This is mostly to address Ron Dean's attempts to support design in "A riposte of fine tuning," a thread which is getting close to 1000 posts long and a bit unwieldy.

So, how do you identify design?

1. The way we actually identify design all the time, you see something and it is or is very similar to something you know is designed because you know (broadly) who designed it and how and because the designers left evidence of their having designed it.
You see a computer, you know people build computers and know (or can look up) how they build them. See a canal, you know people dig canals. See a bridge, you know people build bridges. See the Great Wall, you know people build fortifications and you can
read the accounts of its construction. See a pyramid, you know people build monuments and you can find tools, and tool marks, and bookkeeping for the workers' food and supplies. Pretty much everything that we all agree is designed, we know is designed
because we know something about who did it and how, certainly not everything in every case, but something.

2. Ron sometimes, and other ID supporters, often, suggest that we recognize things as designed, in the absence of knowing anything about the designer, because we cannot think of a way they could have occurred naturally. So they'll often cite (fictional)
things like the monolith in 2001: A Space Odyssey on the moon. They'll say they'd we'd recognize it as designed because of its symmetry, even though we'd have no idea how it was made, because we cannot think of how such a thing could occur naturally. But
that is not what would be going on. We would recognize it because humans build geometric monuments and we imagine a designer similar enough to humans to build monuments. Likewise, if we were to find an extrasolar radio signal listing the prime numbers,
we would recognize it as designed, not because we excluded natural causes, but because humans, thinking about sending a recognizable signal to unknown aliens, think about sending a list of prime numbers, or some similar mathematical signal. So even when
the ID supporters make the argument that they (would) recognize something as designed simply because there's no way it could occur naturally, that's not what they are really doing. In all their examples, they are recognizing things which are like
something we humans would think to design.

3. Finally, Ron implies, but still has not been explicit about it, that there is a set of diagnostic criteria which would enable you to look at an object, in the absence of any knowledge about a putative designer and decide that it is designed. In
principle, why not? There are plenty of things we know for sure are designed and plenty of things we know are not designed [Note: if you want to take the position that everything is designed then this approach won't work, but neither will any other].
There's no reason you could not, in principle find a set of diagnostic criteria to distinguish design from non-design. But every time he tries, Ron fails. He has yet to make a clear list of his criteria, but the ones he suggests from his examples, sudden
appearance, sharp, regular angles, reproduction, etc all fail. Characteristics he considers evidence of design are present in non-designed things and characteristics he considers evidence of non-design are present in designed things.

I think the problem for Ron, and some other ID fans, is that he is really using the first method to identify design. He already knows, on the basis of his faith that his God is the designer. And his God creates new forms of life, the universe, souls, and
all the rest. So when he sees, for example, the (perhaps artifactually) sudden appearance of animal phyla in the Cambrian Explosion, he is using the fact that he knows how the designer is and knows that the designer creates new animals and so it's as
easy for him to see that the phyla body plans were designed as it is for me to see that a computer is designed. And it seems very hard for him to put himself in the frame of mind of someone who really and truly knows nothing about a designer and to think
about how one would prove design without any knowledge at all about the designer and the designer's methods.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, 21 January 2023 at 14:35:57 UTC+2, broger...@gmail.com wrote:

This is mostly to address Ron Dean's attempts to support design in "A riposte of fine tuning," a thread which is getting close to 1000 posts long and a bit unwieldy.

So, how do you identify design?

1. The way we actually identify design all the time, you see something and it is or is very similar to something you know is designed because you know (broadly) who designed it and how and because the designers left evidence of their having designed it.

You see a computer, you know people build computers and know (or can look up) how they build them. See a canal, you know people dig canals. See a bridge, you know people build bridges. See the Great Wall, you know people build fortifications and you can
read the accounts of its construction. See a pyramid, you know people build monuments and you can find tools, and tool marks, and bookkeeping for the workers' food and supplies. Pretty much everything that we all agree is designed, we know is designed
because we know something about who did it and how, certainly not everything in every case, but something.

2. Ron sometimes, and other ID supporters, often, suggest that we recognize things as designed, in the absence of knowing anything about the designer, because we cannot think of a way they could have occurred naturally. So they'll often cite (fictional)

things like the monolith in 2001: A Space Odyssey on the moon. They'll say they'd we'd recognize it as designed because of its symmetry, even though we'd have no idea how it was made, because we cannot think of how such a thing could occur naturally.
But that is not what would be going on. We would recognize it because humans build geometric monuments and we imagine a designer similar enough to humans to build monuments. Likewise, if we were to find an extrasolar radio signal listing the prime
numbers, we would recognize it as designed, not because we excluded natural causes, but because humans, thinking about sending a recognizable signal to unknown aliens, think about sending a list of prime numbers, or some similar mathematical signal. So
even when the ID supporters make the argument that they (would) recognize something as designed simply because there's no way it could occur naturally, that's not what they are really doing. In all their examples, they are recognizing things which are
like something we humans would think to design.

