That cannot hold for anything created by God since God allegedly created everything and much of what we see has no discernible design.

We cannot look at life and say, "A ha! Design! This must mean that a god created it."

We cannot say this because 'design' has nothing to do with a thing's being created by a god.

This isn't a counter-argument, but a question.

Either I'm misunderstanding your statement or disagreeing with it, but I'm not understanding what you mean by "no discernible design."  I thought even atoms had clear design.  The "Mystery Object" thread on the "Shoot the Bull" page is a pretty specific example of design.  Can you clarify what you mean by that for me?

Either I'm misunderstanding your statement or disagreeing with it, but I'm not understanding what you mean by "no discernible design." I thought even atoms had clear design.

Deep Thought asks the pertinent question. If all things are designed, then what does it mean to say that a particular thing is designed because it possesses 'elements of design'?

Take Mount Rushmore as an example. Because we observe qualities in the carved images on Mount Rushmore -- to be specific, 'elements of design,' i.e. order, beauty, complexity, etc. -- that we do not observe in the rest of the mountain, we can meaningfully say that those images are designed.

However, if we observe those same elements of design in EVERYTHING, then how is it possible to say that any particular thing is designed simply because it possesses those elements?

IOW, we discern 'the designed' by contrasting it with 'the non-designed.' If there is no 'non-designed' thing then design becomes a meaningless concept.  

This means that when we talk about 'design' in this context, we are talking only about human design and not about divine design. What may be true of some of the parts of a whole cannot necessarily be said logically to be true of the whole itself. It's the fallacy of composition, a logical fallacy often committed by theists. Sntjohnny commits the same error in reasoning in his "Compiled Systematic Argument for Christian Theism" thread.

For instance, my third day (today) of migraine...

Ugh. Bless your heart. My wife has the occasional migraine so I know second-hand how devastating they are. . . and 'devastating' is really not much of an overstatement in this context.

I contain elements of design. I am not a perfect example of the original design. If my genetic code was fully decipherable and we had Eve's (pre-fall) code around, we would be able to see (perhaps) all the ways I am corrupted from the original design.

Good point, but I do have a couple of questions about your statement.

One, before genetic code can become corrupt, God has to allow genetic code to become corrupt. God could have made it incorruptible had He desired. Since it is highly unlikely that men and women 3500 years ago could have known that it's not a good idea for siblings to marry, it would seem that if the original genetic code, has become corrupted, it has become corrupted as a part of God's plan, right?

Two, this still does not answer the question: If God designed everything, then what counts as "elements of design"?

How is it possible to say, "Because we see order, beauty, and complexity in X, X must be designed," when EVERYTHING displays order, beauty, and complexity?

IOW, can you name something -- anything! -- in which you do not observe "elements of design?

The design of a man-made structure shows design, eg - house.  But it also shows that the house's existence depend on a source too.  The house structure itself is a part of nature and it was just manipulated by the builder to get the desired result.  So....

Are there examples to show design from an un-natural source?  The problem of course is that this earth is suppossedly already showing design (and this might have been its original state all along) and if so, then how can we say it had a designer?   I suggest then looking oustide our world, perhaps another planet altogether?  Perhaps, Mars?  What makes our planet so special as to reveal so much design and life?

Just thinking out loud!!

Quote

"How is it possible to say, 'Because we see order, beauty, and complexity in X, X must be designed,' when EVERYTHING displays order, beauty, and complexity?"

Uh...maybe because it was designed?

Oh.

So x was designed because it displays something called 'elements of design' and x displays 'elements of design' because it was designed?

Nothing circular about that.  

So, should I say that the Empire State Building was not designed because it displays characteristics of something which has been designed?  Or, should I not say that something which appears to display the characteristics of happening randomly actually happened randomly?  Maybe I shouldn't say that 1 = 1, either.

"IOW, can you name something -- anything! -- in which you do not observe elements of design?"

That's your job.

This same argument, however, cannot be made about anything allegedly designed by a god who allegedly designed EVERYTHING. This means that the crucial assumption upon which ID theory rests (namely, that that which appears to be designed probably is designed) not only does not refer to the Christian God as the "Designer" but that it cannot.[/quote]

Cog, who said I was arguing for the Christian God?  In fact, who said I was  arguing for any god?  I'm only arguing for design.  You have nailed the crucial assumption of ID theory right on the head.  You've even noticed that it doesn't reference the Christian God (or any god)!  Excellent!

