The Nature of Science

[paulespino]

"So my question is : Does science design anything? (I have not but given any reason to believe that it does)"

I don't have an answer to this question but I would like to ask a question related to this question.

Is cloning a design?

[Timm001]

If scientists found an angel or a demon I guess they could tell you the biological properties of such, but they could not tell you ‘why’ the angel exists. The Bible can make ‘observations’, such as man was made from the dust (correct), the world hangs on nothing (correct), the sea is never full, etc. but scripture can also give ‘reasons for their existence’, reasons for their actions, what the design was intended for, and the designers future intentions for the creation, something science doesn’t or can’t do.

I have been trying to confirm something, and by chance if I find out someone is knowledgeable in science of some sort I ask ‘does science ever design anything?’ I am aware that designers and engineers use scientific data when developing a product, but I am trying to assure myself that there is a distinction between science and design.

My argument is that science doesn’t explain how things ‘come to be’ an assembled, purposeful, creation.
Of course I am trying to establish the point (in debating) that ‘science’ doesn’t create anything of itself, designers and engineers develop creations using their knowledge of such things but are not dependent upon the findings of science to pursue design, in fact sometimes design correctly defies science, and science has to catch up. Creation in fact could be said to inspire science, like an apple falling from a tree, after all creation was here first.

So, Science can’t tell us ‘why’ something exists, or what is its ‘purpose’ of existing. Why was there a Ford pinto, why did it need to exist? Why do we ‘need’ to exist? Why does anything ‘want’ to live? Science could tell you what the materials are of a car and a horse, and that an electric impulse fires the compressed mixture, and hay is a Carbohydrate, but why the horse? All these things came together for some ‘purpose’, there was intent, and science has to draw the demarcation point when it supposes ‘why’ things exist.

So my question is : Does science design anything? (I have not but given any reason to believe that it does)

Jriccitelli,

I have to say that I am not very clear on what you mean by your question "Does science design anything?"

Of course, on one interpretation of your question the answer is very easily "yes." Scientists design all kinds of things. They design experiments. They design hypotheses and the papers which articulate them. Sometimes they even design the equipment that they use to carry out their experiments.

But it sounds like what you wanted to get at was more the relationship between teleological explanation and scientific explanation. Teleological explanation, simply put, is explanation that appeals to purposes or intentions. Now, most of us naturally understand that when we use words like "purpose" then we imply a purposer. Or that when we use words like "design" we imply a designer. Therefore, teleological explanations ultimately appeal to designers and beings that are capable of purposing. A textbook example of a teleological explanation would be something like this:

Your friend: Why did you put the cat on the mat?
You: Because it kept getting fur everywhere.

In your explanation you are appealing to your purpose/reason for putting the cat on the mat. A "scientific" explanation, by contrast, would seem to appeal to laws about the state of your brain and the subsequent bodily movements and the cat, etc., without mentioning your purpose/reason/intention.

Now, an alternative interpretation of your question might be: Does science ever appeal to purpose/design/teleology in explaining things?

The answer to this question again is "yes." The forensic sciences, archaeology, and even history (if we count it as a science) must make use of the assumption that design is detectable through some kind of "scientific" methodology. Now, they may not necessarily appeal to purposes/intentions as a part of their official, scientific experiments, but they can do so in their explanations of various items of scientific interest. These sciences also require the assumption that teleology is real and detectable in order to do their work. After all, if you didn't think it was possible to distinguish between the products of human beings and the products of blind natural forces, what would be the point of doing archeology? Or history for that matter?

So I have to say that I am personally not quite clear on what you are asking, but hopefully this discussion can help you to refine your question in a way so that I and others can make attempts at giving a more satisfying answer, if you haven't found this very helpful.