3. Finally, Ron implies, but still has not been explicit about it, that there is a set of diagnostic criteria which would enable you to look at an object, in the absence of any knowledge about a putative designer and decide that it is designed. In

principle, why not? There are plenty of things we know for sure are designed and plenty of things we know are not designed [Note: if you want to take the position that everything is designed then this approach won't work, but neither will any other].
There's no reason you could not, in principle find a set of diagnostic criteria to distinguish design from non-design. But every time he tries, Ron fails. He has yet to make a clear list of his criteria, but the ones he suggests from his examples, sudden
appearance, sharp, regular angles, reproduction, etc all fail. Characteristics he considers evidence of design are present in non-designed things and characteristics he considers evidence of non-design are present in designed things.

I think the problem for Ron, and some other ID fans, is that he is really using the first method to identify design. He already knows, on the basis of his faith that his God is the designer. And his God creates new forms of life, the universe, souls,

and all the rest. So when he sees, for example, the (perhaps artifactually) sudden appearance of animal phyla in the Cambrian Explosion, he is using the fact that he knows how the designer is and knows that the designer creates new animals and so it's as
easy for him to see that the phyla body plans were designed as it is for me to see that a computer is designed. And it seems very hard for him to put himself in the frame of mind of someone who really and truly knows nothing about a designer and to think
about how one would prove design without any knowledge at all about the designer and the designer's methods.

The major issue with it for me is that the "design" is very dim word in English.
It can mean as noun something like sketch/draft, artful conception and/or intention.
It can mean as verb something like to plan, to outline, to create, to conceive and/or to intend to do. That is likely short list by non-native English speaker.
And some of both proponents and opponents like then to fish in that murky water. to accuse each other, to dodge requests to explain and to be deliberately
not explicit themselves. Result is doomed to be very non-insightful to read.

That being dim is further magnified and outright designed into discussion. Without author accompanying that noun or doer accompanying that verb
the word indeed turns into too meaningless to discuss.
The things listed as designed typically are so far outside of our current knowledge that very low evidence, doubt, too wild speculations and more
doubt and so on are anyway granted.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, January 21, 2023 at 10:10:57 AM UTC-5, oot...@hot.ee wrote:

On Saturday, 21 January 2023 at 14:35:57 UTC+2, broger...@gmail.com wrote:

This is mostly to address Ron Dean's attempts to support design in "A riposte of fine tuning," a thread which is getting close to 1000 posts long and a bit unwieldy.

So, how do you identify design?

1. The way we actually identify design all the time, you see something and it is or is very similar to something you know is designed because you know (broadly) who designed it and how and because the designers left evidence of their having designed

it. You see a computer, you know people build computers and know (or can look up) how they build them. See a canal, you know people dig canals. See a bridge, you know people build bridges. See the Great Wall, you know people build fortifications and you
can read the accounts of its construction. See a pyramid, you know people build monuments and you can find tools, and tool marks, and bookkeeping for the workers' food and supplies. Pretty much everything that we all agree is designed, we know is
designed because we know something about who did it and how, certainly not everything in every case, but something.

2. Ron sometimes, and other ID supporters, often, suggest that we recognize things as designed, in the absence of knowing anything about the designer, because we cannot think of a way they could have occurred naturally. So they'll often cite (

fictional) things like the monolith in 2001: A Space Odyssey on the moon. They'll say they'd we'd recognize it as designed because of its symmetry, even though we'd have no idea how it was made, because we cannot think of how such a thing could occur
naturally. But that is not what would be going on. We would recognize it because humans build geometric monuments and we imagine a designer similar enough to humans to build monuments. Likewise, if we were to find an extrasolar radio signal listing the
prime numbers, we would recognize it as designed, not because we excluded natural causes, but because humans, thinking about sending a recognizable signal to unknown aliens, think about sending a list of prime numbers, or some similar mathematical signal.
So even when the ID supporters make the argument that they (would) recognize something as designed simply because there's no way it could occur naturally, that's not what they are really doing. In all their examples, they are recognizing things which
are like something we humans would think to design.

3. Finally, Ron implies, but still has not been explicit about it, that there is a set of diagnostic criteria which would enable you to look at an object, in the absence of any knowledge about a putative designer and decide that it is designed. In

principle, why not? There are plenty of things we know for sure are designed and plenty of things we know are not designed [Note: if you want to take the position that everything is designed then this approach won't work, but neither will any other].
There's no reason you could not, in principle find a set of diagnostic criteria to distinguish design from non-design. But every time he tries, Ron fails. He has yet to make a clear list of his criteria, but the ones he suggests from his examples, sudden
appearance, sharp, regular angles, reproduction, etc all fail. Characteristics he considers evidence of design are present in non-designed things and characteristics he considers evidence of non-design are present in designed things.

I think the problem for Ron, and some other ID fans, is that he is really using the first method to identify design. He already knows, on the basis of his faith that his God is the designer. And his God creates new forms of life, the universe, souls,

and all the rest. So when he sees, for example, the (perhaps artifactually) sudden appearance of animal phyla in the Cambrian Explosion, he is using the fact that he knows how the designer is and knows that the designer creates new animals and so it's as
easy for him to see that the phyla body plans were designed as it is for me to see that a computer is designed. And it seems very hard for him to put himself in the frame of mind of someone who really and truly knows nothing about a designer and to think
about how one would prove design without any knowledge at all about the designer and the designer's methods.

