Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
In reading about intelligent design, it strikes me that the comparisons between intelligent and non-intelligent design are rather arbitrary. Therefore, I pose that it is impossible to actually distinguish between the two in an objective fashion. Allow me to explain:
If one accepts that the universe is ultimately designed, that is, that the laws of the universe were created by some sort of Intelligence, then it stands to reason that everything in the universe is intelligently designed. For example, if one creates a computer capable of writing its own software, then not only is the computer a result of intelligent design, but the software as well. For the software would not exist without the existing intelligent design behind it. Likewise, if the universe is the result of a design, then the products of the universe are ultimately a result of that designer as well. So how does one distinguish between a rock and a painting, when both are ultimately the result of the initial design of the universe in the first place?
Second, if one accepts that the universe is not intelligently designed, then does it not stand to reason that nothing in the universe is? For example, if the laws of the universe just are (IOW, they simply exist because they exist), and everything is merely the product of those laws, then how does one label something intelligent? If a snowflake is not designed, because it simply is the result of physics and chemistry, then could life, under the same guidelines, be undesigned? And if life is undesigned, and the evolution of life unguided, then are not the products of life undesigned? Whether a spider's web, bird's nest, or painter's painting, where does the intelligent design come in? All of those are merely the end result of an unintelligent process governed by the laws of the universe. So how would one distinguish between a rock and a painting, when both are ultimately the result of a lack design in the universe in the first place?
Third, we adopt a grey area. But where does this grey area begin and where does it end? If the products of human invention are intelligently designed, but the products of animals are not, then why are human inventions intelligent? If the products of animal life are intelligently designed, but the products of natural forces are not, then why are the products of animals intelligent? Why consider a spider's web or a bird's nest to be intelligently designed, but not a snowflake or sand dune?
Suppose a computer is the result of intelligent design. Are the products of the computer also a result of intelligent design? If a computer is designed by a human to churn out random numbers, then are those random numbers indicative of intelligent design? Is it the process by which the computer churns them out that is intelligent? Is it the numbers themselves that contain intelligence? Or is it not intelligent design at all?
Ultimately I ask those of the ID crowd: what is the baseline for intelligent design? Where does it begin and where does it end?
__________________ Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture, medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with which to study organisms or life. - Botanical Society of America's Statement on Evolution
In reading about intelligent design, it strikes me that the comparisons between intelligent and non-intelligent design are rather arbitrary. Therefore, I pose that it is impossible to actually distinguish between the two in an objective fashion. Allow me to explain:
If one accepts that the universe is ultimately designed, that is, that the laws of the universe were created by some sort of Intelligence, then it stands to reason that everything in the universe is intelligently designed. For example, if one creates a computer capable of writing its own software, then not only is the computer a result of intelligent design, but the software as well. For the software would not exist without the existing intelligent design behind it. Likewise, if the universe is the result of a design, then the products of the universe are ultimately a result of that designer as well. So how does one distinguish between a rock and a painting, when both are ultimately the result of the initial design of the universe in the first place?
Second, if one accepts that the universe is not intelligently designed, then does it not stand to reason that nothing in the universe is? For example, if the laws of the universe just are (IOW, they simply exist because they exist), and everything is merely the product of those laws, then how does one label something intelligent? If a snowflake is not designed, because it simply is the result of physics and chemistry, then could life, under the same guidelines, be undesigned? And if life is undesigned, and the evolution of life unguided, then are not the products of life undesigned? Whether a spider's web, bird's nest, or painter's painting, where does the intelligent design come in? All of those are merely the end result of an unintelligent process governed by the laws of the universe. So how would one distinguish between a rock and a painting, when both are ultimately the result of a lack design in the universe in the first place?
Third, we adopt a grey area. But where does this grey area begin and where does it end? If the products of human invention are intelligently designed, but the products of animals are not, then why are human inventions intelligent? If the products of animal life are intelligently designed, but the products of natural forces are not, then why are the products of animals intelligent? Why consider a spider's web or a bird's nest to be intelligently designed, but not a snowflake or sand dune?
Suppose a computer is the result of intelligent design. Are the products of the computer also a result of intelligent design? If a computer is designed by a human to churn out random numbers, then are those random numbers indicative of intelligent design? Is it the process by which the computer churns them out that is intelligent? Is it the numbers themselves that contain intelligence? Or is it not intelligent design at all?
