Re: Another question for IDers

On Apr 26, 6:23 pm, Seanpit <sean...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 24, 12:43 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

This question is especially forSeanPitman, but any IDer is of course
welcome.

Seantells us that we may determine that a thing is designed by
examining it.  Is it also fair to try and deduce the purpose of the
designed object?

It seems to me that in sciences that detect design (archeology, for
example), this is rather integral to the science.  Your typical
archeologist doesn't just find a bit of stone and try to work out the
probabilities of it having that shape naturally- they try to determine
what it was for.  If it's shaped like an arrowhead, that is a key sign
that it was designed, inasmuch as we know that humans used to make and
use arrowheads.

Archeologists have also discovered artifacts, that are clearly
artifacts, but for which they have no good idea what they were used
for.

....and they know that they are artifacts because they test hypotheses
of manufacture.

 Determining likely use is not a necessarily requirement for
determining the artifactual nature of an object or phenomenon.

Quite so. However, knowing how it was made is. That's why if
archaeologists don't know if something is an artifact or not, they
conclude that they don't know if it's an artifact or not.

What they *DON'T* do is apply utterly phony statistical tests of the
sort you claim to apply.


With Sean's beloved SETI, the scientists aren't just looking for
random radio waves of low natural probability, they hypothesize that
extra terrestrials are using said waves for communication, and hope to
be able to decode these communications.

It isn't a matter of low probability.  It is a matter of low
probability from the perspective of all known non-deliberate mindless
forces of nature yet within a high probability of at least human level
design and creativity. Again, the actual purpose for the object or
phenomenon need not be known.

Quite so. On the other hand, the mechanism by which it was made is.


For example, if the Mars landrover happened to come across a highly
symmetrical polished granite cube on the surface of Mars, measuring,
say, 1 meter on each side, this would be recognized as a true artifact
even without knowing its intended use or purpose.

Only if they could figure out from clues from the object how it was
made. If they couldn't, they'd conclude that they don't know if it's
an artifact or not. That's what real scientists do. Test hypotheses,
and if they can't think of any hypotheses to test conclude that they
don't know.

What they *don't* do is claim to have statistical methods which can
distinguish between "deliberate" and "non-deliberate" forces and claim
to know the outcome of those methods *without even applying them* when
they can't even define the methodology.

RF


Isn't it fair then to assume that a designer who designed, say, the
rabies virus did so for the purpose of inflicting rabies on the
various mammals that get rabies?  Why else would a designer make such
a thing?  Do any of you ID folks want to comment on the purpose of
life, as divined through examining the ID'd portions of it?

This is like asking for the purpose of the CML mutation or the
mutation that produces sickle cell anemia. Such mutations aren't
deliberately designed.  They are well within the realm of mindless
processes.  Also many parasitic features are actually the result of
degenerative mutations - devolution if you will.  Classic examples of
this sort of thing include the bacterial toxin injector or TTSS
system.  It has now been proven that this system is a degeneration of
the flagellar system from which it was originally derived.  Why do
such systems degenerate into parasitic systems?  Because the smaller
parasitic systems are easier and energetically cheaper to maintain.
Living off the resources of another creatures is a whole lot easier
than finding your own food.

Viruses likely arose the same way - as degenerative changes to more
complex beneficial systems.

As an aside I notice that no actual IDer answered my last question.
Don't you guys want to examine your beliefs?

You're welcome . . .

Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Another question for IDers
    ...  Is it also fair to try and deduce the purpose of the ... It isn't a matter of low probability. ... design and creativity. ... It has now been proven that this system is a degeneration of ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: What *is* design?
    ... >>>the agent that makes them. ... >> I made the stuff, sometimes it has a purpose, sometimes it does not. ... design have any real meaning. ... And infer the intent of that agent. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Open source alternative for MsAccess?
    ... These are not RAD database application development systems that can ... The design reflects the purpose of the product. ... VB is not VBA and VBA is not VBA as used in Access. ...
    (comp.os.linux.development.apps)
  • Re: What *is* design?
    ... As such they have no purpose. ... >>the agent that makes them. ... reiterate again I'm trying to generalize the definition of design. ... >>>And I don't know a meaningful way to distinguish intent from purpose. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: All Creationists are Evil Liars
    ... how do you know that _David_ is designed and snowflakes aren't? ... that pattern was or was not likely to be the result of artifact. ... IKIWISI design detection kit. ...
    (talk.origins)