If it doesn't look like chance we toss chance out and move up to the next simplest thing as the null and so on until we don't have any evidence that doesn't fit.

I hope you're not a scientist

You don't seem to grasp the fundamental concept of Occam's Razor.

Goop shaped like what?

I wonder if you've seen that post I made about not knowing how many sides the dice has or what numbers are on it...

Because the designer you're supporting is invisble and silly.

Which is why something is only a null, not a supported theory. Evolution is a scientific theory. Planetary accretion, fusion, and big bang are the same. String theory is, perplexingly enough, not a scientific theory, or at least not until we've got some evidence for those strings besides "the math checks out."

Once something is a scientific theory believing differently means rejecting observed reality, unless you've got evidence that doesn't fit it.
Believing differently than the null just means you have beliefs. Until there's support for some part or another the null is just the starting point and if you're so inclined you should go find some evidence for or against it.

You understand that default doesn't mean "this is the only option" right?

Again, naturalism explains quite a bit if you're willing to stop trying to force it to mean "nothing but unguided luck."

Then why haven't you?

but only in the light of God, right?

It's saying things like this that prove to me you were never a science teacher, or at least not a remotely good one.

Energy flows from high concentrations to low concentrations and for one type of energy to do otherwise another type must flow even more in order to push it like that.

Can you think of many physical phenomena that don't follow that?

Naw, you're just abusing what I've said.

What I said was true. The problems all come when you turn it into something different.

So I guess that's one more tally for scarecrow argument. You're racking up a whole lot of fallacies here.

Naturalism explains? Is this a person or a new religion? What are you talking about when you say naturalism explains?



Huh? Well who asked for your opinion about the psychology of my sharing my opinion? When did this get personal?



No but anyone who would interpret it the way you just did above has a psychological glitch of his own.



That would depend on what you are calling or defining as "God." I am an atheist. I don't believe in a supreme being or deity creator. (And if "God" is "love" then I doubt if there can be any "good" without it.)





What the hell kind of religion is "naturalism?" Is mother nature your goddess?

Truly. The greatest scientists have already given their views.

We just don't know.



Well here's the satus Peter:

JB, myself, and Sky have already stated that we can't know with absolute certainty. However, we have given ample evidence for why we feel it is more likely than not. In fact, the "evidence" is overwhelming in favor of design, even if that can't be accepted as 'proof' (although I'm not sure why not).

But "evidence" was all that had been asked for anyway.

The argument now, is no longer about whether or not their is any evidence for design. It's clear that there is.

The argument now has chanced to asking whether it's proper to suggest that science favors one conclusion over the other.

That's the fallacy and utter lie that some people are attempting to perpetuate. The idea that science favors or implies that no-design is a more likely conclusion than design.

That position is utterly ignorant and uncalled for and truly isn't even supported by mainstream science. Where have you ever read in any science book that any conclusion of 'no-design' has been indicated?

Science doesn't even support that claim at all.

So these people who claim that science does support that are totally confused and have been mislead, (probably by other laymen like the one's in this very thread who are attempting to support that lie).

Science does not support no-design.

That's an utterly false claim.

Science just doesn't know one way or the other and can't say.

And Occam's Razor can't be applied either because there is no 'explanation' to even apply it to.

So all the people who support the idea that science supports no-design, are simply displaying their utter ignorance of science.

To help alleviate some of the confusion in this thread I'd like to point out that two entirely different questions are being addressed simultaneously and there is a lot of cross-confusion going on.

The original question being considered by the OP was:

"Is there any evidence that this universe was designed?"

During the course of this thread there has been plenty of evidence for design given. Thus the answer to this question seems to be a resounding, "Yes, there is evidence for design"

However there seems to be a second question that came up along the way.

"Does science support a conclusion that this universe was not designed".

Well the simple answer there is, "No, it most certainly does not". Science confesses to not knowing.

So that's the answer to that second question.

Anymore questions?



I'm afraid I don't know anything about the religion of "naturalism", so I can't answer anything about their beliefs, rites, and rituals. Sorry.

And what exactly does 'null' mean?

Null means we don't know. We can't say.

