"Intelligent Design" - a methodological paradox?

[quatona]

Can someone riddle me this?

I´m wondering if and how we could possibly conclude logically that the Universe and everything in it is designed.

1. Obviously in order to approach this we would first have to have criteria that allow us to meaningfully and reliably distinguish "designed" from "undesigned".
2. As far as I can tell, these criteria must be based on our observations, investigation and experience we make within the universe [based on what (we think) we know is designed and what is undesgned]. IOW: In order to even be able to make this distinction and for developing criteria (we are postulating and presupposing that) there have to be designed and undesigned things (e.g.: a watch is designed, a tree is not). It is the most foundational premise for the entire approach.
3. Now, if we apply these criteria to the universe and arrive at the conclusion that it is designed we are necessarily violating the methodology that has lead us there. The conclusion says: "Everything is designed, there isn´t anything undesigned - so the very criteria and premises that lead to this conclusion were obviously inaccurate, in the first place. The conclusion contradicts its premises.

 

[lesliedellow]

Can someone riddle me this?

I´m wondering if and how we could possibly conclude logically that the Universe and everything in it is designed.

1. Obviously in order to approach this we would first have to have criteria that allow us to meaningfully and reliably distinguish "designed" from "undesigned".
2. As far as I can tell, these criteria must be based on our observations, investigation and experience we make within the universe [based on what (we think) we know is designed and what is undesgned]. IOW: In order to even be able to make this distinction and for developing criteria (we are postulating and presupposing that) there have to be designed and undesigned things (e.g.: a watch is designed, a tree is not). It is the most foundational premise for the entire approach.
3. Now, if we apply these criteria to the universe and arrive at the conclusion that it is designed we are necessarily violating the methodology that has lead us there. The conclusion says: "Everything is designed, there isn´t anything undesigned - so the very criteria and premises that lead to this conclusion were obviously inaccurate, in the first place. The conclusion contradicts its premises.

It would seem unlikely in the extreme that a watch could come together of its own accord, but we have no way of quantifying that unlikelihood.

In the case of the universe, however, we are more fortunate. To take just the one case of gravitation, if gravity had been one part in 10^15 stronger oe weaker, either the universe would have collapsed back in on itself shortly after the big bang, or else stars, and therefore the heavier elements, would have been able to form.

Now you can wriggle out of that by postulating an infinitude of unobserved and unobservable other universes, but if you prefer the hypothesis of an infinite number of unverifiable universes to the hypothesis of one God, then your motives must be philosophical, not scientific.

 

[dysert]

You guys are probably both a bit beyond me, but it seems to me that you can't quantify "design". For example quatona says "a watch is designed, a tree is not". But how can we say either of these things with certainty? Well, we know a watch is designed because we can directly observe a watchmaker doing such a thing. We can't observe a treemaker making a tree, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. For example, although we observe the effects of wind, we don't observe the wind itself - yet it exists.

 

[quatona]

It would seem unlikely in the extreme that a watch could come together of its own accord, but we have no way of quantifying that unlikelihood.

In the case of the universe, however, we are more fortunate. To take just the one case of gravitation, if gravity had been one part in 10^15 stronger oe weaker, either the universe would have collapsed back in on itself shortly after the big bang, or else stars, and therefore the heavier elements, would have been able to form.

Now you can wriggle out of that by postulating an infinitude of unobserved and unobservable other universes, but if you prefer the hypothesis of an infinite number of unverifiable universes to the hypothesis of one God, then your motives must be philosophical, not scientific.

Thanks for your response.
I am tempted to address your points, but since this wasn´t meant to be a general thread about ID but about one specific point, and since I fail to see how your post addresses this point, I will abstain from it for the time being.

 

[quatona]

You guys are probably both a bit beyond me, but it seems to me that you can't quantify "design". For example quatona says "a watch is designed, a tree is not".

Just for clarification: This is not my position - I mentioned it as a kind of statement that is necessary to even get started in the attempt to arrive at a statement about the universe being designed or undesigned.

But how can we say either of these things with certainty? Well, we know a watch is designed because we can directly observe a watchmaker doing such a thing. We can't observe a treemaker making a tree, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Exactly my point: We would base our considerations on unfounded premises (and on top arrive at a conclusion that is in direct contradiction to the premises).

For example, although we observe the effects of wind, we don't observe the wind itself - yet it exists.

Huh? What´s that got to do with anything?

 

[EternalDragon]

It would seem unlikely in the extreme that a watch could come together of its own accord, but we have no way of quantifying that unlikelihood.

In the case of the universe, however, we are more fortunate. To take just the one case of gravitation, if gravity had been one part in 10^15 stronger oe weaker, either the universe would have collapsed back in on itself shortly after the big bang, or else stars, and therefore the heavier elements, would have been able to form.

Now you can wriggle out of that by postulating an infinitude of unobserved and unobservable other universes, but if you prefer the hypothesis of an infinite number of unverifiable universes to the hypothesis of one God, then your motives must be philosophical, not scientific.

Well said.

