Proof of ID: An essay (Introduction)

by dhw, Friday, June 26, 2015, 13:05 (3439 days ago) @ David Turell

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/06/must_we_directl097021.html-dhw: However, we do not know the origin of natural structures, and unlike the products of our own intelligence, there is no precedent by which to judge whether they result from intelligent design or simply look as if they have been designed (Romansh's snowflake makes the point).
DAVID: no it doesn't as I've explained. It is simply a frozen copy of the molecule, but that brings us back to the issue of: is every molecule designed?-Design is indeed the issue. You asked if anyone could find a flaw in the ID argument presented by the article. I have pointed out that man-made designs (campfires, buildings and technology) are not “natural structures”, and that is how we know they were designed by humans. We have no precedent for “natural structures”, and so we have no way of knowing whether they are or are not designed by an intelligent mind. That is what I see as the flaw in the argument. -dhw: The ID argument might be compared to David's refusal to contemplate the possibility that bacteria are intelligent: they may look intelligent, he says, but they are not. Individuals may have their own favourite theory, but we are once again back to our three possible sources of natural "design": divinity, chance, a form of panpsychism.-DAVID: Panpsychism again takes us back to the existence of 'mindfulness' in everything, with no explanation of where that came from, or it is it simply a branch of a universal divine consciousness?-Most panpsychist theories do go back to a universal divine consciousness, but of course they too offer “no explanation of where that came from” - other than the non-explanation of ‘first cause', which can apply equally to non-conscious primal energy. So you pays your money and you takes your choice: inexplicable from the top downwards, or inexplicable from the bottom upwards.