The major issue with it for me is that the "design" is very dim word in English.
It can mean as noun something like sketch/draft, artful conception and/or intention.
It can mean as verb something like to plan, to outline, to create, to conceive
and/or to intend to do. That is likely short list by non-native English speaker.
And some of both proponents and opponents like then to fish in that murky water. to accuse each other, to dodge requests to explain and to be deliberately
not explicit themselves. Result is doomed to be very non-insightful to read.

That being dim is further magnified and outright designed into discussion. Without author accompanying that noun or doer accompanying that verb
the word indeed turns into too meaningless to discuss.
The things listed as designed typically are so far outside of our current knowledge that very low evidence, doubt, too wild speculations and more doubt and so on are anyway granted.

I think the murkiness comes about because they themselves are often unaware of what they are doing. They claim to be developing a way to identify things that are designed in the complete absence of any knowledge of the designer or the designer's methods.
That is definitely not what we normally do when we identify things that are designed, like monuments or stone tools or art work. But deep down, they know who the designer is (in their minds) and so they cannot really look at the question as though they
had no knowledge of the designer. God fits the bill, and they see things like the bacterial flagellum or the first living thing as designed not because of intrinsic properties unique to known designed things, but because they are the sort of things that
their God would design.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

broger...@gmail.com wrote:

This is mostly to address Ron Dean's attempts to support design in "A
riposte of fine tuning," a thread which is getting close to 1000 posts
long and a bit unwieldy.

So, how do you identify design?

1. The way we actually identify design all the time, you see something and
it is or is very similar to something you know is designed because you
know (broadly) who designed it and how and because the designers left evidence of their having designed it. You see a computer, you know people build computers and know (or can look up) how they build them. See a
canal, you know people dig canals. See a bridge, you know people build bridges. See the Great Wall, you know people build fortifications and you
can read the accounts of its construction. See a pyramid, you know people build monuments and you can find tools, and tool marks, and bookkeeping
for the workers' food and supplies. Pretty much everything that we all
agree is designed, we know is designed because we know something about who did it and how, certainly not everything in every case, but something.

2. Ron sometimes, and other ID supporters, often, suggest that we
recognize things as designed, in the absence of knowing anything about the designer, because we cannot think of a way they could have occurred naturally. So they'll often cite (fictional) things like the monolith in 2001: A Space Odyssey on the moon. They'll say they'd we'd recognize it as designed because of its symmetry, even though we'd have no idea how it was made, because we cannot think of how such a thing could occur naturally.
But that is not what would be going on. We would recognize it because
humans build geometric monuments and we imagine a designer similar enough
to humans to build monuments. Likewise, if we were to find an extrasolar radio signal listing the prime numbers, we would recognize it as designed, not because we excluded natural causes, but because humans, thinking about sending a recognizable signal to unknown aliens, think about sending a
list of prime numbers, or some similar mathematical signal. So even when
the ID supporters make the argument that they (would) recognize something
as designed simply because there's no way it could occur naturally, that's not what they are really doing. In all their examples, they are
recognizing things which are like something we humans would think to
design.

3. Finally, Ron implies, but still has not been explicit about it, that
there is a set of diagnostic criteria which would enable you to look at an object, in the absence of any knowledge about a putative designer and
decide that it is designed. In principle, why not? There are plenty of
things we know for sure are designed and plenty of things we know are not designed [Note: if you want to take the position that everything is
designed then this approach won't work, but neither will any other].
There's no reason you could not, in principle find a set of diagnostic criteria to distinguish design from non-design. But every time he tries,
Ron fails. He has yet to make a clear list of his criteria, but the ones
he suggests from his examples, sudden appearance, sharp, regular angles, reproduction, etc all fail. Characteristics he considers evidence of
design are present in non-designed things and characteristics he considers evidence of non-design are present in designed things.

I think the problem for Ron, and some other ID fans, is that he is really using the first method to identify design. He already knows, on the basis
of his faith that his God is the designer. And his God creates new forms
of life, the universe, souls, and all the rest. So when he sees, for
example, the (perhaps artifactually) sudden appearance of animal phyla in
the Cambrian Explosion, he is using the fact that he knows how the
designer is and knows that the designer creates new animals and so it's as easy for him to see that the phyla body plans were designed as it is for
me to see that a computer is designed. And it seems very hard for him to
put himself in the frame of mind of someone who really and truly knows nothing about a designer and to think about how one would prove design without any knowledge at all about the designer and the designer's
methods.

If nature was designed then everything in nature would be a product of
design. This has to be true since, we are told, nature is all there is.
Either nature is designed and design is fully natural or design is within
and part of nature which also makes it natural. There can be no non-natural source of design.

The universe contains design, it enables design. The universe can't be two realities nor is there any logical need to fragment the universe into
designed or non-designed; things just are they way they are. What we believe doesn't matter.

