Natural Observations in Science.

[jcrawford]

Scientific theories are built and depend on confirmed observations.

Yet evolutionists deny that designs may be observed in nature.

They claim that natural observations of design in nature are only conclusions about apparent or mimicked designs.

Question: How do we determine whether natural observations about either design or evolution in nature are either apparent, mimicked or real?

 

[jcrawford]

Design has already been scientifically defined, observed and classified in nature as the following article in this link will indicate.

http://www.csicop.org/si/2001-09/design.html

My interests are limited to making observations of design in nature and classifying them according to some system of recognizable identifcation.

For instance, we have GEOMETRIC designs as witnessed in crystalized objects such as snowflakes, crystalized rocks and honeycombs in beehives.

We have VORTEX designs as witnessed in whirlpools, hurricanes, ammonites and nebulae.

We have STRUCTURAL designs as witnessed in anthills, beehives and birdnests.

There may be other forms or types of designs observable in nature such as may be perceived in the design of oak leaves and maple leaves.

Leopard spots and zebra stripes are also good examples of natural designs.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Hmmm - how about equating design with symmetry? There exists a lot of work on classifying types of symmetry . . .

 

[UTEOTW]

So, give us your examples from nature that you think shows something other than what the author calls "non-intelligent-natural" design? With a fatual and logical case for such claim.

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
Hmmm - how about equating design with symmetry? There exists a lot of work on classifying types of symmetry . . .

I would think that some kind of symmetry would be a necessary element or component of design. What kind of design would be asymmetrical?

Designs seem to be the product of repetitive symmetrical patterns.

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
So, give us your examples from nature that you think shows something other than what the author calls "non-intelligent-natural" design? With a fatual and logical case for such claim.

Since the author's example of the design of tiger teeth is based on natural selection I would use crystalized rocks or ice as examples of something which exhibited qualities of design outside of natural selection processes.

And unless natural selection plays some part in the symmetrical or purposeful construction of anthills, beehives or honeycombs, they may also be good examples of non-intelligent natural designs.

 

[UTEOTW]

"I would think that some kind of symmetry would be a necessary element or component of design. What kind of design would be asymmetrical?"

So you think that life that does not show symmetry does not show signs of design?

"Since the author's example of the design of tiger teeth is based on natural selection I would use crystalized rocks or ice as examples of something which exhibited qualities of design outside of natural selection processes."

I would love to hear your reasoning for this. At least a tiger's teeth are meant to do something. Crystals form the way they do because of the interaction of the atoms that make up the crystal. The way the different parts of the constituent moleules line up make the crystal what it is. What kind of unnatural design does this show?

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:

"Since the author's example of the design of tiger teeth is based on natural selection I would use crystalized rocks or ice as examples of something which exhibited qualities of design outside of natural selection processes."

I would love to hear your reasoning for this. At least a tiger's teeth are meant to do something. Crystals form the way they do because of the interaction of the atoms that make up the crystal. The way the different parts of the constituent moleules line up make the crystal what it is. What kind of unnatural design does this show? [/QB]

We're talking about non-intelligent NATURAL designs here, not "unnatural" designs.

As far as I would surmise, "unnatural" designs, by definition, could not possibly exist in nature.

Crystalization is not the result of natural selection, or is it?

 

[UTEOTW]

Maybe I was not clear.

What about crystalization do you think shows design that is outside the realm of natural and not intelligent design?

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:

What about crystalization do you think shows design that is outside the realm of natural and not intelligent design?

Seems to me that crystalization is the result of a natural design process. Whether it is an intelligent or non-intelligent design process would lead us into a debate on ID.

Before we go there I wonder if you are familiar with the new science of Biomimetics? There are any number of website links on Google.

Here's one:

http://www.scienceyear.com/wired/index.html?page=/wired/comp_quiz/biomimetic_info.html

Let's leave ID out of the picture until we have at least come to some sort of understanding about ND.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Well, the word "design" is somewhat loaded with the connotation of a designer. As in "how can there be a design without a desinger?"