More specifically to the OP we can also find designs in nature that mimic what humans design. Or that exceed greatly what humans can design at present. Coming to any other conclusion other than ID would be like finding an perfectly intact house after a tornado and trying to postulate that the tornado built the house from the spare parts flying around.

 

[lasthero]

More specifically to the OP we can also find designs in nature that mimic what humans design.

Humans don't design things in the form of a nested hierarchy. That's only observed through flowering lines of descent.

Take, for instance, the ostrich. Most land animals have solid bones, which are good for support - you need them for running, strength, et cetera. The ostrich, however, has hollow bones...like all birds.

If a human were making an ostrich, he would likely give it solid bones, like other land animals. There'd be no reason not to - the ostrich is a land animal, it should have adaptations other land animals have. Birds have hollow bones to aid them in flight, but ostriches don't fly. So building it that way makes little sense.

However, if it's a product of flowering lines of descent, that makes perfect sense - it evolved from an ancestor that was capable of flight.

This explains other things we observe - there's no reason to design chickens with the DNA for teeth, and no reason to design whales with the DNA for making legs. No human would put such things into the design of a creature. But if they came from ancestors with teeth and with legs, finding such things in their DNA makes sense.

Now, I'll freely admit that none of that means a god or gods isn't part of the equation at some level. But if such beings do or did exist are responsible for the life we find, the evidence is strong that they design using evolution as their tool, and they've been doing so for millions of years.

 

[EternalDragon]

Humans don't design things in the form of a nested hierarchy. That's only observed through flowering lines of descent.

Take, for instance, the ostrich. Most land animals have solid bones, which are good for support - you need them for running, strength, et cetera. The ostrich, however, has hollow bones...like all birds.

If a human were making an ostrich, he would likely give it solid bones, like other land animals. There'd be no reason not to - the ostrich is a land animal, it should have adaptations other land animals have. Birds have hollow bones to aid them in flight, but ostriches don't fly. So building it that way makes little sense.

However, if it's a product of flowering lines of descent, that makes perfect sense - it evolved from an ancestor that was capable of flight.

This explains other things we observe - there's no reason to design chickens with the DNA for teeth, and no reason to design whales with the DNA for making legs. No human would put such things into the design of a creature. But if they came from ancestors with teeth and with legs, finding such things in their DNA makes sense.

Now, I'll freely admit that none of that means a god or gods isn't part of the equation at some level. But if such beings do or did exist are responsible for the life we find, the evidence is strong that they design using evolution as their tool, and they've been doing so for millions of years.

First you are observing animals today that have speciated for thousands of years from the original kinds.

Second nested hierarchy does not exist. Maybe in specific species lines but not for all life.

Third, I agree the ostrich could have speciated from another bird. After it's kind. No evolution required and it is still an avian.

 

[AV1611VET]

Two words: Anthropic principle.

 

[EternalDragon]

Two words: Anthropic principle.

That's kind of deep. Interesting read.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's kind of deep. Interesting read.

Ya ... in a nutshell the Anthropic principle says the universe is fine-tuned.

 

[mzungu]

You guys are probably both a bit beyond me, but it seems to me that you can't quantify "design". For example quatona says "a watch is designed, a tree is not". But how can we say either of these things with certainty? Well, we know a watch is designed because we can directly observe a watchmaker doing such a thing. We can't observe a treemaker making a tree, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. For example, although we observe the effects of wind, we don't observe the wind itself - yet it exists.

When creationists failled to convince the Government that creation science was science they came up with ID. Please take the time to watch this informative documentary.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HZzGXnYL5I

 

[lasthero]

First you are observing animals today that have speciated for thousands of years from the original kinds.

What is a 'kind'? And they've been speciating for far longer than thousands of years.

Second nested hierarchy does not exist.

It does.

Third, I agree the ostrich could have speciated from another bird. After it's kind. No evolution required and it is still an avian.

And humans are still mammals. What's your point? And didn't you say in another thread that evolution only happens within species?

Besides, I very distinctly remember you saying that flying birds and non-flying birds were two different kinds. If a flying bird became a flightless bird, that would be an example of one kind becoming another, by your own standard.

Also, we can apply this same logic to bats. Bats have solid bones. Yes, they can fly, but they would fly better if their bones were hollow, like birds are. A human would give them the same bone structure that other flying vertebrates have. There'd be no reason not to. But bats have solid bones, like other mammals do, for the same reason that ostriches and other flightless birds have hollow bones.

When human beings design things, we typically do so in a way that's convenient for us. We don't reinvent the wheel - when something works, we tend to stick with it and employ it in future designs.

 

[Vaccine]

The conclusion says: "Everything is designed, there isn´t anything undesigned - so the very criteria and premises that lead to this conclusion were obviously inaccurate, in the first place. The conclusion contradicts its premises.

They addrress that in the "frequent raised but weak arguments against ID" section of uncommondescent.com.

