Natural Observations in Science.

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by 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?

In order for something to be constructed on the basis of a recognizable design, it would, of necessity, have to be done in accordance with design specifications.

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
[/qb]

JC said: "These "patterns" as you call them are only part and parcel of the greater design of the amoeba." [/qb][/QUOTE]

Precisely.

Evolution claims to be able to account for the patterns, the designs.

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. [/QB][/QUOTE]

I'm not so much concerned with a hypothesis which may account for, or explain, the origin of design in nature as I am with the observation and study of the designs which all livings things seem to be structered on.

I'm interested in learning more about the designs of structured habitats for living which such creatures as birds, ants, beavers and spiders create.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

As in - beaver dams, birds nests, honeycombs, and spider webs? Prairie dog villages underground? Bower bird nests, painted by the birds on the inside?

Sure, learning about these can be fascinating!

 

[jcrawford]

If we can admit to intelligent design in humanly designed buildings and structures, why may we not also consider the naturally structured habitats of ants, bees and spiders to be intelligently designed as well?

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Well, there's "intelligent design" and there's "intelligent design". That is, the whole universe I consider to be an intelligent design by God . . . but the fact that planets and stars turn out to be in those awesomely spherical shapes is not because God ponders anew in every case how to make the thing, but rather in the working out of the laws of physics He has put into place, i.e. enough matter gathers, gravity pulls it into a sphere.

So I admire God's design as I watch the planets and yet accept a completely natural explanation for the forms the planets take.

in the same way, as we look to the designs we find in biology, many of them have a naturalistic explanation.

Nobody knows how to program a nerve-net to make it possible for a spider to weave a web without any instruction from its parent - yet it does so generation after generation, with patterns specific to each species.

Therefore, it must be possible to specify, in inheritance, how to do that.

Complex inheritances can be created by evolution. Evolution, of course, is simply our way of describing how God has created all life on earth through common descent. Working out the science and the laws of evolution is an exercise in learning to admire still more the works of God.

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
Evolution, of course, is simply our way of describing how God has created all life on earth through common descent.

Common descent will be better served then, by describing, illustrating and teaching the intelligent design systems and functions of common species.

Otherwise evolution is in danger of being classified as a non-intelligently designed system itself.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

JC I'm not sure I understand your last post. Could you elaborate?

 

[ChurchBoy]

Originally posted by jcrawford:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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. </font>[/QUOTE]As a manufacturing engineer I work with "design" concepts all the time. A "design" need not be symmetrical. Burt Rutan, the famed aircraft designer, designed and built an asymmetrical aircraft called the Boomerang. The aircraft has one wing longer than the other and has an engine on the main body fuselage and on one wing. The aircraft looks just wierd. But it works! I met Rutan in college and he told our group that this asymmetrical design is actually more fuel efficent. Here a link that shows photos.

website

[ January 02, 2005, 09:33 PM: Message edited by: ChurchBoy ]

 

[RTG]

I really like Job chapter 38 Every time Im temped to think out side the Bible for answers or phylosofy I can go to Job 38.Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?declare,if thou hast understanding.Job 38:4 Gird up now thy loins like a man;for I will demand of thee,and answer thou me.Can you imagine having to answer up on the spot to God for what we were thinking or telling others.

 

[The Galatian]

BTW, the Germans built such an assymetrical aircraft that also worked. There is no reason why a biological "design" like that would not work, but the problem is that it would be extremely difficult to evolve by steps.

Hence you don't see such things in nature. Anything that cannot be evolved from other organisms is not going to be seen.

 

[billwald]

"Design" requires volition. see www.dictionary.com

Dembski has gotten to smart for his own good and has forgotten his elementary probability and statistics. Probability only applies to future events. If an event occurred, then its probability is 100% by default. Statistics only applies to historical data. As we only have information about one universe, statistics also doesn't apply.

 

[ChurchBoy]

Originally posted by The Galatian:
BTW, the Germans built such an assymetrical aircraft that also worked. There is no reason why a biological "design" like that would not work, but the problem is that it would be extremely difficult to evolve by steps.

Hence you don't see such things in nature. Anything that cannot be evolved from other organisms is not going to be seen.

Is it extemely difficult or is it impossible? Isn't one of the tenets of biological evoluton is that there is no intellegence involved and that everything happens but chance? Those structures that are "less complex" will evolve becasue of a higher probability. If this is true then wouldn't that mean that asymmerical designs probably couldn't evolve since they are "more complex" than symmetrical designs.

 

[ChurchBoy]

Originally posted by ChurchBoy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by The Galatian:
BTW, the Germans built such an assymetrical aircraft that also worked. There is no reason why a biological "design" like that would not work, but the problem is that it would be extremely difficult to evolve by steps.

Hence you don't see such things in nature. Anything that cannot be evolved from other organisms is not going to be seen.

Is it extemely difficult or is it impossible? Isn't one of the tenets of biological evoluton is that there is no intellegence involved and that everything happens but chance? I would think that those structures that are "less complex" will evolve because of a higher probability. If this is true then wouldn't that mean that asymmerical designs probably couldn't evolve since they are "more complex" than symmetrical designs. </font>[/QUOTE]

 

[The Galatian]

Is it extemely difficult or is it impossible?

Well, it's conceivably possible, but practically impossible. Natural selection can only work by incremental steps, which means that you'd have to depend on pure chance to make it work. And that is so unlikely as to be effectively impossible.

Isn't one of the tenets of biological evoluton is that there is no intellegence involved and that everything happens but chance?

By chance alone? No. Won't work.

I would think that those structures that are "less complex" will evolve because of a higher probability.

It would if natural selection wasn't in play.

If this is true then wouldn't that mean that asymmerical designs probably couldn't evolve since they are "more complex" than symmetrical designs.

Actually, there are a few asymmetrical organisms in nature, but they are such that they could have evolved by increments. An assymetrical flying creature, while functionally possible seems to be impossible to achieve by natural selection.

 

[billwald]

"Those structures that are "less complex" will evolve becasue of a higher probability."

It is social Darwinism that equates increasing complexity with being "more highly evolved." Evolution is ONLY concerned with adaptation to the environment. The cockroach is probably the most adaptable visable critter on earth.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Who says cockroaches aren't highly complex?

OK here's the skinny about design.

One can look at thinks like beauty, functionality, bilateral symmetry in an organsim and talk about the "design" of an organism.

one can look at the dictionary and see that all "definitions" of the word suggest a "designer"

But this does nothing to prove or disprove evolution. We are merely discussing word usage; it is a chance use of verbal patterns that has no real evidential value.

 

[billwald]

Bottom line is that Dembski et alia would NOT be satisfied if every text on every possible subject was prefaced with "God could have poofed all the following material if there is a God."

Second, if God was recognized in the preface of every science text the results of lab experiments would not change.

Third, IDers should be supporting SETI but they don't.