Billk: I don't base anything on location. I'm not sure that anything
is truly random. You are the one who evidently bases design upon
location. What I conclude is that there is a consistency of
logic by concluding that all has design in it -- even that which
appears to be random. I believe in a Designer who can design
things much more intricately than I can recognize. Now, I
recognize that my last statement involves faith, but I believe
that this conclusion is consistent logically.
If you accept by faith that a designer can create something far more
intrically than you can recognize then there is still the problem of "is
what you recognize as design, actual design ? Or mere natural ?". You have
to address the issue of appearance. Is what appears to be designed
actually designed or could it be a product of natural forces (random is
too strong).
Bill: You want to make "location" as the criteria. If I find a pair of
tennis shoes outside, am I to conclude that they evolved "naturally"?
Perhaps if you can explain and observe tennis shoes having sex and
multiplying ? Passing on their 'genetic' information ?
Bill:
I don't care for your example of the layered deposits for a number
reasons:
1. Lack of verification of a Designer does not establish "natural
causes"
It merely leaves it as the most likely one. Especially of the causes can
actually be identified.
Billk: 2. It would lead to a technical discussion of deposits and too
easily lose the the logic in technical details.
Not at all. We observe deposits to be less than random. Do we conclude
that this proves design ? Especially if the natural causes can be
identified which explain the observations ?
Billk: Your answer doesn't begin to answer my question. Is it an
"unreasonable conclusion"? I would bet that my conclusions
in this regard would be "reasonable" if I were to take the
time and expense to research it out. I could take my
"hypothesis" and test my conclusions. We all know what the
results would be. However, it wouldn't be practicable to
repeat this for each and every thing. Each verification
should increase my confidence that for each design there is
a designer.
Of course this presumes that you can identify 'design'.
> That you believe that something is designed does not make
> it so. So my question stands, how do you conclude from
> looking at something that there is an intelligent
> designer ?
Billk: I didn't say that believing makes it true. I am questioning
your comment to Stephen Jones in which you said, ""How you
could conclude from looking at this that there is an
intelligent designer is beyond me." Don't you make
conclusions this way yourself?
Not in the realm of science. Claims like 'wow, i have no idea how this
could have happened naturally, therefor I believe in a designer' are not
very appealing intellectually to me. My question is how do we/you/I
recognize and identify design ?
Billk: I won't speak for Stephen, but as for myself, I see that patterns
imply design and design implies a designer.
You presume design and therefor there must be a designer. How do you
identify
patterns of design and how do you distinguish them from natural 'design'
like the layers of deposits for instance ?
Bill: My question for you would be, "Specifically what is it in the
observation that would cause you, Pim, to conclude that the "invisible
creator" conclusion in the tennis shoe case would not apply in the
other cases?
It could or couldn't apply. Since there is no possible evidence of a
supernatural creator we are left to guess at the evidence and how to
identify something as designed versus natural. My question is how do you
decide that the object you found has a designer ?
Pim:> So my question stands, how do you conclude from looking
> at something that there is an intelligent designer ?
Bill: You're reading my messages. You are writing back. Don't
your responses back to me serve as evidence that you
believe that I am a human designer of sentences?
Still no response. How do we conclude from looking at something that there
is an intelligent designer ?
To claim that just because it appears to me as designed it therefor is
designed has little relevance in science which relies on objective 'facts'
rather than on what you or I want to believe.
So my question remains, how do we conclude from looking at something that
there is an intelligent designer ?