Intelligent Design isn’t intelligent

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

TO ALL
I just happened to be scanning topics and this one caught my eye. I usually try not to jump in after a thread has been running for a while but just had some quick observations here. Sorry if I repeat anything that has already been said. I didn't have the time to go through and read every page here.

Firstly this kind of argumentation against intelligent design is hilariously dimwitted. That's because one has to "assume" they know what was in the designer’s head at the time. Sometimes design requires a tradeoff. Could Samsung build a completely indestructible cell phone that could survive being dropped out of an airplane and landing on a concrete pad? Could they make it completely water proof to survive the deepest depths of the ocean? Could they build it so that it could survive the hot temps of the desert and freezing temps of the Arctic? Could Samsung also while they are at it design it to never drop a call from anywhere in the world? Well sure they could. Except that no one could carry it because it is way too heavy and bulky, and no one could afford it because it is outrageously expensive. The point is that designers have to do tradeoffs for practicality reasons all the time.

The second issue is the assumption that because something in a biological system is not currently in use that it must have no use. Or that because you don’t know somethings function must mean it has no function. I have things on my six year old car that I still have to consult the owner’s manual to figure out what it does. Also I have holes drilled in along my vehicles frame in the steel that don’t seem to serve any purpose that I can see. Does that mean my car was poorly designed?

Thirdly you also cannot forget that the biblical text tells us that a curse came upon all creation because of man’s sin. We don’t know exactly what all that entails, but it would imply that a good many things will have stopped functioning the way in which they were originally designed.

So since none of us are God we don’t know what tradeoffs He went with, there are a good many of thing we just don’t know what they are for, and there are also many things that are not functioning as originally designed. None of this is evidence that there is no intelligent designer.

I once saw a rock in my rock garden in front of my house that looked a little out of place from the others. When I picked it up I discovered it was made of plastic, had a flat back with a slide off compartment door. I realized instantly that it was an intelligently designed key hiding box made to look like a rock. Likewise we may look at something day after day and not notice design, but just picking it up and looking closer might reveal what we missed.

The question shouldn’t be “does most of this object look poorly designed?” It should be “is there even one thing that undoubtedly show it was designed? That’s really all it takes to reveal design. Just one thing. Not a list of things that don’t look designed. Just one thing that must be designed.

Design is typically detected by looking for signs that something was “engineered.” Engineering is detected when we observe that something was formed for a specific intent or purpose. Kind of like how archaeologists look for recognizable design features in objects that tell them they were engineered rather than naturally formed. Or how marine biologists trying to detect intelligence in dolphins look for specific sound patterns to match up with certain behaviors would tell them they are communicating with intelligent language. Even SETI astronomers search the skies for specific narrow band radio signals coming from deep space. They tell us that if they were to ever find one it would be evidence it was engineered… meaning it had an intelligent source.

When we apply these principles to our observations of the universe we find that it does indeed display evidence of engineering in its laws of physics, its systems, and its life. That’s pretty much everything. I’ll be happy to discuss these with anyone who is interested.

Thanks
Brad

Yeah, maybe God works in mysterious ways - to make it all look just like evolution...

 

[Speedwell]

A militant atheist is someone who not only says they don't believe in God, but also are hell bent on wiping out any and all expression of faith towards Him by others who do. They are determined not to allow any public expressions of Him at every turn possible. They want prayer out of sports events, public meetings, and schools. They go out of their way to try and cast people of faith in a negative light especially if that person can present reasonable evidence to believe in a designer. So no I don't care about atheists who just have never seen evidence to convince them there is a creator. I do however care about militant atheists who seem to have made it there mission to try and squash any and all belief in God. Especially the God of the Bible.

So you do think I fall into the category of "militant atheist." Good.

Not random??? So... you've never heard of "Random mutation coupled with natural selection?"

Define "random" in the way that you are using it.
In evolution, "random" refers to the random (bell curve) distribution of reproductive variation.