Ultimately I ask those of the ID crowd: what is the baseline for intelligent design? Where does it begin and where does it end?
From Discovery Institute:
"Intelligent design theory is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations."..that is all ..no mention of the entire Universe being designed
From Discovery Institute:
"Intelligent design theory is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations."..that is all ..no mention of the entire Universe being designed
How can you discern "genuine design" without a prior knowledge of what "genuine non-design" looks like? What traits would a non-designed universe or non-designed biosphere exhibit? And how would it differ from what we observe already?
From Discovery Institute:
"Intelligent design theory is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations."..that is all ..no mention of the entire Universe being designed
That fails to propose how the "Intelligent Design" works or if it has any use. The topic poster could simply ask, is Natural Selection and random variations just part of the Intelligent Design that God created? The quote also fails to acknowledge who is the Intelligence and by what standards? God can be replaced by higher order aliens, could it not?
The quote also fails to acknowledge who is the Intelligence and by what standards? God can be replaced by higher order aliens, could it not?
According to IDers, you are correct. The party line is that the "intelligence" could be anyone or anything... God or little green aliens; it isn't supposed to matter to IDers. However, if you ask them who they think is the "designer," they all say it is God (surprise!).
__________________ “The biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense." -Bishop John Shelby Spong
"It is not the obligation of the State to reconcile various faiths with reality. Do it yourself." -Atomweaver
"We have designed our civilization based on science and technology and at the same time arranged things so that almost no one understands anything at all about science and technology. This is a clear prescription for disaster."
- Carl Sagan (Demon Haunted World)
Good question. I hadn't thought of it that way before.
Related question (similar to ae's) goes something like this: our ability to recognize designed things depends or our ability to recognize undesigned things. Obvious, right? We say that a brand new ferarri looks designed, a stack of sand doesn't look designed, and a heap of rust with a vague car-shape falls somewhere in between. So when we come to an hypothetical intelligent designer of the universe, quickly everything appears designed. So how can we conclude that anything is designed if everything - from an amoeba to an antelope, a beach to a baboon - looks designed? With what are we comparing?
__________________ Jesus has a very special love for you. As for me, the silence and emptiness is so great that I look and do not see, listen and do not hear.
I am told God loves me, and yet the reality of the darkness and coldness and emptiness is so great that nothing touches my soul. - Mother Teresa
However, what if a non-intelligent process could create intelligence? Intelligent design could then follow. And I guess it all depends on how we define intelligence. Some people think that intelligence requires free will. I don't. But if I accepted their definition I would say that there is no intelligence in the universe. However, intelligence, in my thinking, is another thing like flight - something potentially useful to an organisms survival.
__________________ 'Avast, ye scurvy dogs! Rotate the rubber baby buggy bumpers!'
How can you discern "genuine design" without a prior knowledge of what "genuine non-design" looks like? What traits would a non-designed universe or non-designed biosphere exhibit? And how would it differ from what we observe already?
:æ:
who said anything about a non-designed universe..obviously one can look at earth and see that there is something about earth that makes it unique..notice how the moon from an astronomical standpoint are in the same neighborood yet no life has been found on the moon..don't try to make something much more complicated than it is..I guess from an ID POV, most biological processes and organisms are a product of intellegent design rather than a chance survivalist
who said anything about a non-designed universe..obviously one can look at earth and see that there is something about earth that makes it unique..notice how the moon from an astronomical standpoint are in the same neighborood yet no life has been found on the moon..
But you're still stuck with the problem of distinguishing non-design and design. Sure the Earth is unique. So is the moon. And Jupiter. And Pluto. And every other planet in the solar system.
Snowflakes are considered unique. You could probably consider individual rocks as unique. Or blades of grass. Or whatever. If uniqueness is an attribute of design, then arguably everything is designed. So what are we comparing then?
I guess from an ID POV, most biological processes and organisms are a product of intellegent design rather than a chance survivalist
What are "most biological processes and organisms". Which are the designed ones? Which are the un-designed ones? What baseline are you using to distinguish them?
don't try to make something much more complicated than it is..
But it *is* complicated. If you can't set an objective baseline for ID, then ID is useless.
__________________ Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture, medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with which to study organisms or life. - Botanical Society of America's Statement on Evolution
Linear Mode