"One, before genetic code can become corrupt, God has to allow genetic code to become corrupt. God could have made it incorruptible had He desired. Since it is highly unlikely that men and women 3500 years ago could have known that it's not a good idea for siblings to marry, it would seem that if the original genetic code, has become corrupted, it has become corrupted as a part of God's plan, right?"

In the first place, this line of argument is nothing more than the problem of evil warmed over and is approached in the same ways.

In the second place, if the genome was initially uncorrupted, than it may not have been a bad idea 3500 years ago for siblings to marry.

The next question would be whether or not we might be able to pinpoint any specific catalyst that might have begun or accelerated the corruption of the genome, say, 4,000  years ago.

I don't suppose anyone could think of one?

None of the above represents critical elements of the modern ID movement.

As a side note, Cogito, when you say 'most Christians don't know' I'm not sure who you are meaning.  Christians that I know who are educated about their position not only understand the limitations of ID in regards to their own 'faith' positions, but are quick to point them out on their own without any atheist holding their hand.  Perhaps you've been going after the weakest links?  

And yet ID is not irrelevant to Christian theism, either.  Antony Flew, whom I don't suppose I need to defend as a credible voice of atheism, said in a slightly different context:

"...but while this religious hypothesis cannot in principle be either verified or falsified by any experience and consequently cannot meet Popperian standards of scientific respectability, it is, like the fine tuning argument, something that those who already judge that they have good reason to have reached theistic conclusions may very reasonably see as further and very strong confirmation of these conclusions."  New introduction of "God and Philosophy" by Flew.

From the same introduction, it might be worth noting these comments by Flew as well:

"[Roy Abraham Varghese's 'The Wonder of the World:  A Journey from Modern Science to the Mind of God"] provides an extremely extensive presentation of the inductive argument from the order of nature to God as its Intelligent Orderer.  It is an argument that becomes progressively more powerful with every advance in humankind's knowledge of the integrated complexity of what used to be called the 'system of nature.'"

And, as Copernicus would argue, Antony Flew is smarter than both of us and we can't possibly hope to understand him or his arguments, I'm afraid both of us will have to simply defer to this great atheist that believes that the inductive argument to God is getting 'progressively more powerful.'

Unless you have credentials that match Mr. Flews, I think that is the end of this strand of dicussion.  

BTW, have you heard this argument (the one I'm making in this thread) advanced before? It's virtually impossible to believe that it originated with me yet I can find nothing like it anywhere else.

It seems to completely sever any possible connection between ID theory and Christian theology.

"I seriously doubt that the Christians that you know who are educated DO understand the ramifications of what I'm arguing here."

Oh, no doubt.  All you atheists are all so much the intellectual superiors.  What would we do without you?  

But I was not commenting on the ramifications of your argument.  I was pointing out that educated and informed Christians understand the limitations involved in ID.  Just out of curiousity, how many texts have you read that were written BY the ID community, and not merely ABOUT the ID community.

"The two beliefs (one, that ID theory shows that life may have been designed and two, that this, therefore, in ANY way offers even the flimsiest reason to believe that the Christian God designed life) have no relationship whatsoever."

But they do have a relationship.  And in that sense, I need only cite Mr. Flew again.  His position is that a Christian might REASONABLY turn to ID with the idea of the Christian God being the designer if they have other grounds for believing in the Christian God.

There are different ways one might approach the question of ID.  On the one hand, one might speak to the matter of whether or not "life may have been designed," and as a stand-alone proposition, is a fly in the ointment of standard philosophical naturalistic attitudes.  Thus, if one could be persuaded that design better explains or accounts for the data rather than natural selection ad nauseum, that might provide a reasonable atheist with some sort of independent positive grounds for going the NEXT step and determining the identity of that designer.  That is one way.

The other way, as Flew indicates, is to approach it as complimentary and corroborative evidence for Christian theism if one is already a Christian theist.  

In the latter case, he thinks that is an entirely reasonable way to go, and in the former case, he seems to be leaning more and more towards allowing that the universe may very well be better explained through the lens of agency.

"it tries to show that since life appears to be designed, it is reasonable to conclude that life was designed."