How does that equate to ruling out design?

It doesn't.

Also, if science can't rule out design, then why should anyone suggest that science favors ruling out design.

Let's face it. Science does not support a conclusion of no-design, and it would be utterly misrepresentative of science to claim that it does.

That's all I'm saying.

It's utterly wrong to suggest to people that science, in any way, supports "no-design" over "design"

That's all I'm saying.

Yet this is precisely what some people are attempting to claim. They are attempting to claim that science actually favors a conclusion of no-design.

That's a complete and utter farce. And it's totally unscientific and unprofessional.

No serious sincere scientist should support such nonsense.

Ok, so we think differently. I have no problem with that. I'm not saying you have to agree with my evidence, logic or conclusions. I'm only saying what works for me.

If everything, all things are designed, then there is no nature.

Its called jumping to conclusions in the absence of evidence.

Ok, so we think differently. I have no problem with that. I'm not saying you have to agree with my evidence, logic or conclusions. I'm only saying what works for me.


Sorry, Sky, unless you accept what "works" for Creative you'll forever be deemed to be an illogical person by him.

However, you have absolutely nothing to worry about.

Why?

Because apparently nothing "works" for Creative. He had never been able to establish any proof of anything. So clearly his methods aren't working either.



So apparently we have a stalemate.

And this is precisely all that Sky has ever been claiming.

Thus Sky "wins" the debate, because Sky's position has always been that nothing works.

Whilst Creative's position is some absurd notion that he holds the keys to something that actually does work.

I'm pretty sure that every sane person on these boards will confess to the truth of the fact that we can't say one way or the other, (depending on what definition we give to 'Intelligent Design').

Actually if we do something amazingly simple, then we can indeed conclude that 'Intelligent Design' is the only possible conclusion.

We simply define "Intelligent Design" as anything that which creates something intelligent.

Then if we consider ourselves to be "intelligent" we have no choice but to conclude that we have been created by an "Intelligent Design" by our very definition of the term.

The only possible way to deny "Intelligent Design" in this scenario is for the person who is refuting "Intelligent Design" to confess that they aren't "Intelligent".

In the face of that confession why should anyone care what that particlar person even thinks?

That's some semantic mumbo jumbo there.

What about the "nature of a design"?

Are you saying that when we design things those things have no 'nature'?

What is the 'nature' of something other than the properties that it exhibits?

Are you saying that if something is designed it should have no properties (and thus no nature?)

I found the following definition on the web:

Nature - the essential qualities or characteristics by which something is recognized; "it is the nature of fire to burn"

So you're saying that if someone designed fire, then fire should no longer possess the characteristic of being able to burn things?

I don't understand your statement at all, to be quite honest about it.

Why should things that have been designed have no 'nature'?

I already quit a long time ago...... .
But why not designers instead of a single, sole designer ?.
Like blue prints used in technology .
The problem is who designed those designers or that sole designer...?.
.

Exactly, begging the question or requiring a designer for the natural world is turtles all the way down.

Although the semantics of "nature" are a little tricky, I can see the perfect logic in that.

If you define "nature" as "that which is not designed", then of course you statement is absolutely true.

But if you define nature as "the way the universe works", then (to those of us arguing for design) the design is nature.

So really, what your statement amounts to, to me, is showing how one's definition of "nature" will affect any statements one makes about the relationship between design and nature.

I'm certainly open to that possiblity.

The only question I was considering is "Is there evidence for design". My personal answer to that question is, "Yes".

Does that imply anything at all about the designer(s)? Nope.




But that wasn't the question.

The question wasn't, "Does a hypothesis of a designer 'explain' how this whole thing was possible?"

That's wasn't the question.

The question was simply, "Is there evidence for design?"

My answer to that question is, "Yes, there is evidence for design"

Does that lessen the mystery of how anything got started including any designer(s). No. But that wasn't the question that was being asked was it?

This is where I think a lot of people seem to go off the deep end.

To ask if there is "evidence" of a designer is one thing.

To ask if that "explains" anything, is a totally different question altogether.

Although, it might "explain" why there is so much evidence for design!

