Evidence of NO design

[mistermack]

Rather than just rebuttals of far-fetched "designer" claims, how about a thread that concentrates on the evidence that the universe is NOT designed? And in particular, that it's not designed by a god with humans as the object of the exercise. Of course, those opposed are invited to try to rebut the arguments, but it would make more sense if they kept arguments FOR a designer for the other thread, and just posted rebuttals on this one. 

Here's a few to start with. 

If a designer wanted to create a home for humans, why did he create a universe so mind-blowingly vast? The only bit that's relevant to humans is one tiny solar system, in a galaxy of 250,000,000,000 stars. And that galaxy is just one, of about 200,000,000,000 galaxies in the observable universe. And why make the rest of the Universe so mind-blowingly distant, that humans can never go there?

And what designer would design something, and then wait 13,800,000,000 years for the object of his creation to appear. And then, even though his human creation is supposed to be in his image, he messed around with less intelligent versions for millions of years, before arriving at one that he was happy to inseminate and produce a son from.

Of course, a lot of the design people claim that the entire universe is only 6,000 years old, so in their case, the evidence for no designer is the same scientific evidence for the age of the planet, solar system and universe. So those design theorists need to disprove an awful lot of science, if they want to prop up their version of design.

I don't want to construct a huge OP, although there's loads more material. People can post their own take on it. But I think it's best to keep this thread for evidence and argument for NO design, and use the other one for proposal and rebuttal of design claims. 

[Genady]

Several lists here: 

 

[mistermack]

Some good stuff there.

[TheVat]

Cool thread, Mac.  The only design scenario that doesn't get shot down by where did the designer come from is one where the universe is a virtual space.  And if that were the case, why expend so much coding and processor space on a physics that is needlessly complex?  Why millions of macroscopic species, and up to a trillion microbial species?  I suppose a virtual design argument could be we need to make a universe that's really interesting and challenging for scientists.  A team of alien toy universe builders rubbing their tendrils together and laughing gleefully as one suggests, "let's make the speed of boson propagation so slow that it takes like f__ing forever to get anywhere!"

Haven't watched @Genady video yet, so will reply to that later.  

[Markus Hanke]

16 hours ago, mistermack said:

how about a thread that concentrates on the evidence that the universe is NOT designed?

I think it suffers from the same problem as the opposing claim - you cannot ever disprove the existence of a designer. The best we can do is show that the laws and processes of physics as we see them arise without need for outside intervention - but at the moment we can’t really do that yet. But even if we can do this, the mere absence of such a need still does not necessarily rule out a designer - it could have been designed even though there wasn’t a need for a designer.

So I think looking for evidence for either claim is ultimately a waste of time, unless the alleged designer chooses to reveal himself in indisputable and unambiguous ways.

Edited September 25, 2023 by Markus Hanke

[studiot]

19 hours ago, TheVat said:

Cool thread, Mac.

Definitely. Another +1 to Mac.

 

4 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

I think it suffers from the same problem as the opposing claim - you cannot ever disprove the existence of a designer. The best we can do is show that the laws and processes of physics as we see them arise without need for outside intervention - but at the moment we can’t really do that yet. But even if we can do this, the mere absence of such a need still does not necessarily rule out a designer - it could have been designed even though there wasn’t a need for a designer.

So I think looking for evidence for either claim is ultimately a waste of time, unless the alleged designer chooses to reveal himself in indisputable and unambiguous ways.

Well sort of, but I am not so sure that there might not be a way to prove the negative.

 

In this thread I posted an analysis using Newtons Laws of Dynamics,  (post 22) which goes some way towards achieving this for an entirely different purpose.

I.m sorry I can't

 

That we can separate the effects of external influence and internal process is all to often taken for granted ( and not always true either). Even Newton invoked it but did not explicitly state it.

[mistermack]

4 hours ago, studiot said:

I think it suffers from the same problem as the opposing claim - you cannot ever disprove the existence of a designer.

Proof is a high bar. Evidence for and against, along with argument of interpretation, is the best you can ever go for. But that's fine. For example, the world is spending trillions, without proof, that the CO2 levels will cause damaging climate change. I haven't heard one politician provide that proof or even call for it. 

What you can do is show what is illogical and downright silly, about the notion of design, and illustrate what kind of odds are in place, for and against there being an intelligent designer.  Religious people often use the way out that "god moves in mysterious ways". I believe it can be shown that if he exists, he moves in incredibly stupid ways. 

