(July 13, 2014 at 9:34 pm)Brian37 Wrote:(July 13, 2014 at 9:18 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: I agree, but you've largely sidestepped the discussion of design in nature, even it's appearance.
There is perhaps some confusion as to what could be meant by design in nature or the appearance of; conceptions we typically apply the term design to can include anything that displays some type of function and purpose--hence when biologists seek to understand adaptations, a question they naturally seek to answer is "What is this for? Was it an off-shoot of something else that had a distinct function for survival?" Especially with the advent of modern technology, from human-like robots to space shuttles, there are different mechanisms in nature that seem analogous, both in complexity, which work in so many interconnected ways with other parts, and in result, which is to produce something like life and memory--though more profoundly than anything our intelligence or design has been able to replicate--an organism equipped to even create symbols that we know as math, poetry, science, philosophy, etc. Nature created organisms that design, to be sure.
I don't follow exactly where you're going here. Again, the conversation about design or the appearance of in nature need not devolve into simplistic anthropomorphic deities and tales of grandeur human purposes.
Ditch the word "design". There is noting in nature "designed". Period. There are simply natural processes. Don't add superfluous bullshit to it.
Isn't it superfluous to talk of human designs as anything but natural processes too then?
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