Well isn't that what philosophy is all about? Begging the question?

So personally, I've begged the question and come up with an answer that satisfies me - there is an infinity of turtles. But their relationship is not "up and down", it is "sideways". That is, no turtle is dependent on any other turtle for it existence. The only dependency is regarding interaction - that is, for there to be interaction with other turtles, there must be other turtles with which to interact.

So in my philosophy, the only real question is "what is the nature of the medium through which the turtles interact?"

And that seems to be the main focus of science as well.

The problem for me is that science is not yet unable to describe that medium in a way that accounts for all observed interactions.

So rather than abandoning the question altogether, I simply postulate a medium that does satisfy all observed interactions and go from there.

That’s not a problem for me because I don’t consider that “the designers” were designed. In other words, the postulate that “every cause must also be an effect” is not part of my philosophy.

One step further is that nature does not need a creator.

Oh yeh, that makes a lot of sense. (... not really)

Sure. That's a step one can take. Another step one can take is in a different direction - nature does need a creator.

You pick your direction and I'll pick mine. Ok with you?

This is correct. Nature does not need a creator. It manifests itself by design. It is designed to manifest itself. It does not need a creator.

Just like the law of cause and effect does not need a judge or jury to pass sentence. You will reap what you sow. What goes around, comes around. He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword. And all that jazz.

These things are "automatic" and they are designed to be "automatic" just like the programs in my computer that are designed to be automatic. My computer automatically keeps track of the correct time and date. That is not 'nature' that is by design.

Everything in this reality is digital. Everything has programs that run automatically except when they are over ridden by the conscious will of a thinking conscious creature.

It is all by design, every last quark.



That is NOT the question here. ESPECIALLY when you do not even consider the possibility of intelligent design or designers at work within and outside of this reality/universe. If you are going to resist the idea of a designer then just stop right there with your questions because if there is no designer like you want to claim then the question about who designed the designers does not apply.

But for those who CAN, just for a moment, consider the possibility of intelligent design I will tell you who the designers of the designers are. They are the designers that went before them. Yes... all the way to infinity. There is no end to infinity. It is constantly perpetuating itself and it goes in a pattern and path back to itself. It has no beginning or end.

That is a concept that the human mind can not grasped easily, if at all. Infinity is the key to the structure of this reality/universe which is a multi-dimensional universe.

You can consider that information or not, its up to you.

Exactly. Why should one step be any 'further' than any other?

Besides, everyone seems to be getting totally off track from the original question.

The original question merely asked, "Is there 'evidence' for design?"

There's nothing in that question that even remotely asks to explain how the designers came to be.

It's equally illogical for "stupid stuff" to have just popped into existence from nowhere and accidently created living sentient beings as it is to assume that "intelligent designered" created it on purpose.

Both ideas are equally 'illogical'. Neither one of them holds any more merit than the other.

So all we can do is look at whats going on and ask if there is there "evidence" for intelligent design.

Since we evolved out of this unvierse and we consider ourselves to be intelligent beings (which I'm sure we all do based on our very own definition of what that term means), then cleary we are the edvidence of 'intellegent design'.

So there is evidence of intelligent design, because we would not expect this to happen from 'stupid stuff' just popping into existence from nowhere. That's just as illogical as anything else.

So all we can do is ask the question, "Is there evidence for Intelligent Design" and the answer has to be yes, because we are indeed the evidence!

Whether we can understand how that could be the case or not is irrelevant to the question. The question merely asks, "Is there evidence", and the answer is obvious. Here we are! Bingo! Our very existence is the evidence. And not even just humans. Any living thing really.

Slime mold is an evidence of intelligent design really.

DNA and it's abilty to become a digital computer is the evidence.

DNA is not merely a molecule that can store information like a disk drive, read it's own information and act upon the code, but it's even able to build highly sophisticated programs. That, my friends, is evidence of design, as far as I'm concerned.

I would not expect that to arrise from an explosion of "stupid stuff"

You idea of intelligent design may vary.

To me, a self-programming molecule that actually becomes it's own storage system, CPU, and manipulator, is "Intelligent Design" in its own right.