I think that I accidentally broke intelligent design today.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The contrapositive of “Natural things are not the result of design processes,” is "Artificial things are the result of design processes." Simply reversing the terms, i.e. "Designed things are the result of evolutionary processes," does not produce a logically equivalent result. Therefore, your initial statement is illogical; [b]TRUE.[/b]

Then you will not have any trouble "spelling out the point rather explicitly" in a new post.

Statement: Evolutionary theory does not rely on the anthropic principle.
Corollary: Evolutionary theory is not subject to anthropic bias.
Dismissal: While evolutionists may have an anthropic bias to see things as evolved, they demonstrate less of an anthropic bias than intelligent design theorists.

Statement: Artificial things are designed and look designed.
Theoretical Statement: Natural things are the result of evolution and may look designed.
Statement: In eliminating anthropic bias, perhaps humans should view artificial things as evolved.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
I didn't say that artificial things were the results of evolutionary processes (not that the statement is illogical because it's not the contrapositive; it's illogical becase it relies on artificial selection). I did, however, say that perhaps one should view designed things as being evolved rather than seeing them as being designed.

Statement: Intelligent design theorists believe that some aspects of the natural world are designed.
Definition: "The anthropic principle states that we should take into account the constraints that our existence as observers imposes on the sort of universe that we could observe."
Statement: Since humans are capable of designing things, humans have a tendency to see things as being designed.
Conclusion: Intelligent design falls under the anthropic principle.
Addendum: The tendency of humans to see things as designed is a form of anthropic bias.

Statement: Evolutionary theory does not rely on the anthropic principle.
Corollary: Evolutionary theory is not subject to anthropic bias.
Dismissal: While evolutionists may have an anthropic bias to see things as evolved, they demonstrate less of an anthropic bias than intelligent design theorists.

Statement: Artificial things are designed and look designed.
Theoretical Statement: Natural things are the result of evolution and may look designed.
Statement: In eliminating anthropic bias, perhaps humans should view artificial things as evolved.

The problem with this post is that ID is not a theory, but a belief.

Human evolved and were not designed, therefore to apply the anthropic principle to humans and come to the conclusion that we see things designed is backward.

Arguing semantics over the name of the beliefs of proponents of intelligent design is pointless. Also, your second point makes no sense.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Arguing semantics over the name of the beliefs of proponents of intelligent design is pointless.

No, its not because almost all proponents of ID misuse scientific terminology to lend false credibility to their argument. The problem is, the "joes" don't understand what these words mean and end up thinking that ID is correct because of popular appeal.

I've always found it amusing that the ones telling us how to do science correctly, cant do science themselves.

Originally posted by Alliance
\

No, its not because almost all proponents of ID misuse scientific terminology to lend false credibility to their argument.

Like what words, and how?

Originally posted by Alliance
\

No, its not because almost all proponents of ID misuse scientific terminology to lend false credibility to their argument. The problem is, the "joes" don't understand what these words mean and end up thinking that ID is correct because of popular appeal.

I've always found it amusing that the ones telling us how to do science correctly, cant do science themselves.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
BAAAWWWWWW

That is almost as bad as N/A, and you know who would give that reply when he was at a loose to answer.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is almost as bad as N/A, and you know who would give that reply when he was at a loose to answer.

PROLLY SO

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
The expression is "at a loss," and, his statement is unfounded. Can Michael Behe do science?

PROLLY SO

OK, thank you for clarifying that.

This:

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
. . . perhaps one should view designed things as being evolved rather than seeing them as being designed.

Implies this:

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
. . . artificial things were the results of evolutionary processes

Based on this:

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
The point is, we only see things as being designed because we design things.

That is the whole point.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Statement: Intelligent design theorists believe that some aspects of the natural world are designed.
Definition: "The anthropic principle states that we should take into account the constraints that our existence as observers imposes on the sort of universe that we could observe."
Statement: Since humans are capable of designing things, humans have a tendency to see things as being designed.
Conclusion: Intelligent design falls under the anthropic principle.
Addendum: The tendency of humans to see things as designed is a form of anthropic bias.

Statement: Evolutionary theory does not rely on the anthropic principle.
Corollary: Evolutionary theory is not subject to anthropic bias.
Dismissal: While evolutionists may have an anthropic bias to see things as evolved, they demonstrate less of an anthropic bias than intelligent design theorists.

Statement: Artificial things are designed and look designed.
Theoretical Statement: Natural things are the result of evolution and may look designed.
Statement: In eliminating anthropic bias, perhaps humans should view artificial things as evolved.

The premise, "Evolutionary theory does not rely on the anthropic principle" and "is not subject to anthropic bias," does not support the conclusion, "In eliminating anthropic bias, perhaps humans should view artificial things as evolved."

Some not A are B, but it does not follow from this that all not A are B.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Like what words, and how?

First and foremost would be the equation of the term "theory" (which has a specific meaning in science) with popular words like "guess."

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
BAAAWWWWWW

Goats usually don't make effective arguments.

Originally posted by Alliance
First and foremost would be the equation of the term "theory" (which has a specific meaning in science) with popular words like "guess."

Goats usually don't make effective arguments.

Since a theory has yet to be proven, its not too far removed from a hypothesis is it?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Since a theory has yet to be proven, its not too far removed from a hypothesis is it?

Theory
a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of ...

hypothesis
a proposal intended to explain certain facts or observations

There seems to be a large difference. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation where as a hypothesis is a proposal.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The premise, "Evolutionary theory does not rely on the anthropic principle" and "is not subject to anthropic bias," does not support the conclusion, "In eliminating anthropic bias, perhaps humans should view artificial things as evolved."

Some not A are B, but it does not follow from this that all not A are B.

Originally posted by Alliance
First and foremost would be the equation of the term "theory" (which has a specific meaning in science) with popular words like "guess."

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
I'm not saying that artificial things actually evolved, but perhaps humans should view them from that perspective--the anthropic bias comes from artificial things appearing designed because they were designed, so, to eliminate this bias, one could view designed things as having evolved.

Using the colloquial definition of the word? IMPOSSIBLE!

Incorrect logic.

How is that incorrect logic?

Originally posted by Nellinator
How is that incorrect logic?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The problem with this post is that ID is not a theory, but a belief.

Human evolved and were not designed, therefore to apply the anthropic principle to humans and come to the conclusion that we see things designed is backward.

No, not really.

Originally posted by Nellinator
No, not really.

🙄

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
I'm not saying that artificial things actually evolved, but perhaps humans should view them from that perspective--the anthropic bias comes from artificial things appearing designed because they were designed, so, to eliminate this bias, one could view designed things as having evolved.

That is equivocal to treating measles with penicillin because it works on an ear infection; just because some not A are B, it does not follow from this that all B are not A.