Bill

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

T24gMS8yMS8yMDIzIDU6MzUgQU0sIGJyb2dlci4uLkBnbWFpbC5jb20gd3JvdGU6DQo+IFRo aXMgaXMgbW9zdGx5IHRvIGFkZHJlc3MgUm9uIERlYW4ncyBhdHRlbXB0cyB0byBzdXBwb3J0 IGRlc2lnbiBpbiAiQSByaXBvc3RlIG9mIGZpbmUgdHVuaW5nLCIgYSB0aHJlYWQgd2hpY2gg aXMgZ2V0dGluZyBjbG9zZSB0byAxMDAwIHBvc3RzIGxvbmcgYW5kIGEgYml0IHVud2llbGR5 Lg0KPiANCj4gU28sIGhvdyBkbyB5b3UgaWRlbnRpZnkgZGVzaWduPw0KPiANCj4gMS4gVGhl IHdheSB3ZSBhY3R1YWxseSBpZGVudGlmeSBkZXNpZ24gYWxsIHRoZSB0aW1lLCB5b3Ugc2Vl IHNvbWV0aGluZyBhbmQgaXQgaXMgb3IgaXMgdmVyeSBzaW1pbGFyIHRvIHNvbWV0aGluZyB5 b3Uga25vdyBpcyBkZXNpZ25lZCBiZWNhdXNlIHlvdSBrbm93IChicm9hZGx5KSB3aG8gZGVz aWduZWQgaXQgYW5kIGhvdyBhbmQgYmVjYXVzZSB0aGUgZGVzaWduZXJzIGxlZnQgZXZpZGVu Y2Ugb2YgdGhlaXIgaGF2aW5nIGRlc2lnbmVkIGl0LiBZb3Ugc2VlIGEgY29tcHV0ZXIsIHlv dSBrbm93IHBlb3BsZSBidWlsZCBjb21wdXRlcnMgYW5kIGtub3cgKG9yIGNhbiBsb29rIHVw KSBob3cgdGhleSBidWlsZCB0aGVtLiBTZWUgYSBjYW5hbCwgeW91IGtub3cgcGVvcGxlIGRp ZyBjYW5hbHMuIFNlZSBhIGJyaWRnZSwgeW91IGtub3cgcGVvcGxlIGJ1aWxkIGJyaWRnZXMu IFNlZSB0aGUgR3JlYXQgV2FsbCwgeW91IGtub3cgcGVvcGxlIGJ1aWxkIGZvcnRpZmljYXRp b25zIGFuZCB5b3UgY2FuIHJlYWQgdGhlIGFjY291bnRzIG9mIGl0cyBjb25zdHJ1Y3Rpb24u IFNlZSBhIHB5cmFtaWQsIHlvdSBrbm93IHBlb3BsZSBidWlsZCBtb251bWVudHMgYW5kIHlv dSBjYW4gZmluZCB0b29scywgYW5kIHRvb2wgbWFya3MsIGFuZCBib29ra2VlcGluZyBmb3Ig dGhlIHdvcmtlcnMnIGZvb2QgYW5kIHN1cHBsaWVzLiBQcmV0dHkgbXVjaCBldmVyeXRoaW5n IHRoYXQgd2UgYWxsIGFncmVlIGlzIGRlc2lnbmVkLCB3ZSBrbm93IGlzIGRlc2lnbmVkIGJl Y2F1c2Ugd2Uga25vdyBzb21ldGhpbmcgYWJvdXQgd2hvIGRpZCBpdCBhbmQgaG93LCBjZXJ0 YWlubHkgbm90IGV2ZXJ5dGhpbmcgaW4gZXZlcnkgY2FzZSwgYnV0IHNvbWV0aGluZy4NCj4g DQo+IDIuIFJvbiBzb21ldGltZXMsIGFuZCBvdGhlciBJRCBzdXBwb3J0ZXJzLCBvZnRlbiwg c3VnZ2VzdCB0aGF0IHdlIHJlY29nbml6ZSB0aGluZ3MgYXMgZGVzaWduZWQsIGluIHRoZSBh YnNlbmNlIG9mIGtub3dpbmcgYW55dGhpbmcgYWJvdXQgdGhlIGRlc2lnbmVyLCBiZWNhdXNl IHdlIGNhbm5vdCB0aGluayBvZiBhIHdheSB0aGV5IGNvdWxkIGhhdmUgb2NjdXJyZWQgbmF0 dXJhbGx5LiBTbyB0aGV5J2xsIG9mdGVuIGNpdGUgKGZpY3Rpb25hbCkgdGhpbmdzIGxpa2Ug dGhlIG1vbm9saXRoIGluIDIwMDE6IEEgU3BhY2UgT2R5c3NleSBvbiB0aGUgbW9vbi4gVGhl eSdsbCBzYXkgdGhleSdkIHdlJ2QgcmVjb2duaXplIGl0IGFzIGRlc2lnbmVkIGJlY2F1c2Ug