. What you said before was

If you are human you have features X,Y,P,Z,B,T,S etc.. (human DNA, sentience, blood anatomy)
If you have features X,Y,P, Z,B,T,S etc, therefore you are human.

The a definition necessarily decomposes in to the two statements I posted earlier. “All trees have X, T, and P” (what you said) and “Only trees have all of X, T, and P” (what you needed to add to be a definition and avoid affirming the consequent).
 

If you have everything a tree has present, you have a tree or it's a contradiction. For example if I show you a door and it qualifies as being a door to say it's "not a door", is a contradiction. A definition isn't the same as individual evidence, as I explained.

You’re still trying to shortcut past the hardest part, which is describing what “everything a tree has” means.

 

A better way to understand it is this - if you meet someone will everything that qualifies them to be human, they can't "not" be human but they possibly can be "not female" because by definition, you can be either male or human if you are human. 

You can if your qualification of human is flawed.
 
 

The rest of your complaints are basically misunderstandings or don't mean mean anything logically consequential because you're struggling to understand the paper. For example you complain about a syllogism that is sound which in it's full form is this;
 
If it's human then it's human.
Peter is human
Therefore he is human.
 
This is a pretty basic syllogism,  the premises are true, the modus ponen rule is observed and the conclusion follows.

I made no complaints about the soundness of that syllogism. You’re struggling to understand the responses to your paper. I’m not sure that’s going to work out well in the peer review process.

 

As for something which can appear to be designed and is, I never argued that it isn't possible to have something which appears to be designed and is also designed, I argued it is not possible to have something which ONLY appears to be designed and is also designed. 
 
I am not arguing you can't have something which appears to be designed, and is. I'm arguing you can't have something upon inspection, that IS designed, which you then claim is "only appearance", any more than you could inspect a football which is fully a football and then say, "it only appears to be one".
 
If you don't test the football, it might only appear to be one, because it might be made of iron, and only looks like one, but if by definition it has all the features of a football, it must be one. This is correct deductive reason.

Another shortcut. Describing “all the features of a football” is an unusually easy case since it’s an object constructed according to a particular set of specifications from the start. There’s not an equivalent specification for trees or humans, which is what makes those things more difficult to define in concrete terms.

There’s another issue with it that I touched on in the previous post but didn’t go to deep in to: “intelligently designed” isn’t a category like “human”. Defining “human” is largely about drawing lines to capture things that we intuitively group together, and membership in that category is pretty much inevitably going to be based on its properties. “Intelligently designed” is a statement of historical fact about a thing that doesn’t necessarily have any connection to the properties of the thing. The problem is that you’re not using that historical fact, you’re trying to construct a list of current properties that necessarily indicate that historical fact, which you haven’t done and I don’t think is possible.

Replace “intelligently designed” with “has been to Paris”. There’s a fact of whether something has been to Paris that we may or may not be able to determine. Is it possible to create a list of “everything that things that have been to Paris have”?

  

I am NOT saying a car can't appear to be designed and be designed, it's more complicated than that.
I am NOT saying something can't NOT appear to be designed and be designed.

There are two things you seem to have trouble with:
Things that aren’t designed but appear to be.
Things that are designed but don’t appear to be.

It’s an understandable trouble since there doesn’t appear to be any reason to believe that designed and non-designed things will always be distinguishable after the fact.
 

Popoi's point that something basic like a bridge can still be designed, yes I was aware of that already, I would say something can still be designed even if it doesn't have all the features of design.

Are you sure? Because earlier you seemed to think you could disqualify something from being designed for not having the true features of ID. What the difference is between “all the features” and “the true features” is still a bit of a mystery.
 

In the exact same way we know that when something only has an appearance of design, it can't also be fully designed. For example a natural bridge may look like it appears to be designed from a distance. Upon closer inspection, we can see that because it lacks the true features of I.D, it isn't really designed.

but can you show something with all the features of I.D. which only appear to be designed? (that's like asking can you show me a human that qualifies as human, that is not human?)[/font]

Life, maybe.

#15 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,234 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 02 July 2017 - 12:44 PM

 

 

Popoi: There are two things you seem to have trouble with:
Things that aren’t designed but appear to be.
Things that are designed but don’t appear to be.

It’s an understandable trouble since there doesn’t appear to be any reason to believe that designed and non-designed things will always be distinguishable after the fact.

