Snowflakes vs. Jackson Pollock work. An ID test/challenge?
frogm...@yahoo.com
if an object is intellegently designed. Although I think that ID is
really not testable, one of the claims that ID proponents make is that
they are studing design and that there is a way to determine if an
object is designed or formed naturally. A lot of the claims (or
evidence) is that you can point to things like Mount Rushmore and see
that it did not form naturally.
So if ID ever came out with a theory on how to determine if an object
is designed or occurred naturally, then that theory would need to pass
the following test:
That a snowflake would yield an answer that it could be formed by
natural means and that a Jackson Pollock painting is designed.
Do you think any ID theory could pass this test? It strikes me that
currently their claim is you can just look at an object and deterimine
that it could not have been created without intellegent design.
The might try to use the claim that an intellegent designer could make
an object look like it was naturally created, even if it wasn't, so
they are left with only the following: an object with these features
could never occur naturally. Given that, has anyone come close to
defining what those features are and whether or not biological systems
have those features?
Thoughts?
---Jay
PS (don't tell me there are no ID tests that are valid, I know that,
I'm asking those who think ID is legit)
bria...@hotmail.com
frogm...@yahoo.com wrote:
> So if ID ever came out with a theory on how to determine if an object
> is designed or occurred naturally, then that theory would need to pass
> the following test:
>
> That a snowflake would yield an answer that it could be formed by
> natural means and that a Jackson Pollock painting is designed.
While I am leery to defend the spongy intellectual goo that is ID I do
not see how the above situation presents a problem to ID. A Pollock
painting is obviously designed since acrylic paint does not form
naturally. It does not naturally place itself onto a canvas in any
pattern random or otherwise.
I can look at any painting or man made object and know with 100%
percent certainity that it was 'designed' or specially created. I can
reach that spot because I have absolute knowledge of all parts that
make up the object. I know how nails are formed. I know how lumber is
harvested. How a frame is formed from wood and nail. How canvas is made
and how it is mounted on the frame. Well actually I don't know much
about any of those but I could look it up.
I believe the chief problem with ID lies simply with the snowflake.
This is an obviously organized structure that forms naturally. Is its
organized based solely off the natural world or did a Designer
manipulate the natural world to modify the freezing and crystalization
process to produce the snowflake? Since all processes in the natural
world lack the obvious fingerprint of design, like a man-made object,
we are left with guessing how to identify a desgned object when we have
no way of designing it.
Bobby D. Bryant
> frogm...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> So if ID ever came out with a theory on how to determine if an object
>> is designed or occurred naturally, then that theory would need to pass
>> the following test:
>>
>> That a snowflake would yield an answer that it could be formed by
>> natural means and that a Jackson Pollock painting is designed.
>
> While I am leery to defend the spongy intellectual goo that is ID I
> do not see how the above situation presents a problem to ID. A
> Pollock painting is obviously designed since acrylic paint does not
> form naturally. It does not naturally place itself onto a canvas in
> any pattern random or otherwise.
>
> I can look at any painting or man made object and know with 100%
> percent certainity that it was 'designed' or specially created. I
> can reach that spot because I have absolute knowledge of all parts
> that make up the object. I know how nails are formed. I know how
> lumber is harvested. How a frame is formed from wood and nail. How
> canvas is made and how it is mounted on the frame. Well actually I
> don't know much about any of those but I could look it up.
Also, false negatives aren't a problem for the ID argument.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Scooter the Mighty
designed. At least not the ones where he threw paint into a fan or
dropped it from a ladder, which is what I'm thinking you're talking
about. They were planned, but not really designed.
Craig Franck
> The might try to use the claim that an intellegent designer could make
> an object look like it was naturally created, even if it wasn't, so
> they are left with only the following: an object with these features
> could never occur naturally. Given that, has anyone come close to
> defining what those features are and whether or not biological systems
> have those features?
You need a feature with no associated process. If animal genomes
were close to 100% functional DNA, and there was no process to cull
non-functioning chunks like with some single cell creatures, that would
be tough to explain. If human DNA was distinct from other creatures
but there was a digestive process that let us convert food to useable
proteins, that would be the sort of weirdness ID would be useful in
handling.
Also, a biological process that looked like it was running backwards
in time would stand out.
What is rarely pointed out in the ID debate is there are obvious tests,
but ID fails them all. Robust error checking would have stopped the
TOE in its tracks.
--
Craig Franck
craig....@verizon.net
Cortland, NY
Richard Dawkins
"Craig Franck" <craig....@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:11Y3f.45$f02.30@trndny02...
Who also noted that evolution is not testable and is therefore not a
science.
frogm...@yahoo.com
Well, there is no doubt that if there are numerous potential scenarios
that would be problematic for evolution. I would almost be so bold as
to say if the situation had turned out like you described when genes
were discovered and mapped, then our current understanding of evolution
would have been falsified.
My question really was, is ID potentially falsifable at least in the
narrow field of determining if an object is designed or not (I think
they call it the design hypothosis, but I may be wrong). My impression
is that the claim that the are currently trying to come up with the
criteria that can determine if something was designed or not. The
question I'm posing is, could that (as of yet undeveloped) set of
features that determine design stand up, or is there nothing in the
work of ID (including the aforemention subset) that is scientific?