b2YgaXRzIHN5bW1ldHJ5LCBldmVuIHRob3VnaCB3ZSdkIGhhdmUgbm8gaWRlYSBob3cgaXQg d2FzIG1hZGUsIGJlY2F1c2Ugd2UgY2Fubm90IHRoaW5rIG9mIGhvdyBzdWNoIGEgdGhpbmcg Y291bGQgb2NjdXIgbmF0dXJhbGx5LiBCdXQgdGhhdCBpcyBub3Qgd2hhdCB3b3VsZCBiZSBn b2luZyBvbi4gV2Ugd291bGQgcmVjb2duaXplIGl0IGJlY2F1c2UgaHVtYW5zIGJ1aWxkIGdl b21ldHJpYyBtb251bWVudHMgYW5kIHdlIGltYWdpbmUgYSBkZXNpZ25lciBzaW1pbGFyIGVu b3VnaCB0byBodW1hbnMgdG8gYnVpbGQgbW9udW1lbnRzLiBMaWtld2lzZSwgaWYgd2Ugd2Vy ZSB0byBmaW5kIGFuIGV4dHJhc29sYXIgcmFkaW8gc2lnbmFsIGxpc3RpbmcgdGhlIHByaW1l IG51bWJlcnMsIHdlIHdvdWxkIHJlY29nbml6ZSBpdCBhcyBkZXNpZ25lZCwgbm90IGJlY2F1 c2Ugd2UgZXhjbHVkZWQgbmF0dXJhbCBjYXVzZXMsIGJ1dCBiZWNhdXNlIGh1bWFucywgdGhp bmtpbmcgYWJvdXQgc2VuZGluZyBhIHJlY29nbml6YWJsZSBzaWduYWwgdG8gdW5rbm93biBh bGllbnMsIHRoaW5rIGFib3V0IHNlbmRpbmcgYSBsaXN0IG9mIHByaW1lIG51bWJlcnMsIG9y IHNvbWUgc2ltaWxhciBtYXRoZW1hdGljYWwgc2lnbmFsLiBTbyBldmVuIHdoZW4gdGhlIElE IHN1cHBvcnRlcnMgbWFrZSB0aGUgYXJndW1lbnQgdGhhdCB0aGV5ICh3b3VsZCkgcmVjb2du aXplIHNvbWV0aGluZyBhcyBkZXNpZ25lZCBzaW1wbHkgYmVjYXVzZSB0aGVyZSdzIG5vIHdh eSBpdCBjb3VsZCBvY2N1ciBuYXR1cmFsbHksIHRoYXQncyBub3Qgd2hhdCB0aGV5IGFyZSBy ZWFsbHkgZG9pbmcuIEluIGFsbCB0aGVpciBleGFtcGxlcywgdGhleSBhcmUgcmVjb2duaXpp bmcgdGhpbmdzIHdoaWNoIGFyZSBsaWtlIHNvbWV0aGluZyB3ZSBodW1hbnMgd291bGQgdGhp bmsgdG8gZGVzaWduLg0KPiANCj4gMy4gRmluYWxseSwgUm9uIGltcGxpZXMsIGJ1dCBzdGls bCBoYXMgbm90IGJlZW4gZXhwbGljaXQgYWJvdXQgaXQsIHRoYXQgdGhlcmUgaXMgYSBzZXQg b2YgZGlhZ25vc3RpYyBjcml0ZXJpYSB3aGljaCB3b3VsZCBlbmFibGUgeW91IHRvIGxvb2sg YXQgYW4gb2JqZWN0LCBpbiB0aGUgYWJzZW5jZSBvZiBhbnkga25vd2xlZGdlIGFib3V0IGEg cHV0YXRpdmUgZGVzaWduZXIgYW5kIGRlY2lkZSB0aGF0IGl0IGlzIGRlc2lnbmVkLiBJbiBw cmluY2lwbGUsIHdoeSBub3Q/IFRoZXJlIGFyZSBwbGVudHkgb2YgdGhpbmdzIHdlIGtub3cg Zm9yIHN1cmUgYXJlIGRlc2lnbmVkIGFuZCBwbGVudHkgb2YgdGhpbmdzIHdlIGtub3cgYXJl IG5vdCBkZXNpZ25lZCBbTm90ZTogaWYgeW91IHdhbnQgdG8gdGFrZSB0aGUgcG9zaXRpb24g dGhhdCBldmVyeXRoaW5nIGlzIGRlc2lnbmVkIHRoZW4gdGhpcyBhcHByb2FjaCB3b24ndCB3 b3JrLCBidXQgbmVpdGhlciB3aWxsIGFueSBvdGhlcl0uIFRoZXJlJ3Mgbm8gcmVhc29uIHlv dSBjb3VsZCBub3QsIGluIHByaW5jaXBsZSBmaW5kIGEgc2V0IG9mIGRpYWdub3N0aWMgY3Jp