"It is as a rule very easy to discern when this is happening. If, for example, one begins by assuming that everything in nature must have been designed, then one will “find” design in nature. Equally, if one assumes there is and can be no design in nature – as say Lewontin did –then indeed one will never accept evidence (regardless of its actual strength) that points to such design. In either case, the conclusion is plainly being question-beggingly embedded in the hypothesis, and the error is not that hard to spot. However, while question-begging tautologies do indeed constitute bad reasoning, self-evident first principles – things that once we understand them clearly in light of our experience of the world as intelligent and rational creatures, we see MUST be so — define the necessary conditions for reason itself. But, many Darwinists, on hearing that science requires such metaphysical foundations (they generally don’t know that), begin by denying the fact and end by mistakenly concluding that those foundational assumptions must be tautologies.

The resulting confused debates aptly (and often entertainingly) illustrate the underlying point: we inescapably must reason FROM first principles; we cannot reason our way TO – i.e. “prove” — them.
​

If, on the other hand, a scientist begins with the observation that certain familiar patterns are present in a DNA molecule, s/he can, without begging questions, use the methods of inference to best current explanation to draw inferences about design. Especially since, in every case where we independently know the cause of such precise and complex functional patterns — for instance, this paragraph — they come from intelligence.



Frequently raised but weak arguments against Intelligent Design | Uncommon Descent

​

 

[Vaccine]

*duplicate*

 

[Vaccine]

When creationists failled to convince the Government that creation science was science they came up with ID. Please take the time to watch this informative documentary.

ID is not creationism. They didn't just 'come up' with Intelligent design, ID has been around a lot longer than evolution:
"Galen's (130-200AD) fundamental objective in this large treatise was to demonstrate that the structure of the human body was the direct product of intelligent and divine design."
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/163/3874/1439.short

"In fact, the two theories are radically different. Creationism moves forward: that is, it assumes, asserts or accepts something about God and what he has to say about origins; then interprets nature in that context. Intelligent design moves backward: that is, it observes something interesting in nature (complex, specified information) and then theorises and tests possible ways how that might have come to be. Creationism is faith-based; Intelligent Design is empirically-based."

Frequently raised but weak arguments against Intelligent Design | Uncommon Descent

​

 

[OllieFranz]

First you are observing animals today that have speciated for thousands of years from the original kinds.

Second nested hierarchy does not exist. Maybe in specific species lines but not for all life.

Third, I agree the ostrich could have speciated from another bird. After it's kind. No evolution required and it is still an avian.

Science cannot disprove Special Creation because it can't disprove Last Thursdayism in general. But there are three problems in claiming that your statements are in any way science.

First, speciation = evolution, and evolution = speciation. Your argument is not Creation against Evolution, but Special Creation against Common Descent.

Second, where are the breaks in the nested hierachies that "prove" (or at least provide evidence for) your statement that they do not exist above a certain level? The experts who are actually studying in the relevant fields can trace connections at every level. If such breaks exist they would not be able to do so once they got to these breaks. (I do applaud your efforts, however. If these breaks exist, then your version of Special Creation would not be Last Thursdayism)

Third, without evidence of the nested hierarchies breaking down, Special Creation suffers from the dual problems of any Last Thursday theory. It violates the principle of parsimony without sound evidence, and there is no way to scientifically determine when "Last Thursday" was.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Ya ... in a nutshell the Anthropic principle says the universe is fine-tuned.

It also is a really ego-centric way for humans to view the universe, and it makes the assumption that the universe was created for humans, which has essentially no evidence to support it.

 

[OllieFranz]

They addrress that in the "frequent raised but weak arguments against ID" section of uncommondescent.com.

"It is as a rule very easy to discern when this is happening. If, for example, one begins by assuming that everything in nature must have been designed, then one will “find” design in nature. Equally, if one assumes there is and can be no design in nature – as say Lewontin did –then indeed one will never accept evidence (regardless of its actual strength) that points to such design.

But most scientists don't assume there is no design. They say that there those who propose the ID viewpoint do not give them any objective criteria to judge whether or not an item is designed. Design is a word without meaning, not because there is nothing for it to mean, but because no one has bothered to attach it meaningfully to any observable property.

 

[OllieFranz]

ID is not creationism. They didn't just 'come up' with Intelligent design, ID has been around a lot longer than evolution:
"Galen's (130-200AD) fundamental objective in this large treatise was to demonstrate that the structure of the human body was the direct product of intelligent and divine design."
Galen on the Usefulness of the Parts of the Body. (Peri Chreias Morion.)(De Usu Partium.) Translated from the Greek with an introduction and commentary by Margaret Tallmadge May. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, N. Y., 1968. 2 vols., boxed, xiv + 80

While the Teleological Argument (Argument from Design) has been around much longer as a Theological and Philosophical argument, "Intelligent Design" as a supposedly scientific alternative to evolution was a brainchild of the Discovery Institute. In the Dover case, evidence was presented that both internally and to other champions of Special Creation, it was acknowledged to be a continuation of the "Scientific Creationism" effort (See, for example, the Wedge Document). Evidence was also presented that the DI's primary textbook's earliest drafts expoused "Scientific Creationism," and that the first draft expousing ID, was identical to the previous draft, except for a global "find and replace" of words and phrases such as "designer" instead of "God," and "Intelligent Design" instead of "Scientific Creationism." And that this change occurred about a month after the courts struck down the teaching of "Scientific Creationism."