[Phi for All]

The argument that breaks ID for me is irreducible complexity. Proponents claim the human eye is so ridiculously complex that it MUST have been designed by an intelligent creator, yet ignore how badly this designer botched the job. Today, one could easily design a much more effective eye from scratch, and it's obvious from the current design that the human eye has changed over time to produce the clunky version we have now.

[studiot]

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

• Author

Posted 2 hours ago

6 hours ago, studiot said:

I think it suffers from the same problem as the opposing claim - you cannot ever disprove the existence of a designer.

Proof is a high bar. Evidence for and against, along with argument of interpretation, is the best you can ever go for. But that's fine. For example, the world is spending trillions, without proof, that the CO2 levels will cause damaging climate change. I haven't heard one politician provide that proof or even call for it. 

What you can do is show what is illogical and downright silly, about the notion of design, and illustrate what kind of odds are in place, for and against there being an intelligent designer.  Religious people often use the way out that "god moves in mysterious ways". I believe it can be shown that if he exists, he moves in incredibly stupid ways. 

Look again, I didn't say that, not quite sure how you managed to attribute Markus' comment to me.

 

I was, in fact, musing on where something very similar to your suggestion/question  is successfully attempted in physics and wondering if that template might in some way to your heart's desire.

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

The argument that breaks ID for me is irreducible complexity. Proponents claim the human eye is so ridiculously complex that it MUST have been designed by an intelligent creator, yet ignore how badly this designer botched the job. Today, one could easily design a much more effective eye from scratch, and it's obvious from the current design that the human eye has changed over time to produce the clunky version we have now.

Yes, the London Eye is so much better,

If speeded up the fan effext will even deal with global warming in London.

😀

 

p s I used to be able to increase the font size of a smiley, but it doesn't work any more.

Edited September 25, 2023 by studiot

[mistermack]

3 hours ago, Phi for All said:

The argument that breaks ID for me is irreducible complexity. Proponents claim the human eye is so ridiculously complex that it MUST have been designed by an intelligent creator, yet ignore how badly this designer botched the job. Today, one could easily design a much more effective eye from scratch, and it's obvious from the current design that the human eye has changed over time to produce the clunky version we have now.

I can't remember the details, but there's something in the giraffe's neck that is equally botched, just on a bigger scale. It's a nerve that is routed all the way down the neck and back up to the larynx, because in a normal neck, that's not excessive, but in a giraffe's neck, it's ludicrous. What it shows is that the nerve started out in normal necks, and had to elongate in increments as the longer neck evolved, because evolution works in increments, building on the previous version, and has no way to re-design. So no "intelligent" designer would route a nerve down the giraffe's neck and back up, but gradual evolution has no choice, it can only do it that way.  

Other arguments that have impressed me include one that Dawkins regularly quotes, about a parasitic worm that migrates to the eyes, causing agony and blindness. He asks what sort of sick-minded designer would create such a horrible creature, that tortures children in such a way and destroys their lives? Only a god that doesn't care one bit about humans could design all of the illnesses that affect us, but we are supposed to have been created "in his image".

[Phi for All]

4 minutes ago, mistermack said:

I can't remember the details, but there's something in the giraffe's neck that is equally botched, just on a bigger scale. It's a nerve that is routed all the way down the neck and back up to the larynx, because in a normal neck, that's not excessive, but in a giraffe's neck, it's ludicrous. What it shows is that the nerve started out in normal necks, and had to elongate in increments as the longer neck evolved, because evolution works in increments, building on the previous version, and has no way to re-design. So no "intelligent" designer would route a nerve down the giraffe's neck and back up, but gradual evolution has no choice, it can only do it that way. 

The recurrent laryngeal nerve is something every vertebrate has from a distant fishy common ancestor, connecting the larynx (which performed a gill function) to the brain. Over time, the connecting nerve looped below the heart and just stretched to fit each evolving species. In humans, the laryngeal nerve goes from our brains, down our throats and in front of the aorta before looping underneath the heart and going back up the throat to our voice boxes. In giraffes, the RLN is crazy long. Imagine what it was like on some of the long-necked sauropods!

[iNow]

2 hours ago, studiot said:

I used to be able to increase the font size of a smiley, but it doesn't work any more.

That's what she said

[mistermack]

I've never seen intelligent design argued for in a calm, logical way. I'm wondering if anything of the sort is out there? Is there anyone out there, pushing ID, who is worth reading or listening to, even if you disagree?