dGVyaWEgdG8gZGlzdGluZ3Vpc2ggZGVzaWduIGZyb20gbm9uLWRlc2lnbi4gQnV0IGV2ZXJ5 IHRpbWUgaGUgdHJpZXMsIFJvbiBmYWlscy4gSGUgaGFzIHlldCB0byBtYWtlIGEgY2xlYXIg bGlzdCBvZiBoaXMgY3JpdGVyaWEsIGJ1dCB0aGUgb25lcyBoZSBzdWdnZXN0cyBmcm9tIGhp cyBleGFtcGxlcywgc3VkZGVuIGFwcGVhcmFuY2UsIHNoYXJwLCByZWd1bGFyIGFuZ2xlcywg cmVwcm9kdWN0aW9uLCBldGMgYWxsIGZhaWwuIENoYXJhY3RlcmlzdGljcyBoZSBjb25zaWRl cnMgZXZpZGVuY2Ugb2YgZGVzaWduIGFyZSBwcmVzZW50IGluIG5vbi1kZXNpZ25lZCB0aGlu Z3MgYW5kIGNoYXJhY3RlcmlzdGljcyBoZSBjb25zaWRlcnMgZXZpZGVuY2Ugb2Ygbm9uLWRl c2lnbiBhcmUgcHJlc2VudCBpbiBkZXNpZ25lZCB0aGluZ3MuDQo+IA0KPiBJIHRoaW5rIHRo ZSBwcm9ibGVtIGZvciBSb24sIGFuZCBzb21lIG90aGVyIElEIGZhbnMsIGlzIHRoYXQgaGUg aXMgcmVhbGx5IHVzaW5nIHRoZSBmaXJzdCBtZXRob2QgdG8gaWRlbnRpZnkgZGVzaWduLiBI ZSBhbHJlYWR5IGtub3dzLCBvbiB0aGUgYmFzaXMgb2YgaGlzIGZhaXRoIHRoYXQgaGlzIEdv ZCBpcyB0aGUgZGVzaWduZXIuIEFuZCBoaXMgR29kIGNyZWF0ZXMgbmV3IGZvcm1zIG9mIGxp ZmUsIHRoZSB1bml2ZXJzZSwgc291bHMsIGFuZCBhbGwgdGhlIHJlc3QuIFNvIHdoZW4gaGUg c2VlcywgZm9yIGV4YW1wbGUsIHRoZSAocGVyaGFwcyBhcnRpZmFjdHVhbGx5KSBzdWRkZW4g YXBwZWFyYW5jZSBvZiBhbmltYWwgcGh5bGEgaW4gdGhlIENhbWJyaWFuIEV4cGxvc2lvbiwg aGUgaXMgdXNpbmcgdGhlIGZhY3QgdGhhdCBoZSBrbm93cyBob3cgdGhlIGRlc2lnbmVyIGlz IGFuZCBrbm93cyB0aGF0IHRoZSBkZXNpZ25lciBjcmVhdGVzIG5ldyBhbmltYWxzIGFuZCBz byBpdCdzIGFzIGVhc3kgZm9yIGhpbSB0byBzZWUgdGhhdCB0aGUgcGh5bGEgYm9keSBwbGFu cyB3ZXJlIGRlc2lnbmVkIGFzIGl0IGlzIGZvciBtZSB0byBzZWUgdGhhdCBhIGNvbXB1dGVy IGlzIGRlc2lnbmVkLiBBbmQgaXQgc2VlbXMgdmVyeSBoYXJkIGZvciBoaW0gdG8gcHV0IGhp bXNlbGYgaW4gdGhlIGZyYW1lIG9mIG1pbmQgb2Ygc29tZW9uZSB3aG8gcmVhbGx5IGFuZCB0 cnVseSBrbm93cyBub3RoaW5nIGFib3V0IGEgZGVzaWduZXIgYW5kIHRvIHRoaW5rIGFib3V0 IGhvdyBvbmUgd291bGQgcHJvdmUgZGVzaWduIHdpdGhvdXQgYW55IGtub3dsZWRnZSBhdCBh bGwgYWJvdXQgdGhlIGRlc2lnbmVyIGFuZCB0aGUgZGVzaWduZXIncyBtZXRob2RzLg0KDQoN CkJ1dCBpcyB0aGVyZSBzdWNoIGEgdGhpbmcgYXMgc29tZW9uZSB3aG8gInJlYWxseSBhbmQg dHJ1bHkga25vd3Mgbm90aGluZyANCmFib3V0IGEgZGVzaWduZXIiPw0KDQpJIHN1c3BlY3Qg bm90LiBJIHN1c3BlY3QgdGhhdCBldmVyeW9uZSB3aG8gY2xhaW1zIHRoZXJlIGFyZSBwZW9w bGUgbGlrZSANCnRoaXMgaXMgZmliYmluZy4gVGhleSBhbGwga25vdyBzb21ldGhpbmcgYWJv dXQgdGhlIGRlc2lnbmVyLg0K

