Homosexuality is designed?

[noguru]

Is this your proposal? If something looks manufactured, then it is designed? I'm not sure that is a robust way to lock down design.

OK Yorzhik, what do you propose as a more robust way to "lock down" design?

 

[noguru]

Nature doesn't discover anything. It just goes from high energy to low energy. That's it. There is no thought involved.

I do agree that nature doesn't discover things the way we humans do. As far as I know nature as a whole does not have a consciousness like we humans do. So it would be silly to claim that nature discovers things the way human's do. Nature does proceed on a trial and error basis. It is probably not aware of this trial and error, but the overall effect is that nature produces methodologies that are successful. These methodologies continue for precisely that reason.

I do not agree that "It goes from high energy to low energy" is an accurate description of nature. It is one aspect, but it is not the end all and be all of the material sciences.

Not only does nature not discover things about itself, but if you try and say nature does discover things about itself then the word "discover" loses its meaning.

That is not what I said. Nor would those words cause discover to lose it's meaning. You obviously do not have a good grasp of terminologies and the vague penumbra of meaning they potentialy represent. This understanding is crucial in any philosophical discourse.

Yeah yeah yeah. We've been over this before. Overall, everything goes from high energy to low energy. The universe, in the end, will die of heat death when all energy is at equilibrium. When speaking in this context, only the overall view should be used.

But I do not agree that you or SLoT has cornered the market on the "overall view". In fact, I think your view is very myopic and therefore inaccurate. No one knows for sure that equilibrium is the final stage of the universe. To claim that one is certain of this is bordering on lunacy. For SLoT to bring about complete equilibrium, we must have a closed system, we do not know whether the universe is a closed system.

I am not saying that it is not the logic next question. But it is the next question which the first question doesn't rely on to be answered.

I agree that these are different questions. But in any scientific model of design, one must propose a designer.

No, that isn't my opinion, it's logic. I'm not submitting the point being raised, so it isn't question begging. If one wants to know if we can detect design scientifically, it doesn't matter who did the designing in the answer to the quesiton any more than we can detect if something is a painting without knowing the artist. Now, who the designer or who the artist is may be the obvious next question.

Then I think your opinion of how logic works is askew.

 

[billwald]

Yup, if it looks manufactured, an artifice, artificial, it is probably designed.

 

[Yorzhik]

I do agree that nature doesn't discover things the way we humans do. As far as I know nature as a whole does not have a consciousness like we humans do. So it would be silly to claim that nature discovers things the way human's do. Nature does proceed on a trial and error basis. It is probably not aware of this trial and error, but the overall effect is that nature produces methodologies that are successful. These methodologies continue for precisely that reason.

Discovery is not something nature does anymore than a random strike of lightning can murder!

Nature does not proceed on trial and error. Nature is not "successful" or a "failure". Do you really think nature is successful? or do you define success as "anything successfully going from high energy to low energy"? Do you cheer everytime something falls down?

(picture of noguru clapping as he stands in the park watching the leaves fall from the trees... and people starring at noguru wondering if they should call the paddy wagon)

I do not agree that "It goes from high energy to low energy" is an accurate description of nature. It is one aspect, but it is not the end all and be all of the material sciences.

Of course SLoT is only one aspect of nature, but it's the one we are talking about. But wait, you are discussing natures intentions and successes and failures and its designing methods. So I have a question... will nature try again if it fails, only next time change its method to achieve success because in the same situation it doesn't want to fail the next time?

That is not what I said. Nor would those words cause discover to lose it's meaning. You obviously do not have a good grasp of terminologies and the vague penumbra of meaning they potentialy represent. This understanding is crucial in any philosophical discourse.

Nice pious platitude. Here is what you said:

I would say that nature does "discover" things about itself.

What? the quotes changed the meaning of the word and you didn't tell us? Doh! Could you tell us what the quotes did to the meaning of the word? It isn't apparent from the context of your statement.

But I do not agree that you or SLoT has cornered the market on the "overall view". In fact, I think your view is very myopic and therefore inaccurate. No one knows for sure that equilibrium is the final stage of the universe. To claim that one is certain of this is bordering on lunacy. For SLoT to bring about complete equilibrium, we must have a closed system, we do not know whether the universe is a closed system.

You sure are a mean one. Just because all the evidence points to a particular outcome you call it bording on lunacy? To claim you are certain of this is bordering on lunacy.

And, BTW, while you compile the list of words you slaughter the meanings of - words like "discovery" and "success" - you can add the phrase "overall view" to your list. You should have realized that I wasn't talking about "overall view" as in all contexts, but that "overall view" was restricted to the context of what you are calling "natures method of discovering itself".

I agree that these are different questions. But in any scientific model of design, one must propose a designer.

And if we set out to find out if a picture was painted or not it requires that we know who the painter was? Look, just say "I agree that these are different questions" and stop. That would show you understand the concept and then we can move on. Obviously, as I've said many times, the next obvious question once we establish scientifically that design can be detected is; who is the designer?

Then I think your opinion of how logic works is askew.

ThePhy? Could you please come here and settle this? Even if I were right and my explanation was impeccable, noguru would still not believe it. But he believed you about energy before.

 

[Yorzhik]

OK Yorzhik, what do you propose as a more robust way to "lock down" design?

I think the Discovery Institute's website is a good place to start (http://www.discovery.org). Do you see anything there you disagree with?