 

How do I have trouble with them? There are things that appear to be designed that are and aren't. I can give examples for each. A car appears to be designed and is because it has all of the features of intelligent design. A land bridge appears to be designed but isn't, and we obviously know that some coincidental shaping doesn't really count as a design.

 

The features themselves aren't debatable, because when we examine a thing we know to be designed, it has the same features that another design will have, and another and another. As an induction there are millions of designs and we can know they are designed because they have those identifying features.

 

(Remember the focus of my argument is that something can't fully qualify as designed by having all the features and also only appear to be designed as that's a contradiction.) So life which has all the features, can't "appear to be designed but isn't designed.".)

 

 

 

Popoi: Are you sure? Because earlier you seemed to think you could disqualify something from being designed for not having the true features of ID. 

 

No I didn't. That's a strawman fallacy you created from the off or an incorrect interpretation of my argument. In fact I argued that if something has all of the features of ID they are designed.

 

The modus tollens rule means then that I can only argue according to my argument that if they are not designed, they will not have all the features of design, which isn't the same as arguing that if they don't have all the features of design they are not designed. Which isn't what I was arguing.

 

When I said; "Upon closer inspection, we can see that because it lacks the true features of I.D, it isn't really designed." all I meant was that we obviously know that the shape of a natural land bridge isn't really because it's designed. A sophisticated bridge would leave you in no doubt it was designed, or are you saying you would argue that a sophisticated bridge with a rail, proper surface, complex shapes and supporting structure with correct materials, is something you would believe happened naturally? So perhaps you win the point that simplistic designs may be indistinguishable from things with an appearance of design, but since that doesn't affect my argument in any way, then it's a rather trivial point. 

 

So my argument is specifically that if something does have all the features of design it is certainly designed. How can it, "not" be, as that leads to "X and NOT X".

 

We know from our examination of all sophisticated designs (animated designs like life) that there isn't an example of something which has all of the features of design which is not designed.

 

So to prove me wrong you actually have to show something with all of the features of design which isn't designed. To say, "life" is begging-the-question, because you don't have proof something besides life has all the features and yet is not designed, but I have an induction of MILLIONS (100% data) that shows all sophisticated design has those features.

 

When I said we know a land bridge isn't designed, technically you could argue it is, or that a simple thing can be. But the main point is, there may be a point-of-doubt with simple design being conflated with appearance of design, but then since I never argued the denial of the antecedent what does it matter?



#16 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,234 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 02 July 2017 - 12:58 PM

Try to think of it like this popoi. If something appears to be a football because it is round and painted like one, "if it's a football it will be round" for example. Yes, fine. If it is round, is it a football?

 

No.

 

A natural land bridge appears to be designed.

 

If it's designed it may have aesthetic shaping.

If it has that shaping is it designed? No.

 

How do we know the football is not a football? If we boot it and it breaks our foot because it is led then that feature will prove it is not a football because to qualify as a football it needs all of the features.

 

With a land bridge, it is the fact that the features that should be there if it was designed, aren't there. So then this is what proves it isn't designed because those features would be there for bridges. Bridges properly built bridges that are designed, have rails, correct materials and so forth. 

 

So for bridges, we can say a natural bridge isn't designed. Not because it doesn't have all the features of design but because it doesn't have the expected features bridges have. (for example I wouldn't argue it isn't designed because it doesn't have information, one of the features of design).



#17 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,234 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 02 July 2017 - 01:30 PM

 

Fjuri: It seems we're going to go 1 question at a time.

Next question:

Can an intelligent designer design something that would have none of these features and still have it called intelligent design?
 
edit: If of course you intended to answer this question with your previous post already, it needs further elaboration.
Probably by defining:
- simple design
- intelligent design
- sophisticated design
And their relationship/dependency with/on an intelligent designer.

 

Really like with Popoi's posts, you guys are starting to go into extraneous areas of the ID argument, that my paper doesn't really deal with. For example to bring up an exception to the rule, won't really change the fact that you have to MEDDLE with the parameters involved in order to make that work.

 

I could for example, take a piece of wood and throw it over a stream, but the reason we can't distinguish if it's design or appearance is because it is so crude, and contains close to 0% intelligence.

 

You like statistics, yes? What do you think the statistic would be for people confusing elaborate design with appearance? Have you met anyone that thought a car came from a rock or a cathedral was created by an earthquake, lately? The more intelligence you put in, the more obvious it becomes that something is designed.