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 13:43:00 -0700, Kalkidas <eat@joes.pub> wrote:

On 1/21/2023 5:35 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:

This is mostly to address Ron Dean's attempts to support design in "A riposte of fine tuning," a thread which is getting close to 1000 posts long and a bit unwieldy.

So, how do you identify design?

1. The way we actually identify design all the time, you see something and it is or is very similar to something you know is designed because you know (broadly) who designed it and how and because the designers left evidence of their having designed

it. You see a computer, you know people build computers and know (or can look up) how they build them. See a canal, you know people dig canals. See a bridge, you know people build bridges. See the Great Wall, you know people build fortifications and you
can read the accounts of its construction. See a pyramid, you know people build monuments and you can find tools, and tool marks, and bookkeeping for the workers' food and supplies. Pretty much everything that we all agree is designed, we know is
designed because we know something about who did it and how, certainly not everything in every case, but something.

2. Ron sometimes, and other ID supporters, often, suggest that we recognize things as designed, in the absence of knowing anything about the designer, because we cannot think of a way they could have occurred naturally. So they'll often cite (

fictional) things like the monolith in 2001: A Space Odyssey on the moon. They'll say they'd we'd recognize it as designed because of its symmetry, even though we'd have no idea how it was made, because we cannot think of how such a thing could occur
naturally. But that is not what would be going on. We would recognize it because humans build geometric monuments and we imagine a designer similar enough to humans to build monuments. Likewise, if we were to find an extrasolar radio signal listing the
prime numbers, we would recognize it as designed, not because we excluded natural causes, but because humans, thinking about sending a recognizable signal to unknown aliens, think about sending a list of prime numbers, or some similar mathematical

signal. So even when the ID supporters make the argument that they (would) recognize something as designed simply because there's no way it could occur naturally, that's not what they are really doing. In all their examples, they are recognizing things

which are like something we humans would think to design.

3. Finally, Ron implies, but still has not been explicit about it, that there is a set of diagnostic criteria which would enable you to look at an object, in the absence of any knowledge about a putative designer and decide that it is designed. In

principle, why not? There are plenty of things we know for sure are designed and plenty of things we know are not designed [Note: if you want to take the position that everything is designed then this approach won't work, but neither will any other].
There's no reason you could not, in principle find a set of diagnostic criteria to distinguish design from non-design. But every time he tries, Ron fails. He has yet to make a clear list of his criteria, but the ones he suggests from his examples, sudden
appearance, sharp, regular angles, reproduction, etc all fail. Characteristics he considers evidence of design are present in non-designed things and characteristics he considers evidence of non-design are present in designed things.

I think the problem for Ron, and some other ID fans, is that he is really using the first method to identify design. He already knows, on the basis of his faith that his God is the designer. And his God creates new forms of life, the universe, souls,

and all the rest. So when he sees, for example, the (perhaps artifactually) sudden appearance of animal phyla in the Cambrian Explosion, he is using the fact that he knows how the designer is and knows that the designer creates new animals and so it's as
easy for him to see that the phyla body plans were designed as it is for me to see that a computer is designed. And it seems very hard for him to put himself in the frame of mind of someone who really and truly knows nothing about a designer and to think
about how one would prove design without any knowledge at all about the designer and the designer's methods.

But is there such a thing as someone who "really and truly knows nothing >about a designer"?

I suspect not. I suspect that everyone who claims there are people like
this is fibbing. They all know something about the designer.

I suspect that your switch from "a" designer to "the" designer is
purposefully designed to deceive.


--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

jillery wrote:

I suspect

You can't recognize a description of the Multiverse unless it's
unambiguously labelled. Don't try to pass off your suspicions
as meaningful.



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 04:35:40 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "broger...@gmail.com" <brogers31751@gmail.com>:

This is mostly to address Ron Dean's attempts to support design in "A riposte of fine tuning," a thread which is getting close to 1000 posts long and a bit unwieldy.

So, how do you identify design?

1. The way we actually identify design all the time, you see something and it is or is very similar to something you know is designed because you know (broadly) who designed it and how and because the designers left evidence of their having designed it.

You see a computer, you know people build computers and know (or can look up) how they build them. See a canal, you know people dig canals. See a bridge, you know people build bridges. See the Great Wall, you know people build fortifications and you can
read the accounts of its construction. See a pyramid, you know people build monuments and you can find tools, and tool marks, and bookkeeping for the workers' food and supplies. Pretty much everything that we all agree is designed, we know is designed
because we know something about who did it and how, certainly not everything in every case, but something.

2. Ron sometimes, and other ID supporters, often, suggest that we recognize things as designed, in the absence of knowing anything about the designer, because we cannot think of a way they could have occurred naturally. So they'll often cite (fictional)

things like the monolith in 2001: A Space Odyssey on the moon. They'll say they'd we'd recognize it as designed because of its symmetry, even though we'd have no idea how it was made, because we cannot think of how such a thing could occur naturally. But
that is not what would be going on. We would recognize it because humans build geometric monuments and we imagine a designer similar enough to humans to build monuments. Likewise, if we were to find an extrasolar radio signal listing the prime numbers,
we would recognize it as designed, not because we excluded natural causes, but because humans, thinking about sending a recognizable signal to unknown aliens, think about sending a list of prime numbers, or some similar mathematical

signal. So even when the ID supporters make the argument that they (would) recognize something as designed simply because there's no way it could occur naturally, that's not what they are really doing. In all their examples, they are recognizing things

which are like something we humans would think to design.

