Replies

...we are left to wonder what to make of an ostensibly "scientific" theory that a priori asserts the existence of a designer simply by use of the term "design".

There is no a priori assertion here. ID does not make claims about the designer. You are making a logical assumption: that where there is design, there has to be a designer.

Reminds me of the story of the little kid on Christmas morning, who (seeing a pile of horse manure under the Christmas tree) says, "Gee! There's got to be a pony around here someplace!" Of course, it is possible the horse manure was a cynical "Christmas present" from a malicious person....

You seem to want to force an argument about semantics. But at the end of the day, the assumption of a designer is not one that science, per se, needs to accept or dwell on to do its job. Science can study design perfectly well without studying the putative designer.

Would you feel better if we didn't call it design, but something else? Like maybe, "natural symmetry," "natural geometry," or "universal patterning?"

None of these is particularly good, however; for none captures the idea of purposiveness in nature. Biological organisms act as if they're purposeful. Maybe you could come up with a better term than "design" -- something a lot more "neutral."

I wasn't imputing motives to you in the absence of any evidence. What evidence I had before me, you put there. I had to try to make some sense of it. Because I didn't consider the evidence dispositive, I said "perhaps" -- as in "perhaps the observation applies in your case, perhaps it doesn't."

You wrote: "Is it not the case, then, that a theory that makes assertions about the nature of the designer - e.g., whether or not a designer has the attribute of existence - is, by its very nature, non-scientific?"

Sure. But the designer is not the issue for science. So questions of existence or non-existence of a putative, extra-cosmic designer are irrelevant. It is you, not I, who wants to drag the Designer in here. I myself would be quite content just to stick to the empirical.

As Alamo-Girl has already pointed out, there's nothing in ID that says "designer" refers to only one specific creative intelligence.

I think any putative scientific theory is non-scientific if it is predicated exclusively on a metaphysical notion. May I point out that such things as materialism, random walk, determinism, natural selection are examples of metaphysical notions?

When one approaches apparent randomness with the intent to show design, one can come up with all sorts of "explanations."

Think The Bible Code. Think Nostradamus. Think James Van Pragh. Think James Edward. Think Revelation. Think ID.

All of these things glean their "hits" (in a vast sea of misses) by manipulating data to fit their pre-ordained notions. It's been shown that we can all manipulate the so-called Bible Code to "prophesize" (in reverse, ironically) whatever we wish for our own lives. how many lines of Nostradamus and Revelation have been said to say different things, in different decades? The "speak to the dead" crew do the same thing; throw out "random" guesses, if something sticks, go with it. (though they, of course, skew their guesses to be at least educated).

Nature is no different. It is what it is, nothing more and ID tries to subvert it's apparent patterns to see what it wants to see: Intelligent Design. They can even make a decent case for it, if they know what they're doing, but in the end it has so far failed quite badly.

I guess, in the end, fallible humans are fallible, and no one will disagree with that.

May I point out that such things as materialism, random walk, determinism, natural selection are examples of metaphysical notions?

You may.

You are making a logical assumption: that where there is design, there has to be a designer.

LOL. Science does indeed study the works of the designer without assigning any attributes to the designer. Existence, for example. Science will continue on its present course even if the majority of scientists come to believe in design. Because science is looking for consistency of process.

May I point out that such things as ... natural selection are examples of metaphysical notions?

What do you mean? Darwin came up with natural selection as being similar to the selection done by pigeon, horse, etc, breeders. It seems to me it's more along the lines of an empirically observed fact than anything else.

If you have competition for resources and mates, and a spectrum of traits, how can you not have natural selection? And if some of these traits are inherited, how can you not have evolution?

There is no a priori assertion here. ID does not make claims about the designer. You are making a logical assumption: that where there is design, there has to be a designer.

For good reason - despite requests for same, nobody has yet managed to explain what "design" in the absence of a designer means. If you'd like, please review the meaning of the word "design", and explain how one or more of those meanings is consistent with the absence of a designer. My argument is "semantic" insofar as it appears that you are inventing a new meaning for the word "design", one that is somehow meaningful without a designer.

Which is rather what you must do in order to avoid discussing the nature of the designer, but the problem is, if there is no designer, there is no design, according to the standard definition and usage of the word "design". In order for the word "design" to be meaningful, and not be so broad as to mean absolutely everything that exists, there must be a designer. But this forces you to a priori assume at least one aspect of the designer's nature - namely, that he/she/it/they exist. Which is all well and good, right up until the point where we are told that discussions of the attributes of the hypothetical designer are inherently non-scientific. Insofar as "existence" is an attribute of the designer, we are then faced with a "scientific" theory that is inherently non-scientific, as it requires the designer to have the specific attribute of existence, with said attribute being neither testable nor falsifiable. QED.

It may be that this is somehow resolvable without abandoning one leg or the other of the paradox - personally, I don't see how, but there you go - but at this point, it is tolerably clear that the edifice currently under construction is inherently self-contradictory.

But at the end of the day, the assumption of a designer is not one that science, per se, needs to accept or dwell on to do its job. Science can study design perfectly well without studying the putative designer.

It is a logical necessity. If there is no designer, then there is no "design". Therefore, unless and until the existence of the designer can be established, and at least that one attribute demonstrated, how on earth can you really know that the things you are studying are, in fact, "designed" in any meaningful sense of the word? Or do we, as I suspect is the case, simply begin by assuming that some things are designed, and then travel in a grand circle, all in order to eventually arrive at the conclusion that, yes, some things are designed?

I wasn't imputing motives to you in the absence of any evidence. What evidence I had before me, you put there. I had to try to make some sense of it. Because I didn't consider the evidence dispositive, I said "perhaps" -- as in "perhaps the observation applies in your case, perhaps it doesn't."

Ah. Cannibals tend to be rather brusque with others - it doesn't do to play with your food, after all. Perhaps your shortness of tone with me is a result of your dietary habits. Perhaps. I can't be sure why you do what you do, so this observation may or may not apply to your particular case.

I can play that game as well. I'm very good at it, too. However, in the interests of comity, let me suggest that we not travel down that path any further.

As Alamo-Girl has already pointed out, there's nothing in ID that says "designer" refers to only one specific creative intelligence.

The only necessary requirement is that a designer of some sort exist - all other possible attributes are up for grabs. But the existence of the designer is non-negotiable, for of the designer does not exist, then there is no "design". Which makes ID non-scientific, by your own standard. Perhaps you should revise that standard.

I think any putative scientific theory is non-scientific if it is predicated exclusively on a metaphysical notion. May I point out that such things as materialism, random walk, determinism, natural selection are examples of metaphysical notions?

Yes, I can see how such a definition would be rather convenient to the case you want to make, although I think that defining "science" in such a way that it does not actually exist is likely to cause you further troubles down the road, nor does it really assist your case that ID is a scientific theory. In any case, as with "design", this is simply assigning novel meanings to rather ordinary words. In my experience, arguments that require such games tend to be dead on arrival anyway.

"Random walk" is not a metaphysical notion; it is a mathematical process. Unless one wants to consider addition or multiplication to be a metaphysical notion (in which case the term becomes too broad to be meaningful.)

A random walk process is simply the summation of lots of small (usually independent) steps. There is a whole theory of Stochastic (ha!) Differential Equations covering these processes. (Developed by a Japanese mathematician, Îto, during WWII and available to the rest of the world a few years later.)