Consider the rainbow. A most pleasing configuration of color and definately patterned. Yet it apparantly comes not from design but merely the working out of natural law. Was the rainbow made on purpose, or was it a happy byproduct of other creative elements, perhaps happier for us than, say, the wonderfully symmetrical kind of mountain often produced by volcanoes?

I think in these cases we can talk of pleasing symmetries but it is perhaps pushing to call them designs

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
I think in these cases we can talk of pleasing symmetries but it is perhaps pushing to call them designs

Yes, I am only referring to the natural designs of living organisms which biomimetic scientists and engineers use as design models to produce new and improved products.

Later for rainbows and volcanos.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

OK there's not much symmetry in an amoeba. Do you sense "design" there?

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
OK there's not much symmetry in an amoeba. Do you sense "design" there?

I don't "sense" design anywhere. I just rely on others (especially biomimetic scientists and engineers) to point it out to me.

I'm not even sure what a DESIGN is. Are you?

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by jcrawford:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
OK there's not much symmetry in an amoeba. Do you sense "design" there?

I don't "sense" design anywhere. I just rely on others (especially biomimetic scientists and engineers) to point it out to me.

I'm not even sure what a DESIGN is. Are you? </font>[/QUOTE]Loose usage: a pattern is a design.

But patterns/ symmetries might arise spontaneously without intelligent cause; and the word design is sometimes used to speak of an intelligent agent causing the design. So language can be confusing.

One of my favorite jokes is the proof that my house is better than heaven. It goes like this:

Nothing is better than heaven.
My house is better than nothing.
THerefore my house is better than heaven.

Of course, there is the little detail that the word "nothing" doesn't mean the same thing in both uses. Let's be careful not to make the same logical error as we discuss the word "design!"

 

[Paul of Eugene]

PS there's lots of patterns inside an amoeba, including the elegant spiral structure of the DNA, the fixed shape of internal organelles, the intricate choreography of the ensyme mediated chemical reactions . . . .

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
Loose usage: a pattern is a design.

But patterns/ symmetries might arise spontaneously without intelligent cause; and the word design is sometimes used to speak of an intelligent agent causing the design. So language can be confusing.

Biomimeticists don't seem to be concerned about whether the biological designs they observe and study were "caused" by some intelligent agent or not. Most of them seem to take evolution for granted would probably refer to natural designs as being of evolutionay origin.

As a matter of fact, there are a number of websites discussing the applications of "evolutionary designs" to human designs for inventions.

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
PS there's lots of patterns inside an amoeba, including the elegant spiral structure of the DNA, the fixed shape of internal organelles, the intricate choreography of the ensyme mediated chemical reactions . . . .

These "patterns" as you call them are only part and parcel of the greater design of the amoeba.

 

[The Galatian]

So karl, would you say that the honeycomb of bees was designed?

How about the spiral of a ram's horn, or the internal bracing of trabiculae in bone?

Or do you think that maybe they aren't designed after all?

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by jcrawford:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
PS there's lots of patterns inside an amoeba, including the elegant spiral structure of the DNA, the fixed shape of internal organelles, the intricate choreography of the ensyme mediated chemical reactions . . . .

These "patterns" as you call them are only part and parcel of the greater design of the amoeba. </font>[/QUOTE]Precisely. But if you are going to say that the intricacies of the design imply they could only be designed and that excludes evolution, then you've gone and committed the logical error I warned about in the previous post.

Evolution claims to be able to account for the patterns, the designs. It is cheating to say they are designs and therefore there is a designer in the same sense that a watch is designed by a watch maker; cheating just as much as the proof I gave earlier that my house is better than heaven.

Now I believe that God created all things; but I also believe He did it over time, using the process of evolution. He allowed evolution to form the designs of living things.