 

Biomimetics = the icing on the cake. For how can the designs in nature be used in our designs if they are, "not cleverer designs"? The fact we use them in things we have designed means that integration means you are dealing with design;

 

 

Dr J Sarfati: The stretchiest rubber in the world, resilin, comes from insects.  It is responsible for the super-jumping abilities of fleas and the deafening chirps of cicadas, and also has an important role in insect wings.  In fact, it was first found in dragonfly wings about 40 years ago.  Resilin must also be stable enough to last an insect’s lifetime, because the adult insect does not manufacure it.

A team led by Chris Elvin, a molecular biologist at CSIRO Livestock Industries in Queensland, Australia, has finally reproduced this super-rubber.  But they had to copy the Manufacturer’s instructions.  The resilin gene had been found within the fruit fly genome in 2001, so they copied the gene into common gut bacteria, Escherichia coli.  Then the bacteria were made to follow the instructions to produce the raw protein.

But this is not enough—the protein chains must be linked together in very specific ways to produce the super-rubber.  So insects require not only the instructions for the protein, but also instructions for processing the proteins.  Instead, Elvin’s team used bright light with a ruthenium metal catalyst to make the proteins link in the right way.

This artificial resilin was as good as the natural insect rubber.  It was ‘almost perfectly elastic’, with only 3% of the energy stored in stretching lost as heat when the resilin contracts.  Even polybutadiene ‘superballs’ lose 20% of their energy with each bounce.  And resilin can ‘stretch to three times its unstressed length without breaking’. 



#18 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 743 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 02 July 2017 - 01:52 PM

So to prove me wrong you actually have to show something with all of the features of design which isn't designed.

Nope, to prove yourself right you have to show that there is no such thing.
 

To say, "life" is begging-the-question, because you don't have proof something besides life has all the features and yet is not designed

And you don’t have proof life was designed. That’s what you’re trying to prove with this argument, but you have to assume it to make the argument work in the first place.
 

but I have an induction of MILLIONS (100% data) that shows all sophisticated design has those features.

What’s an induction doing in this supposedly deductively valid argument?

#19 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,885 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 02 July 2017 - 02:10 PM

 

 

Fjuri: It seems we're going to go 1 question at a time.

Next question:

Can an intelligent designer design something that would have none of these features and still have it called intelligent design?
 
edit: If of course you intended to answer this question with your previous post already, it needs further elaboration.
Probably by defining:
- simple design
- intelligent design
- sophisticated design
And their relationship/dependency with/on an intelligent designer.

 

Really like with Popoi's posts, you guys are starting to go into extraneous areas of the ID argument, that my paper doesn't really deal with. For example to bring up an exception to the rule, won't really change the fact that you have to MEDDLE with the parameters involved in order to make that work.

Is it so hard to explain the definitions you have used? 

Is it so hard to answer a simple question with regard to the usage of a term in your paper?



#20 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,234 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 02 July 2017 - 02:14 PM

 

 

Popoi: Nope, to prove yourself right you have to show that there is no such thing.

 

Oh I've heard this one before. Lol. To prove I am right that monkeys can't build a pyramid I have to prove it, right? I have to show there is no such thing of a money-built pyramid, right? Now how do I do that, search every inch of the universe? So then I can't falsify your statement or any statement like it, because you could always argue that in some unsearched corner of the universe, there are designed things which aren't designed and monkey building pyramids.

 

Since there isn't one example my argument is wrong, and every example that it is right, then I think it is a safe bet to conclude that if you come across a cathedral it didn't get there because there was an earthquake. 

 

 

 

 

Popoi: And you don’t have proof life was designed. That’s what you’re trying to prove with this argument, but you have to assume it to make the argument work in the first place.

 

It's not an assumption, I exactly described the true features you find in things we know were designed, that make them designed. You offer an assertion to the contrary.

 

By examining the things we know are designed, we know what makes an IDed thing, by examination. It's not as though it is guesswork, we can examine and infer the features that allow us to deduce something is designed. With anything mechanical and animated, you need function, specified complexity and viability. These are instantly and inately in the designed thing. That's why it's deductive. It's not actually possible, according to non-contradiction, to have a mechanical device which is viable which has no function or SC. The joints in your legs have to be the correct, corresponding shapes, the bones can't be made from jello, the correct gait is only achieved if the correct mechanics are in place, meaning there is function, SC, viability and a goal (to walk). Correct materials, etc...

 

 

 

 

Popoi: What’s an induction doing in this supposedly deductively valid argument? 

 

I think you meant deductively "sound".






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users