The snowflake example is an interesting one, at least to me. Correct
me if I'm wrong but until the invention of the microscope, no one knew
the intricate structure of a snowflake. If you could show people from
that time, drawings of actual snowflakes, but enlarged, I would bet
dollars to donuts that they would assume that those structures not only
were designed but could not form naturally. That is why I think the
current ID stance of 'People know design when they see it' is nonsense,
and I seriously doubt that they will be able to come up with a set of
fundimental design principals that would A) catagorically state that
any object that has those features could not have formed without an
intellegent designer and B) that any biological system would be
composed of those features.
---Jay
Ernest Major
<Richard...@Hell.com> writes
<x4_2f.116$gz6....@news.uswest.net> and responses thereto.
--
alias Ernest Major
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.0/134 - Release Date: 14/10/2005
It's a Miracle
DEPTH with paint drippings and he has artistic integrety.
A snowflake does not have integrety as an elephant throwing paint cans
on a canvas don't either. A childs drawing has integrety.
I posted about artistic integrety if you don't have integrety you won't
get a painting in a museum because the curater will know it's garbage.
Snowflakes are pretty but don't have artistic integrety and your
confusing "Pretty with artistic integrety". Some art isn't pretty at
all. Picasso is kind of ugly and most people at the time thought he was
an asshole for calling that art. Norman Rockwell has a morbid
fascination of death in his paintings some of them remind me of death
and look morbid which flys over the head of some people but is
detectable and isn't pretty.
--
My kaleidoscope art webpage:
http://community-2.webtv.net/Amused_2_Death_/Kaleidoscope/
Keep spam illegitimate, Report spam to:
http://spamcop.net/
It's a Miracle
Take portaraits. i'm an artist and am quite good at drawing hair.
Especially Africans with kinky hair. Africans hair is like a radiation
sheild that scatters light. I figured out the illusion of how to scatter
radiation with a pencil although no radiation got scattered. If you saw
some of my drawings with majic markers you wouldn't be able to tell it
wasn't a photograph although my photo realistic realism is just an
illusion because no photons got scattered you can tell scientifically
it's intelligent design because scientifically you could prove it's only
a clever illusion.
I don't have to individually pencil in every millions of hairs to make
the illusion that photons are being scattered it only takes a couple of
minutes to do it and will fool almost everybody on the planet.
Just getting pigments to work is trickery because you mix black paints
as if they were blue. Color theory in pigments is just trickery to
duplicate color theory of the rainbow. So any scientist could detect the
trickery where there really isn't any trickery in a photograph of a
snowflake. If an artist drew a picture of a snowflake you could still
detect the trickery in trying to make it look like a photograph.
I recognized artists use trickery in art school so I chose different
objects such as ice, water and chrome etc. to practice trickery and I
ended up tops in my class.
You could detect intelligent design in art by the trickery. Trickery is
pretty effective I could draw just a tree with no background and you can
tell I meant for you to believe it was lighted by moonlight and not the
sun and scientifically you could prove the trickery because photons from
the moon didn't make the picture it will be a clever illusion.
Bobby D. Bryant
> A Pollock Painting Has INTEGRETY like all great artists because he made
> DEPTH with paint drippings and he has artistic integrety.
>
> A snowflake does not have integrety as an elephant throwing paint
> cans on a canvas don't either. A childs drawing has integrety.
>
> I posted about artistic integrety if you don't have integrety you
> won't get a painting in a museum because the curater will know it's
> garbage. Snowflakes are pretty but don't have artistic integrety
> and your confusing "Pretty with artistic integrety".
So, should they be trying to detect integrety instead of design?
frogm...@yahoo.com
I think you may have missed my point. I wasn't disparaging Jackson
Pollock nor was I trying to say that a painting or drawing can or
cannot be distingished from a photo or the object itself. I was more
interested in the naivity of IDer's whose sole argument (in this area)
is "Look, anyone can see that 'x' is clearly designed and could not
occur without some creative force. If given reproductions of both
items, and especially if the person is unfamiler with what snowflakes
look like when magnified, would that person pick the snowflack or say a
Pollock painting as the one that was created by an intellegent
designer? My gut feeling is that most people whould pick incorrectly.
Thus, my point is that the argument that we can spot real design just
by looking at it is bogus. IDer's use the idea of you can easily spot
design all the time (a variation of Paley's watch example), and
hopefully those who think that IDer's have a point, need to be able to
explain why the 'I know it when I see it' argument has any merit,
whatsoever.
---Jay
It's a Miracle
>So, should they be trying to detect
> integrety instead of design?
If god created man for artistic reasons then mans design would have
integrety. I see integrety in the design of the human face for example
so that must be intelligent design by sexual selection however I see no
artistic integrety in the design of internal organs what is unseen
doesn't have artistic integrety because sexual selection can't work that
way. The evidence of integrety in intelligent design looks like sexual
selection and not a god.
I see artistic integrety in animals especially mammals but they aren't
going to pick up a paint brush and start painting but I'm sure there is
intelligence driving evolution and it's not as mindless as survival of
the fittest. I do see intelligence in the design of animals but the
intelligence isn't god it's the animals which is why creationists are
deluding themselves into thinking the intelligence that designs is a
god.
So it's kind of understandable when someone says nature looks designed
because alot of animals appearances seem to have artistic integrety and
hints at intelligence. Even a dog doesn't want to procreate with an ugly
mutant.
Some of this is hardwired into the brain. I have never been sexually
aroused by another species even though I might have seen a dog with
artistic integrety. The human form is the only one with integrety that
sexually arouses me so it's hard wired into my brain but we are evolving
to an optimal form with more artistic integrety. The family tree proves
that.
Probably why people believe in angels it's kind of an evolutionary
extrapolation. I'm not surprised angels supposedly live in heaven.