 

[BradB]

If science has no explanation, why do you trouble to discredit that which you don't think exists? Or deny the evidence which supports it? Romans 1:20 says nothing one way or the other about biblical creationism. It is just as true for those of us who accept biological evolution.
BTW, you will get nowhere at all in this forum if you try to make the creationism/evolution debate into a cosmic struggle between theism and atheism. That is the "big lie" of creationism and the reason many of us find biblical creationism disgusting. Be honest: it's about the Bible, not God.

Wouldn't you agree that the vast masses believe that there is science that supports there hypothesis. So if I know there is no supporting evidence then the burden falls upon me to point that out...doesn't it?

Romans 1:20 tells us through science (aka the study of natural universe) God's invisible attributes are clearly revealed so much so that we are all without excuse.

 

[Speedwell]

Wouldn't you agree that the vast masses believe that there is science that supports there hypothesis. So if I know there is no supporting evidence then the burden falls upon me to point that out...doesn't it?

So far you haven't shown us that you know any such thing.

Romans 1:20 tells us through science (aka the study of natural universe) God's invisible attributes are clearly revealed so much so that we are all without excuse.

Which says nothing about the theory of evolution one way or another.

 

[pitabread]

They want prayer out of sports events, public meetings, and schools.

This has nothing to do with militant atheism. It has to do (in the USA at least) with abiding by constitutional law.

 

[BradB]

I'll run with your SETI example both to affirm some of things you are suggesting, but also where you are going wrong when talking about the universe as a whole.

You're essentially correct in that looking for design involves looking for examples of engineering (or deliberate manufacture). Taking a more reductionist view, the actual detection of design is a form of pattern recognition and pre-existing knowledge. In order to recognize something as engineered you need first a base line with which to make that determination. Often times that baseline involves comparison to other things.

In the case of SETI, astronomers do look for narrow band signals. The reason they do so is because the only known source of narrow band signals are artificially manufactured radio transmitters; e.g. the kind humans make. So they search for narrow band signals (in comparison to other types of signals) based pre-existing knowledge of human radio technology and what those signals would look like. The assumption being that wide-band signals are natural and therefore not a product of intelligence.

Now if I said to you,*all* signals are the result of deliberate design, suddenly SETI has no basis for signal detection any more.

This is the problem with applying this thinking to the universe as a whole. If everything related to the universe is a product of design, what are you comparing it to? The answer... is nothing.

Consequently, when you say this:



Not only is it not a scientific fact, but you have no fundamental claim on which to base that that follows your previous arguments for the detection of design.



As an aside, this has absolutely nothing to do with atheism, militant or otherwise. That's a complete red herring on your part. This is simply about a fundamentally flawed argument.

So then you are saying because we know that only humans can manufacture narrow band radio signals then if we were to observe a narrow band radio signal coming from deep space it must be "human" in origin? I think not. The obvious point is that a narrow band signal would indicate some sort of intelligent source. The notion that I am claiming all signals are intelligently designed is nonsense.

I am saying that if we observe features that have a specific purpose or intent, we are observing the clues of engineering. Obviously not all radio signals display purpose or intent. However a signal that is narrow band does. Say we are walking through the woods and find a stick on the ground. We know that the stick fell from a tree that grew in the shape that it did through random laws of physics. But if we find a stick that has been carved and sanded into a cane we know that a natural object was intelligently formed into that shape. It obviously didn't just fall out of the tree that way. Not everything in the universe displays purpose or intent but enough does to suggest an engineered universe. And that's not just me saying that. Astrophysicist George Ellis commented on the laws of physics. He said "amazing fine tuning occurs in all the laws that makes this possible." He went on to admit that he finds it difficult not to use the word miraculous when describing their complexity. Nobel Prize winner Arno Penzias said "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe with the exact conditions to permit life. One with, you might say, a supernatural plan."

 

[BradB]

Yeah, maybe God works in mysterious ways - to make it all look just like evolution...

Which definition of evolution are you using? The mainstream biologists version, or the over popularized media version?

 

[BradB]

So you do think I fall into the category of "militant atheist." Good.


Define "random" in the way that you are using it.
In evolution, "random" refers to the random (bell curve) distribution of reproductive variation.

Its basic grade school textbook wording friend.

 

[pitabread]

So then you are saying because we know that only humans can manufacture narrow band radio signals then if we were to observe a narrow band radio signal coming from deep space it must be "human" in origin? I think not. The obvious point is that a narrow band signal would indicate some sort of intelligent source.

I don't think you understood my post. Let me try again.

The only source of narrow band signals that we know of are artificially manufactured radio transmitters. Ergo, if we detect those same signals coming from outer space, the assumption is that some other intelligent source manufactured similar sorts of radio signals. That is how SETI is being used to try to detect intelligence elsewhere in the universe. Conversely, wide band signals have natural sources and therefore are not assumed to be the source of intelligent manufacture.

The notion that I am claiming all signals are intelligently designed is nonsense.

That wasn't my point.

Rather, we have a case with SETI where we are using the comparison between knowledge of naturally occurring signals and intelligent sources for signals to determine if signals from other parts of the universe might have intelligence.

My point is that if one claimed that all signal sources are a result of deliberate design, then we no longer have a basis for comparison.

That's essentially the same problem as claiming the entire universe is designed. You don't have anything else to compare it with to make that claim.

I am saying that if we observe features that have a specific purpose or intent, we are observing the clues of engineering. Obviously not all radio signals display purpose or intent. However a signal that is narrow band does.

Again, SETI has *nothing* to do with purpose or intent. Let me repeat that: detection of narrow band signals via the SETI program has nothing to do with purpose or intent.

It purely has to do with knowledge of the source of narrow band and wide band signals, and the fact that the only known sources of narrow band signals are artificial radio transmitters. That's it.

The intent or purpose of any such signals we would receive are completely unknown and quite frankly, utterly irrelevant with respect to inference regarding their source.

Say we are walking through the woods and find a stick on the ground. We know that the stick fell from a tree that grew in the shape that it did through random laws of physics. But if we find a stick that has been carved and sanded into a cane we know that a natural object was intelligently formed into that shape. It obviously didn't just fall out of the tree that way.

This is just a case of pattern recognition based on pre-existing knowledge and comparison with natural versus unnatural objects.

Not everything in the universe displays purpose or intent but enough does to suggest an engineered universe.

Except you don't have a basis to make that claim. There is no basis for comparison for the universe as a whole. Not when we have a sample size of one.

 

[BradB]

So far you haven't shown us that you know any such thing.

Which says nothing about the theory of evolution one way or another.

I never said it says anything about evolution. I said that God says He expects us to be able to clearly detect His existence through a study of science.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Which definition of evolution are you using? The mainstream biologists version, or the over popularized media version?

Which would you prefer?

 

[BradB]

I don't think you understood my post. Let me try again.

The only source of narrow band signals that we know of are artificially manufactured radio transmitters. Ergo, if we detect those same signals coming from outer space, the assumption is that some other intelligent source manufactured similar sorts of radio signals. That is how SETI is being used to try to detect intelligence elsewhere in the universe. Conversely, wide band signals have natural sources and therefore are not assumed to be the source of intelligent manufacture.



That wasn't my point.

Rather, we have a case with SETI where we are using the comparison between knowledge of naturally occurring signals and intelligent sources for signals to determine if signals from other parts of the universe might have intelligence.

My point is that if one claimed that all signal sources are a result of deliberate design, then we no longer have a basis for comparison.

That's essentially the same problem as claiming the entire universe is designed. You don't have anything else to compare it with to make that claim.



Again, SETI has *nothing* to do with purpose or intent. Let me repeat that: detection of narrow band signals via the SETI program has nothing to do with purpose or intent.

It purely has to do with knowledge of the source of narrow band and wide band signals, and the fact that the only known sources of narrow band signals are artificial radio transmitters. That's it.

The intent or purpose of any such signals we would receive are completely unknown and quite frankly, utterly irrelevant with respect to inference regarding their source.



This is just a case of pattern recognition, pre-existing knowledge and comparison with natural versus unnatural objects.



Except you don't have a basis to make that claim. There is no basis for comparison for the universe as a whole. Not when we have a sample size of one.

If an intelligent entity emits a narrow band radio signal he/she is not just passing gas here. They are doing it intentionally with purpose. Therefore when SETI uses narrow band signals as a marker for intelligence then YES they have everything to do with purpose and intent. Stop being so obtuse.

 

[BradB]

Which would you prefer?

Well one agrees with God and the other does not, so I need to know which you are using in order to respond to your remark.

 

[pitabread]

If an intelligent entity emits a narrow band radio signal he/she is not just passing gas here. They are doing it intentionally with purpose. Therefore when SETI uses narrow band signals as a marker for intelligence then YES they have everything to do with purpose and intent. Stop being so obtuse.

There may be a purpose or intent behind the signal, but that is not used for their detection nor the inference of a manufactured source.

The other problem with trying to make inference about the purpose of an object is that it may be transient or variable. For example, I could use a rock as a paperweight, but such purpose has nothing to do with the origin of the rock.

I can't think of any case where purpose or intent is explicitly used for the detection of design or engineering.

 

[Strathos]

I never said it says anything about evolution. I said that God says He expects us to be able to clearly detect His existence through a study of science.

Perhaps it can be said that everything in the universe is designed, but not designed using the same methods. Some types of design are harder to detect than others.

 

[Speedwell]

Its basic grade school textbook wording friend.

Come along, you can do better than that.

No offspring is exactly the same as its parent(s). This difference is called reproductive variation. If you measure the difference in any particular trait across a whole population and plot the results it will form a random distribution, a bell-shaped curve. That is what the "random" in The Theory of Evolution by Random Variation and Natural Selection means.

The schoolboy definition (Merriam-Webster in this case) "lacking a definite plan, purpose, or pattern." does not apply in scientific discourse. Use of the word "random" in science and mathematics makes no statement whatever about purpose or intention, one way or the other.

 

[The Barbarian]

Which definition of evolution are you using? The mainstream biologists version, or the over popularized media version?

Forget Pokemon. Evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population over time. Most people confuse the phenomenon with the cause of evolution, natural selection. And they often confuse the phenomenon of evolution with consequences of evolution, such as common descent and increases in fitness.

 

[The Barbarian]

I never said it says anything about evolution. I said that God says He expects us to be able to clearly detect His existence through a study of science.

What He's telling you in Romans 1:20, is that He can be seen in the things He's made. Which is entirely different than science, which requires training and study to do, and requires no faith whatsoever.

Sometimes, those two entirely different things come together when I'm out by myself in woods or a river, and then it's an epiphany.

This owl and I were old acquaintances; he lived not far from my house. I would fall asleep at night, as he and his mate would hoot, and they had gotten used to me down at the pond in early morning. His young one wasn't too pleased that I was there, though.

That morning, I remember the moment, when my understanding of owls and my appreciation for the world that the Lord made for us, came together. It's an amazing thing. I wish everyone could have it.

 

[The Barbarian]

BradB said: ↑
They want prayer out of sports events, public meetings, and schools.

This has nothing to do with militant atheism. It has to do (in the USA at least) with abiding by constitutional law.

It should be mentioned that prayer is not prohibited in any of those places. My daughter and her friends used to pray before school, and in school where it didn't interfere in teaching. The Constitution only bans government involvement; if the school didn't sponsor the prayers, there was no violation.

 

[The Barbarian]

Thirdly you also cannot forget that the biblical text tells us that a curse came upon all creation because of man’s sin. We don’t know exactly what all that entails, but it would imply that a good many things will have stopped functioning the way in which they were originally designed.

Reading God's statement on this in Genesis, I see that he only mentioned those curses that applied to humans and to the snake, who had also the knowledge of good and evil. But to innocent animals, He made no such curse.