3. Finally, Ron implies, but still has not been explicit about it, that there is a set of diagnostic criteria which would enable you to look at an object, in the absence of any knowledge about a putative designer and decide that it is designed. In

principle, why not? There are plenty of things we know for sure are designed and plenty of things we know are not designed [Note: if you want to take the position that everything is designed then this approach won't work, but neither will any other].
There's no reason you could not, in principle find a set of diagnostic criteria to distinguish design from non-design. But every time he tries, Ron fails. He has yet to make a clear list of his criteria, but the ones he suggests from his examples, sudden
appearance, sharp, regular angles, reproduction, etc all fail. Characteristics he considers evidence of design are present in non-designed things and characteristics he considers evidence of non-design are present in designed things.

I think the problem for Ron, and some other ID fans, is that he is really using the first method to identify design. He already knows, on the basis of his faith that his God is the designer. And his God creates new forms of life, the universe, souls,

and all the rest. So when he sees, for example, the (perhaps artifactually) sudden appearance of animal phyla in the Cambrian Explosion, he is using the fact that he knows how the designer is and knows that the designer creates new animals and so it's as
easy for him to see that the phyla body plans were designed as it is for me to see that a computer is designed. And it seems very hard for him to put himself in the frame of mind of someone who really and truly knows nothing about a designer and to think
about how one would prove design without any knowledge at all about the designer and the designer's methods.

Good summation, IMHO, of issues which have been discussed a
number of times, in the "A riposte of fine tuning" thread
and others.

But don't expect Ron to make any sort of meaningful reply,
for the reasons you state.

--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 04:35:40 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "broger...@gmail.com" <brogers31751@gmail.com>:

This is mostly to address Ron Dean's attempts to support design in "A riposte of fine tuning," a thread which is getting close to 1000 posts long and a bit unwieldy.

So, how do you identify design?

1. The way we actually identify design all the time, you see something and it is or is very similar to something you know is designed because you know (broadly) who designed it and how and because the designers left evidence of their having designed it.

You see a computer, you know people build computers and know (or can look up) how they build them. See a canal, you know people dig canals. See a bridge, you know people build bridges. See the Great Wall, you know people build fortifications and you can
read the accounts of its construction. See a pyramid, you know people build monuments and you can find tools, and tool marks, and bookkeeping for the workers' food and supplies. Pretty much everything that we all agree is designed, we know is designed
because we know something about who did it and how, certainly not everything in every case, but something.

2. Ron sometimes, and other ID supporters, often, suggest that we recognize things as designed, in the absence of knowing anything about the designer, because we cannot think of a way they could have occurred naturally. So they'll often cite (fictional)

things like the monolith in 2001: A Space Odyssey on the moon. They'll say they'd we'd recognize it as designed because of its symmetry, even though we'd have no idea how it was made, because we cannot think of how such a thing could occur naturally. But
that is not what would be going on. We would recognize it because humans build geometric monuments and we imagine a designer similar enough to humans to build monuments. Likewise, if we were to find an extrasolar radio signal listing the prime numbers,
we would recognize it as designed, not because we excluded natural causes, but because humans, thinking about sending a recognizable signal to unknown aliens, think about sending a list of prime numbers, or some similar mathematical

signal. So even when the ID supporters make the argument that they (would) recognize something as designed simply because there's no way it could occur naturally, that's not what they are really doing. In all their examples, they are recognizing things

which are like something we humans would think to design.

3. Finally, Ron implies, but still has not been explicit about it, that there is a set of diagnostic criteria which would enable you to look at an object, in the absence of any knowledge about a putative designer and decide that it is designed. In

principle, why not? There are plenty of things we know for sure are designed and plenty of things we know are not designed [Note: if you want to take the position that everything is designed then this approach won't work, but neither will any other].
There's no reason you could not, in principle find a set of diagnostic criteria to distinguish design from non-design. But every time he tries, Ron fails. He has yet to make a clear list of his criteria, but the ones he suggests from his examples, sudden
appearance, sharp, regular angles, reproduction, etc all fail. Characteristics he considers evidence of design are present in non-designed things and characteristics he considers evidence of non-design are present in designed things.

I think the problem for Ron, and some other ID fans, is that he is really using the first method to identify design. He already knows, on the basis of his faith that his God is the designer. And his God creates new forms of life, the universe, souls,

and all the rest. So when he sees, for example, the (perhaps artifactually) sudden appearance of animal phyla in the Cambrian Explosion, he is using the fact that he knows how the designer is and knows that the designer creates new animals and so it's as
easy for him to see that the phyla body plans were designed as it is for me to see that a computer is designed. And it seems very hard for him to put himself in the frame of mind of someone who really and truly knows nothing about a designer and to think
about how one would prove design without any knowledge at all about the designer and the designer's methods.

Good summation, IMHO, of issues which have been discussed a
number of times, in the "A riposte of fine tuning" thread
and others.

But don't expect Ron to make any sort of meaningful reply,
for the reasons you state.

--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)