Let's keep in mind that even Dawkins agrees that it appears to be designed.  He just thinks that this design is only 'apparent.'

What do you think?  Do you agree with Dawkins that it, in fact, appears to be designed?

At anyrate, I hope you are not saying that it is utterly unreasonable to think one is seeing design in the natural order.

"This is because it is impossible for anything to "appear" to us to be designed by a being to whom the entire universe's design is attributed."

Flew in fact makes this argument.

"Flew's remark was in an utterly different context"

You know this how?  It was slightly different, as I said.  Antony Flew is discussing in his new introduction the material that would need to be dealt with if he were going to write his book over again.  Along with the 'fine-tuning' argument, he lists in his third development that would need to be tended to questions of abiogenesis in particular and specifically how the first living organisms became 'living creatures able to reproduce themselves genetically.'  In case you were wondering, that particular area is an area where ID folks have had a lot to say.  

So, when in the next paragraph (from whence one of my quotes came) that the argument becomes 'progressively more powerful,' it is not to be taken lightly.  Perhaps more to the point is the fact that he lumps design and 'fine-tuning' into the same chapter... which I'm about to talk about next...

"Neither you nor Antony Flew"

I have only been quoting from his introduction.

"BTW, have you heard this argument (the one I'm making in this thread) advanced before? It's virtually impossible to believe that it originated with me yet I can find nothing like it anywhere else.

It seems to completely sever any possible connection between ID theory and Christian theology."

Yes, actually I have, which is why I quoted from this particular book to begin with.

His chapter 3 of "God and Philosophy" is titled:  Natural Theology:  Order and Design.

Quoting just from the last paragraph of that chapter...

"3.30  So we conclude that order in the universe by itself provides no warrant whatsoever for trying to identify an Orderer.  ....  Nor witll this argument to Design provide, what has been hoped of other arguments, a means of identification."

His argument in that chapter leading up to this conclusion bears many similarities to your posts in this thread.  

Its a good book- one which I take much issue with, of course , but worthy of a good read.  I know without a doubt you'd like it.

God and Philosophy by Antony Flew.  Be sure to get the one with the new introduction.

Are you saying that seeing design means there can't be a designer?

No. I'm saying the reverse. If we clearly see design, then it IS reasonable to assume that there is a designer. I accept the truth of analogical reasoning.

Are you saying that it is impossible to see design, period?

I'm saying it is impossible to see design if there is no "thing" which is not designed.

See, I would say that prior to the fall, design could be recognized because they walked and talked with the creator.

You know that this is not a claim made by ID theorists; and more, surely you recognize that such a belief is irrational. I'm only making reference here to the claims made by ID theory and to what can be rationally believed.

I would also say that design can be recognized now because we have some of the information about how God created that design and it fits

Even though this, too, has nothing to do with the claims made by ID theory (which is the only claim I'm addressing in this thread) still I'm curious: What information do you have about HOW god designed the universe?

. . . we have knowledge that the design is in the process of falling apart (and we can readily observe this).

That a thing 'falls apart' has nothing to do with whether the thing was designed in the first place. It simply means that the design was rather shoddy if one of the aims of the design was eternal durability.

Thanks - happily my headache is winding down.

You're welcome and your understatement is admirable. Calling a migraine a "headache" is kind of like calling a tornado a "strong breeze." A few years ago, my wife gave me the novel "Atonement" by Ian McEwan to read because of the account it gives of what it's like to have a migraine, as much as anything else I suspect. I've never thought of a migraine as "just a headache" since.

Let's keep in mind that even Dawkins agrees that it appears to be designed. He just thinks that this design is only 'apparent.'

What do you think? Do you agree with Dawkins that it, in fact, appears to be designed?

At anyrate, I hope you are not saying that it is utterly unreasonable to think one is seeing design in the natural order.

Of course, I agree with Dawkins. The very fact that you would ask such a question just shows how far away from understanding my argument you are. Don't be offended. I don't mean to suggest in any way that you are thick. What I am suggesting is that I haven't done a very good job of making my argument clear. That is my fault.

In fact, I'm willing to go further down this road than Dawkins does. While Dawkins says only that life appears apparently to be designed, I'm willing to stipulate for purposes of argument that life appears actually to have been designed.