Re: [asa] Expelled and ID

From: David Clounch <david.clounch@gmail.com>
Date: Sun Apr 20 2008 - 21:02:07 EDT

Yes, someone mentioned bad designs earlier. I myself have no problem with a
designer who makes bad designs. But perhaps that is because I don't start
with God and don't have God in mind, and don't have perfection in mind.

But, if I were thinking of God, I do think the symmetry in the laws of the
universe, which is reported to be immeasurably perfect (perfect to a degree
we have not been able to measure), doesn't trigger the issue of "bad
design". And broken symmetry, which looks like spontaneous symmetry
generated from a chaotic system (ie, from a natural process) but really
isn't because it really comes from a higher symmetry, could indeed look
like bad design as judged by humans.

Also, it seems to me the idea of bad design is a theological notion. I am
plagued by the argument from Bernoulli that if God designed the solar system
He would have made the planets orbit in random fashion at random angles.
Contrast this with Kant who said if God designed the solar system then the
orbits would be arranged in some sort of regular fashion (such as in a
plane). So no matter which way one looks at it somebody claims God
wouldn't have done it 'that way'...because thats a bad design...and
therefore must be purely natural. Let me make an analogy as to why I am
uncomfortable with talk about "bad designs". To me this is like finding a
footprint in the sand and asking which political party the man who made the
footprint belongs to. If he is Democrat the footprint must point east, and
if Republican it must point west. How do we know that? Its based on our
preconceived notions. But the fact that our preconceived notions may be
completely wrong and in fact are silly, this in no way implies the
footprint wasn't made by a human. So it is with quality of design
arguments, in my opinion.

When I hear someone talking about bad design versus good design, I have to
ask "do you believe design can be measured at all as opposed to
no-design?" If not, then why worry about the quality of something that
allegedly cannot be measured?

But maybe I am merely too simple minded.

Cheers,
Dave

On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 2:21 PM, skrogh. <panterragroup@mindspring.com>
wrote:

>
> Bad designs haven't seemed to gotten through the ID design detector.
> =========================================
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]*On
> Behalf Of *D. F. Siemens, Jr.
> *Sent:* Saturday, April 19, 2008 10:35 PM
> *To:* panterragroup@mindspring.com
> *Cc:* asa@calvin.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] Expelled and ID
>
> I think there is one which does so in principle. It's opposite would
> justify ID. If we have sequenced the genomes of all the species, or at least
> all the species in one kingdom, and figured out exactly how all the various
> parts work, if we discover some genes/control sequences/whatever else comes
> up that cannot be derived from others earlier in the evolutionary
> development, we presumably have evidence that they were introduced by the
> deity or some superior power. This is sure evidence for ID. However, the
> current indication is that we have sequences in genomes that simply preserve
> stuff from the past, which is clear evidence against ID. Things are too
> sloppy to be designed, unless the designer intends to mislead us.
>
> Generally, given the state of human knowledge, proof and falsification are
> claims too strong to be supported.
> Dave (ASA)
>
> On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 17:46:02 -0500 "skrogh." <panterragroup@mindspring.com>
> writes:
>
> Also, can one conceive of a potential observation that would falsify ID?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]*On
> Behalf Of *Dehler, Bernie
> *Sent:* Saturday, April 19, 2008 5:39 PM
> *To:* asa@calvin.edu
> *Subject:* RE: [asa] Expelled and ID
>
> ID is saying it is "science" so it can be more serious. To make it
> science, you have to bear on scientific things, such as math (statistics)
> and biology. So they are appealing to the hard sciences to bring it into
> the scientific realm.
>
>
>
> However, they have no scientific hypothesis. "God made it" is not a
> hypothesis, since it can't be tested. By definition, the scientific method
> requires a hypothesis that can be tested. You also can't test evolution per
> "origin of life," but there are other parts of evolution which are testable…
> ID has nothing testable. They think by disproving known naturalistic
> methods, God is then the default answer—but it isn't.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *Mountainwoman
> *Sent:* Saturday, April 19, 2008 2:10 PM
> *To:* asa@calvin.edu
> *Subject:* [asa] Expelled and ID
>
>
>
> Having just seen Ben Stein's "Expelled," one thought that occurred to me
> is the following:
>
>
>
> Is Intelligent Design a modern incarnation of the classic teleological
> argument for the existence of God and therefore belongs in the philosophy
> and/or theology departments of universities rather than in the science
> departments?
>
>
>
> Paul Bruggink (ASA Member)
>
> Clarington, PA
>
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Apr 20 21:04:22 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Apr 20 2008 - 21:04:23 EDT