Or maybe I'm too biased. I try not to be, but the ones that I've seen proposing ID have always made me wince, within seconds of starting speaking, with the first totally illogical claim. 

[dimreepr]

On 9/24/2023 at 2:11 PM, mistermack said:

Rather than just rebuttals of far-fetched "designer" claims, how about a thread that concentrates on the evidence that the universe is NOT designed? And in particular, that it's not designed by a god with humans as the object of the exercise. Of course, those opposed are invited to try to rebut the arguments, but it would make more sense if they kept arguments FOR a designer for the other thread, and just posted rebuttals on this one. 

Here's a few to start with. 

If a designer wanted to create a home for humans, why did he create a universe so mind-blowingly vast? The only bit that's relevant to humans is one tiny solar system, in a galaxy of 250,000,000,000 stars. And that galaxy is just one, of about 200,000,000,000 galaxies in the observable universe. And why make the rest of the Universe so mind-blowingly distant, that humans can never go there?

And what designer would design something, and then wait 13,800,000,000 years for the object of his creation to appear. And then, even though his human creation is supposed to be in his image, he messed around with less intelligent versions for millions of years, before arriving at one that he was happy to inseminate and produce a son from.

Of course, a lot of the design people claim that the entire universe is only 6,000 years old, so in their case, the evidence for no designer is the same scientific evidence for the age of the planet, solar system and universe. So those design theorists need to disprove an awful lot of science, if they want to prop up their version of design.

I don't want to construct a huge OP, although there's loads more material. People can post their own take on it. But I think it's best to keep this thread for evidence and argument for NO design, and use the other one for proposal and rebuttal of design claims. 

This is just an excuse to poke fun at people who don't think like you; it's not a serious critique of religion.

Quote

“Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their illusions destroyed.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche

That's a double edged sword. 😉

[mistermack]

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

This is just an excuse to poke fun at people who don't think like you; it's not a serious critique of religion.

It's a critique of the notion of design. Your comment is not a serious critique of my critique. It contains no argument whatsoever.

[dimreepr]

Just now, mistermack said:

It's a critique of the notion of design. Your comment is not a serious critique of my critique. It contains no argument whatsoever.

No!!! It's a critique of the notion of a designer; different question... 🙄

[mistermack]

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

No!!! It's a critique of the notion of a designer; different question... 🙄

In what way?

[dimreepr]

Evidence of no design, would be a featureless desert; evolution just designs by accident...😉

[mistermack]

5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Evidence of no design, would be a featureless desert; evolution just designs by accident...😉

No it doesn't. It doesn't design at all. It gives the appearance of design.

[dimreepr]

Just now, mistermack said:

No it doesn't. It doesn't design at all. It gives the appearance of design.

Much like gravity is an apparent force?

[mistermack]

4 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Much like gravity is an apparent force?

Relatively.

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, mistermack said:

Relatively.

Exactly, how we relate too... 

[mistermack]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

Exactly, how we relate too...

That's why, for thousands of years, people were convinced by the appearance of design, that there must be a designer. That's why Darwin and Russel made the greatest leap ever in science, in showing how you can have the appearance of design, without a designer. It's not design without a designer, it's the appearance of design, without a designer. 

[dimreepr]

8 minutes ago, mistermack said:

That's why, for thousands of years, people were convinced by the appearance of design, that there must be a designer. That's why Darwin and Russel made the greatest leap ever in science, in showing how you can have the appearance of design, without a designer. It's not design without a designer, it's the appearance of design, without a designer. 

What makes you think your so much better, because you have a smart phone, that you don't understand??? 

[TheVat]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

I've never seen intelligent design argued for in a calm, logical way. I'm wondering if anything of the sort is out there? Is there anyone out there, pushing ID, who is worth reading or listening to, even if you disagree?

Or maybe I'm too biased. I try not to be, but the ones that I've seen proposing ID have always made me wince, within seconds of starting speaking, with the first totally illogical claim. 

It says something that the leading proponent of ID, Phil Johnson, is a law professor not a scientist.  Nobody can do a bullshit argument like a lawyer.

19 hours ago, iNow said:

That's what she said

Are you familiar with King of the Hill? There is an episode where Hank has a new assistant at his propane business who constantly makes that's what she said jokes.  IIRC  Hank finally delivers an ultimatum concerning the assistant's continued employment, capped with "...and that's what I said!"  

It's hard to resist making them, when that gets into one's head.