rafferty@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA (Colin Rafferty) (05/07/85)
>[Dan Boskovich] > > "Design" is evidence of a "Designer"! > As has been said before, that is not a scientific proof. What I want is a scientific PROOF of Creationism. Or even a semi-scientific plea for Creationism. What I don't want is some mystical gobbly-gook about "Design". From anybody, not just Dan. ---- Colin Rafferty { Math Department, Carnegie-Mellon University } "According to convention there is a sweet and a bitter, a hot and a cold, and according to convention, there is an order. In truth, there are atoms and a void." -Democritus(400 B.C.)
dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) (05/10/85)
In article <271@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA> rafferty@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA (Colin Rafferty) writes: > >>[Dan Boskovich] >> >> "Design" is evidence of a "Designer"! >> > >As has been said before, that is not a scientific proof. > >What I want is a scientific PROOF of Creationism. Or even a semi-scientific >plea for Creationism. What I don't want is some mystical gobbly-gook about >"Design". From anybody, not just Dan. > Wait a minute!! You want scientific PROOF or EVIDENCE? There is a big difference!! You know that you CAN'T give me scientific PROOF of evolution, so why would you ask me to give you PROOF of creation. Design is EVIDENCE of a designer! It is NOT PROOF of a creator, I will acknowledge. You can call it gobbly-gook if you like, but it is perfectly resonable to conclude that design would imply a designer. Webster's thought so! Dan
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (05/12/85)
> > Design is EVIDENCE of a designer! It is NOT PROOF of a creator, I > will acknowledge. > > You can call it gobbly-gook if you like, but it is perfectly resonable > to conclude that design would imply a designer. Webster's thought so! > > Dan Dan, I know you sincerely believe this, but it's not so. Webster's notwithstanding, what you have called 'Design' can be explained equally well, and in some ways better (because it has fewer unverified assumptions) without a Creator as it can be with a Creator. The argument is extremely profound and subtle. It goes to the heart of what can and what cannot be known experientially. It's not a trivial concept and I am reluctant to attempt a summary here. Please read References [1-4] for an introduction to the Anthropic Principle from which it is derived. Refs [2-3] directly address the issue of the existence of a Creator. The best one can say is that what you call 'Design' is *consistent with* the existence of a Creator. It is not *evidence for* the existence of a Creator. Since the same facts can be explained equally well without a creator, they are also *consistent with* the nonexistence of a Creator. It would certainly be bizarre for me to try to promote them to the status of *evidence against* the existence of a creator. Your assertion, viewed in this light, is equally bizarre. Both assertions would be wrong. [1] Gale, George, "The Anthropic Principle", *Scientific American*, Dec. 1981, p. 154 [2] Barrow, John D., "Anthropic Definitions", *Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society*, *24*, p. 146 (1983) [3] Hall, P. J., "Anthropic Explanations in Cosmology*, *Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society*, *24*, p. 443 (1983) [4] Rosen, Joe, "The Anthropic Principle", *American Journal of Physics*, *53*, p. 335 (1985) -- "Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from religious conviction." -- Blaise Pascal Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp) bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (ARPANET)
gordon@uw-june (Gordon Davisson) (05/13/85)
>[Dan Boskovich] > You can call it gobbly-gook if you like, but it is perfectly resonable > to conclude that design would imply a designer. Webster's thought so! Webster's is right, design would imply a designer (or group therof), if there was design in the natural world. You think there is, and I think there isn't. Who's right? Who knows. The most important reason for using not subjective measures (which this intuitively defined "design" is) is that people have a tendency to see what they're looking for whether it's there or not. Case in point: The discovery, in 1903, of N-rays. All the experiments involving this new form of radiation used partly subjective measurements, like noticing that an N-ray beam makes a spark-gap give off more light. It wasn't until more than a year later that a it was discovered that N-rays existed only in the minds of the exprimenters. For more information about this, read "The N-ray Affair", by Irving M. Klotz (Scientific American, May, 1980). -- Human: Gordon Davisson ARPA: gordon@uw-june.ARPA UUCP: {ihnp4,decvax,tektronix}!uw-beaver!uw-june!gordon ATT: (206) 527-0832 USnail: 5008 12th NE, Seattle, WA, 98105 Earth: 47 39' 55" N, 122 18' 46" W
long@oliveb.UUCP (A Panther Modern) (05/16/85)
References:
[Beware of Black ICE]
> "Design" is evidence of a "Designer"!
What makes you think that any living creatures show any signs of design?
Most biological systems seem like massive kludges to me.
Dave Long
--
{hplabs,fortune,idi,ihnp4,tolerant,allegra,tymix}!oliveb!longbrian@digi-g.UUCP (Merlyn Leroy) (05/26/85)
>>"Design" is evidence of a "Designer"! >What makes you think that any living creatures show any signs of design? >Most biological systems seem like massive kludges to me. Don't say this! Otherwise, the creationists will start saying "kludges are evidence of a hacker" and we'll be back where we started! Merlyn Leroy
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) (06/01/85)
>>>"Design" is evidence of a "Designer"! >>What makes you think that any living creatures show any signs of design? >>Most biological systems seem like massive kludges to me. > Don't say this! Otherwise, the creationists will start saying > "kludges are evidence of a hacker" and we'll be back where we started! > > Merlyn Leroy If you assume the existence of your favorite deity in advance a priori ipso facto etc. then ANY evidence, interpreted in any way (it's evidence of design, it's evidence of a kludge), is "proof" of that deity. Teleological nonsense aside, interpreting evidence in terms of a presupposed purpose you have in mind is bound to "prove" your assumptions. Which is as far as creationism will ever go. -- "Wait a minute. '*WE*' decided??? *MY* best interests????" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr