How can we tell Intelligent design from non Intelligent design?

[Arikay]

This is an offshoot from the Dover thread.

The question to those that support intelligent design,
How can we tell if something is intelligently designed?

 

[Electric Sceptic]

This is an offshoot from the Dover thread.

The question to those that support intelligent design,
How can we tell if something is intelligently designed?

Firstly, can we define 'design' in this context? I think one of the problems in discussing this issue, particularly on these boards, is the question of the definition of design. For example, scientist will often say that evolution produces 'designed' things, such as the brain. When they say that, they are specifically referring to unintelligent design, as in Dawkins' blind watchmaker. Similarly, biomimeticists sometimes talk of mimicking the 'design' found in nature. Again, by this they merely mean that design which is produced by unintelligent evolution.

Yet people like John Crawford leap from this common use of 'design', which has a specific, well-defined meaning, to assuming intelligent design. It's one of the reasons why on religious boards I don't like to use the term 'design' at all, since it asks for just that type of misunderstanding (or intentional misuse).

 

[GoSeminoles!]

This is an offshoot from the Dover thread.

The question to those that support intelligent design,
How can we tell if something is intelligently designed?

It's not just a good question, it's the central question. Here is an example. How do we know that Stonehenge is not a natural structure and how do we know whales were not the product of ID?

Stonehenge

First, let's learn about the properties of Stonehenge. There are lots of large stones perpendicular to the ground, arranged in a near perfect circle, some of which line up with various celestial or calendrical events.

Is it the product of a natural process? Unlikely because we do not know of any natural geological process that can yield what we see. A natural process may exist, we just don't know about it yet.

Is it the result of an intelligent effort? Almost certainly yes, for 3 reasons. First, we know that humans are capable of building such structures. Second, we know that humans inhabited that area. Third, we know that humans in that era had good motivation to build such structures.

Because we do not know of any natural process that could have produced Stonehenge and because we know humans lived in that part of the world at that time and were fully capable of building it, it is reasonable to conclude that Stonehenge is the product of intelligent design and not nature.


Whales

Are whales the product of a natural process? First, we know of a natural process (natural selection) that could turn sinonyx into modern cetaceans over a period of millions of years. Second, we can see the results of this process through the many intermediate fossil forms during the period in which whales gradually appeared. Third, we can see the process of natural selection operating today. Fourth, we do not know of any reason why this process would not have been working millions of years ago or would not have been operating on whales.

Are whales the product of an intelligent design? First, we do not know of any intelligent beings in the universe which existed millions of years ago. Second, if such beings did exist we have no evidence they visited earth. Third, if such beings visited earth, we have no evidence they engaged in genetic experiments on to produce whales or any other creatures. Fourth, if such beings did design and create whales, they did so in gradual stages that are indistinguishable from natural selection.

Since we know of a natural process capable of producing whales and we do not have evidence that any intelligence designers exist or visited earth in the distant path, the reasonable conclusion is that whales are the product of a natural process.

 

[Clem is Me]

But you guys don't support ID...

 

[john crawford]

This is an offshoot from the Dover thread.

The question to those that support intelligent design,
How can we tell if something is intelligently designed?

1 Structural strength and endurance
2 Functionability of design
3 Purpose
4 Environmental Interconnectedness or Relationship
5 Sytematic action

tbc

 

[Clem is Me]

The problem here is that non intelligence doesn't design.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

1 Structural strength and endurance
2 Functionability of design
3 Purpose
4 Environmental Interconnectedness or Relationship
5 Sytematic action

tbc

I hope the list gets better, because so far it's completely useless.

 

[john crawford]

The problem here is that non intelligence doesn't design.

The problem for who?

Anything in nature that exhibits any traces of design elements is either naturally man-made or has otherwise naturally evolved to do so according to its own level of intelligence.

 

[john crawford]

I hope the list gets better, because so far it's completely useless.

Useless for who? It is certainly useful for an intelligent designer.

Add something intelligent to the list if it doesn't please your fancy so far.

 

[Arikay]

Can you expand on these points?

What does structural strength and endurance mean?
Does that mean that anything with structural strength and endurance is intelligently designed?

Purpose, what does that mean?
anything with a "purpose" is intelligently designed?

Etc.

1 Structural strength and endurance
2 Functionability of design
3 Purpose
4 Environmental Interconnectedness or Relationship
5 Sytematic action

tbc

 

[Clem is Me]

The problem for who?

Anything in nature that exhibits any traces of design elements is either naturally man-made or has otherwise naturally evolved to do so according to its own level of intelligence.

Something that has evolved has not been designed. Evolution is an effect. It has no desire. Design implies desire.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

Useless for who? It is certainly useful for an intelligent designer.

Useless to everyone. We're looking for how to recognise intelligent design; consequently whether or not it's useful for the intelligent designer is irrelevant.

Add something intelligent to the list if it doesn't please your fancy so far.

No, that's your job. You're the one claiming we can recognise intelligent design. I'm waiting for you to come up with a comprehensive list, and then to support why you claim that the criteria on it lead to intelligently designed artifacts.

 

[john crawford]

Can you expand on these points?

What does structural strength and endurance mean?
Does that mean that anything with structural strength and endurance is intelligently designed?

Purpose, what does that mean?
anything with a "purpose" is intelligently designed?

Etc.

Why don't you read up on structural engineering and web design?

The science of intelligently designed structures and functions has been around since time immemorial.

Where have you been? Studying unintelligent evolution all these years?

 

[john crawford]

Something that has evolved has not been designed. Evolution is an effect. It has no desire. Design implies desire.

Denying the intelligent evolution of your intelligent mind and brain again, huh?

 

[Electric Sceptic]

Studying unintelligent evolution all these years?

There is no other kind of evolution.

 

[john crawford]

Useless to everyone. We're looking for how to recognise intelligent design; consequently whether or not it's useful for the intelligent designer is irrelevant.

No, that's your job. You're the one claiming we can recognise intelligent design. I'm waiting for you to come up with a comprehensive list, and then to support why you claim that the criteria on it lead to intelligently designed artifacts.

I never claimed that you personally could recognize intelligent design. One has to become educated in the subject in order for it to become relevant to any one other than an intelligent designer of anything, I suppose.

You don't seem able to comprehend the first 5 elements of design on the list.

 

[Arikay]

So, John, can you actually expand on those points or not?

 

[Electric Sceptic]

I never claimed that you personally could recognize intelligent design. One has to become educated in the subject in order for it to become relevant to any one other than an intelligent designer of anything, I suppose.

You don't seem able to comprehend the first 5 elements of design on the list.

In weeks of trying, you have so far offered absolutely nothing to support the idea of intelligent design. You have consistently failed to even define what you're talking about, and much of what you have said has left many of us with the impression that you don't know what ID even is.

 

[john crawford]

There is no other kind of evolution.

Ha, ha ha ha. That sounds like the first commandment of the science of unintelligent human evolution.

There is no god but allah.

 

[john crawford]

So, John, can you actually expand on those points or not?

What's the point? Skeptics consider them irrelevent anyway.

How can one even discuss them with persons who have evolved as a matter of course, if not design, by naturally unintelligent, non-intentional and irrational processes?