The Six Points

nullHere are six points that lay at the foundation of my approach. All six points are quite reasonable. In fact, I would maintain that not only are they all reasonable, but they are also more reasonable than the position that would deny them:




1. Data are part of objective reality; evidence is an interpretation of the data and is thus a mental construct.

2. Evidence against evolution is not evidence for design.

3. Evidence for evolution is not evidence against teleology.

4. Evolution and design can co-exist.

5. Without independent evidence of the designers, science cannot address the question of design in life. We must step outside of science to address this question.

6. It is illogical to insist that the designer must be God, as this is neither a required assumption nor a necessary conclusion when it comes to analyzing something through the light of design.

In other words, if you disagree, you are wrong.


8 responses to “The Six Points

  1. Is that rabbit sucking on a lemon?

  2. Mike says:

    5. Without independent evidence of the designers, science cannot address the question of design in life. We must step outside of science to address this question.

    So you are saying we need to know the designer(s) before we can reach a design inference?

    Aren’t you the guy who has railed against others for saying such a thing?

    I say the design is such evidence- how do we know that humans had the capability to build something like Stonehenge? Well the existence of Stonehenge!

    Also as I have said before the evidence for design in biology is independent from the evidence of design in cosmology.

    Maybe you have tried to clarify what you mean by “independent evidence” but it didn’t work…

  3. Mike: “5. Without independent evidence of the designers, science cannot address the question of design in life. We must step outside of science to address this question.

    But if (as we agreed) science is a sociological phenomenon, then whether science can address the question of design in life depends…oh never mind. Let’s not go down that road again.

  4. I think “detecting” design is akin to detecting another mind. That is, the “detection” is ultimately indebted to our subjective awareness. I am able to detect your mind only because I can rely on my mind as a reference point. I see “me” in your words. I “see” a mind.

    Now, I define design along the lines of using foresight and reason to accomplish an objective. Since science must be rooted in measurement, and I see no way to measure such things as “foresight,” “reason,” and “objective,” it stands to reason that science cannot detect such things. That’s why science requires an independent, objective reference point – independent data about the designers.

    Of course, this does not mean we cannot use our minds – critical thinking and logic – to look for design.

  5. I think I get it- OK science does not try to detect design per se rather science can detect agency involvement and then scientists use their minds to determine if design is present along with that agency involvement.

    Science can and does detect agency involvement…

  6. Detecting design is like detecting another mind–subjective.

    Subjective? As in a certain “state-of-mind”?

    Did you just argue that detecting subjectivity like detecting subjectivity?–Subjective?
    [Pardon me while I reach for the bottle of aspirin and a shot of Scotch. I feel a headache coming on.]


    I personally wouldn’t accuse you of being “unscientific” or even “subjective” [Shiver.] if you proceeded, as you always do anyway, Mike Gene, by assuming the existence of other mindful creatures like you.

    Science begins and ends in our “subjective awareness.” “Subjectivity” is not an accusation, and certainly not = “unscientific” either. Subjectivity is our very state of being. .. Etc.

    So I’m sympathetic, but not with that “subjectivity” argument. Not when anyone makes it.

  7. John Stockwell

    I would argue that we do not “detect design” but that we “model the origin
    of objects”. There is a subclass of objects that we identify as being
    manufactured. So, on that rare occasion when we have an object and
    come to the conclusion that the object was manufactured, we must
    have a fairly strong notion of the manufacturing process.

    I would further assert that we have never “detected design” where
    we have not first “modeled the manufacturing process” of the
    object in question.

  8. Hi John,

    Just because one can “detect” design using independently derived information about a manufacturing process does not mean such information is necessary to “detect design.” In fact, the manufacturing process is not really the design – it is the implementation of the design that previously took place. I explained this elsewhere:

    I would agree that the word “detect” carries a connotation that is too objective.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s