Epistemology of Design (The limitations of science)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, December 09, 2009, 19:32 (5244 days ago)

In my most recent reply to George/David in the Stenger thread, I alluded to why Behe (and the argument for design at large) have what I currently consider an unconvincing case.-A month or so back dhw pointed out to me an important case in dealing with design: How can we say that nature was designed when we have nothing to compare it to? -In that argument he was attacking me on a typical view of design--"life seems chaotic and unstructured compared to what we typically see in designed structures. -This question then presents a profound problem for claiming the opposite: Life was designed. -If the only objects we know were designed conform to a human-centered approach for design, and we know that life does not conform to this approach, then we have no logical ground to stand on to claim design. -I have heard David allude to the argument that this universe is fine-tuned for life; I would counter that claim. In all of the universe, only THIS planet is known to have this "fine tuning." The universe at large, is downright hostile to life; therefore it is not the case that the universe is fine-tuned for life. -We also know that there is a finite amount of matter. That means, if the universe is big enough, then any event with any given chance of probability will be guaranteed to happen. -The problem with this view? It's an "if." We don't actually know how large the universe is, so though "it can be," we don't know.-Which again provides another problem for claiming design. (Converse arguments for "not designed" are identical.) -Since we don't know how big the universe is, we can't use probability as a tool. Even if we use Bayesian probability--something I'm actually intimate with--it can only operate using a "known to be true" value. -Consequently, my time here on this board has pushed me further and further into the realm of... well, I've called dhw's skepticism near paralyzing--however I see no other way to be after having given strong consideration to all given arguments on this issue. Atheism isn't tenable due to the nature of what we can know; making generalizations at this point seems nearly immoral.-Design isn't tenable due to the things we cannot know; we cannot call something designed when we've never designed something like it. ----
For nobody is curious, who isn't malevolent.
Plautus

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"