Evidence for Design in Nature

We don't know that they couldn't have. We presume they didn't.

But I do think it has more to do with 'evolutionary adaptation' than you suppose. We do not show signs of adapting to anything -- we show a lot more signs of trying to get the rest of creation to adapt to US!

It was stated earlier -- to get back to the original point of the thread here -- that man looks for design and so sees it.

Interesting. Where did the idea of design come from? Why should we look for it? It's not that some kind of imaginary evolution could or could not have produced some kind of design(s), but that we would have, somehow, achieved the concept of 'design' -- now that is a bit strange -- especially if there IS no design in nature!

 

Of course we still don't know every detail about how megalithic cultures put together every stone of every monument. However, archaeologists have learned enough in the last twenty years to safely put to rest any speculation about space aliens or forgotten "advanced" technological secrets. The ancients no doubt had a lot of technologies we've forgotten -- not because of the fall of some "golden age" -- but because we've found other (usually better) ways to accomplish the same tasks. These ancient technologies weren't magic, they were just things we don't think about in our world; basic things that would make us say "how clever -- I never would have thought that would work!"

A quick glance at a book on historical woodworking techniques will reveal just how much we've forgotten in the last 200 years (let alone 4000 years). A weekend spent learning historical woodworking techniques will given one a HUGE appreciation for the skill, inventiveness, and patience of one's grandparents. But when it comes time to frame a house, I'll take a laser-aligned compound miter saw over an axe any day. My grandad was one sharp guy, but he was no more a demi-god than I am.

In the past decade, Egyptologists in particular have made huge leaps of knowledge. They can now circumscribe the human and technological limitations which would have obtained at the time the pyramids were build. They haven't fleshed out the details, but they're starting to know how many workers were involved, how much time it took, how much the workers ate, etc. They can say which ideas would and would not have worked, and do further research to test specific hypotheses. And nothing found so far points to magic or advanced technology; just a bunch of people about as smart as us, working really hard and making the best with what they had.

Ironically enough, a lot of the recent advances in archaeology have come from people who were initially attracted to field through pseudo-archeology in the 60's and 70's. Along the way, as they became students and grad-students, they learned that the truth was far more interesting.

-Neil

p.s. To EF: They couldn't have used the spaceship, Mummy hid the keys!

[ July 20, 2003, 07:42 PM: Message edited by: NeilUnreal ]

 

The truth IS more interesting, Neil. That's why I'm wondering where the evolutionists think the concept of design came from. Not the recognition of it -- because that had to come after the concept of it. Where did that concept come from?

 

EF How hard can that be? Modification of the environment for the purpose of survival.

 

And that answers my question about design how?

 

EF How would you modify your environment?

 

I've got the air conditioner on.

Now, about our ability to have a CONCEPT of design -- where did that come from?

 

Our ancestors had to cope with day-to-day living.
They applied their abilities to those ends. Any
scientist living TODAY and transported to the
past would find himself in the very same grind.
He would have to provide for his existance and THEN in his FREE time (if he had any) he could work on his imaginings...

The fact is that most people today would not be able to survive IF they were unwilling to change
their attitude or priorities.

 

EF EF This is going to take us a while to get back to the point you're looking for if we go step-by-step from modern appliances. But hey, I've got the time so....where did the idea of air-conditioning come from?

 

Elena, please follow your rabbit trail yourself. The thread here is about evidence for design in nature. This led me to the question about where the human race got the CONCEPT of design. The concept is necessary before one can recognize it.

Feel free to start your own thread someplace about technology, but this one is about design, and none of you are answering my question.

 

EF It has everything to do with the answer to your question and nothing to do with technology per se. You chose your own example, I'm merely trying to deal with it. Once again, 'origin' of the design concept is very simple to figure out. In fact, I don't see anything particularly relevant to creation or evolution in your question. Perhaps you should start a new thread in a different forum?

 

You are not understanding my question, I think. I am not talking about how we can tell what is designed. I am asking how the human race came up with the concept of design in the first place. I'm not sure how I can make that more clear.

If we had no concept of design -- as it appears animals don't -- then we would not have any problem with trying to deal with evidences for design. The subject simply would not exist for us.

So why does this subject even exist? Where did the concept of design come from in the human brain?

 

ef i understand your question perfectly and it has nothing to do with creation or evolution. Nor do I think it is particularly difficult to ponder the answer. I tried to lead you there, but you got busy with air-conditioning I'm also assuming that you are not trying for a total abstraction. So, let me ask you again to think about the consequences of the initial attempts to modify our environment for the purpose of survival.

EF that's arguable as well. talk to people who study bonobos.

EF If you have to survive and you figure out a way to modify your environment, then design becomes important.

 

If you have to survive and you figure out a way to modify your environment, then design becomes important.

No, manipulation becomes important. Design is an abstract concept that is not necessary for survival.

And it is quite relevant to the creation/evolution argument. Knowledge of abstract ideas certainly takes away from survival energy. Why fancy architecture when only shelter is necessary? Why fancy clothes when only the warmth of covering is necessary.

And wasn't it silly of us to lose our hair? What a waste of time to have to make clothes! Evolution plays around with so much and answers nothing.

 

Why silly?

ANSWER: Hair interferes with the evaporation needed for cooling. We have both less hair and more sweat glands than our fellow apes. We have a better cooling system. Thanks for pointing out evolution at work. (Sometimes evolution can give answers.)

We are also smart enough to make clothes to live in cooler climates.

Because we can!

Do you have pets? What do they do when not doing what is needed to survive? Do they play? What a waste of energy! Yet you look at mammals in the wild and guess what, you see them playing.

Those of us lucky enough to live in a modern society generally have much more than needed for survival. (Allowing for exceptions found in any society.) Is it wasteful to want something nice in addition to something functional? Yes! Does it matter? No! Whether I buy a nice chair or whether I get two blocks and a board to sit on will not really affect whether I starve or not. I have the time to appreciate nice furiture and works of art and such. That abstract thinking has a value all its own.

 

I'll give this to you, UTE, after reading so many of your posts -- you're a true believer! Ain't nothing going to sway you from your belief in evolution!

 

But the strange thing is...

I would consider myself one of the ones most open to being swayed. I really do wish someone would give those better explanations of the data.

I am so hard on the flaws of the creationists in large part because I know that for myself, it was the utter weakness of the creationist arguments that left me to consider evolution in the first place. And this is someone who was always very skeptical of any thing having to do with an old earth or evolution. It is almost like an attempt to trim the fat and to distill things down to the best reasons to believe in a young earth.

Unfortunately, the more I compare the two sides, the more convinced I become of a very old earth and of common descent.

 

All of us admit to the obvious. Some of us differ on what the obvious is we should be admitting to!

 

Hey, that's a pretty good trick. When did you see Him do that? No cheating, just dirt and sunlight? I don't think so. He can do it, but I'm very skeptical that He does do it.

How many genes do you think it takes to make a simple cell work? How many functional parts in your computer. (each logic gate is a part)

I think there must be a verb missing there somewhere. I'm not sure what you want to say.

It turns out that science done by Christians is just like science done by atheists. Plumbing done by Christians is just like plumbing done by atheists.

Why should it be different?