INTELLIGENT DESIGN: An Engineer’s Approach

And when we look at the "design record" of a certain god's work we see that in the first instance of an oversight in the design process, that a different method was used than for all the other animals:When this god had to go back and create the mate he forgot to make for adam, he borrowed from the original design rather than start from scratch, as he did with all the other animals, male and female.This is, IIRC, the only known instance of this "borrowed design" in the record.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Hello, limbosis.

quote:

---

If one could consider a finite designer, wouldn't one want to characterize it before assuming that it got bored and left?

---

Probably a lot less than we would need to characterize a designer before we can postulate that it is mysterious and doesn't want to reveal itself.-

quote:

---

Wouldn't one also consider that designer irresponsible if it left without checking on its creation?

---

Not really. What responsibilities would it have to check on its creation? If it had responsibilities to check on its creation, then maybe it has responsibilities to reveal itself.-

quote:

---

In fair consideration of that possibility, one would not need to initially assume that the designer would have died, or never existed in the first place. That part of your reasoning doesn't make sense to me.

---

What doesn't make sense? There are lots of possible reasons why the designer hasn't revealed itself. Among those possibilities are death and non-existence. So far, you have presented no good reasons to exclude any of these other cases.In fact, I would say that if we don't want to waste time then we should first determine whether there is a reason to assume a designer might have existed to begin with. So far, there doesn't appear to be any good evidence for a designer, so it is a bit premature to wonder why it doesn't reveal itself.-

quote:

---

I would remind you that many creationists would insist that there are signs all over the place.

---

They also believe that the universe is only a few thousand years old, and that there was a global flood despite the very clear and unambiguous evidence otherwise. The fact that creationists insist on anything is not very good evidence.-

quote:

---

There are also indications of alien life here, as reported all over the world by millions of people who do not know each other.

---

Actually, there aren't. There are a lot of con artists and gullible folks out there.-

quote:

---

Are you going to say they're all either lying or mistaken?

---

Yes.-

quote:

---

It wouldn't be your place to.

---

Another interesting notion that you have. Yes, when someone says something that it is incorrect, it is my place to point it out. It is everyone's place to point out mistakes.-

quote:

---

when is everyone who believes in evolution going to express a fair amount of rage, for being publicly deceived with messages about some god that's supposed to be worth a darn.

---

What other people believe is their own business, except when they consent to discuss and debate their beliefs, we are doing here. The only need for "rage" is when people try to force their beliefs on others.

---

Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied. -- Otto von Bismarck

So do boats and planes and submarines. You're simply using this as an excuse not to address my points about unreasonable homologies. Your reasoning isn't simplified, it's fallacious.It's pretty clear you're not able to address my point, hence this nonsense about "cars only" which serves no other purpose. Why don't you just admit it instead of being dishonest?

quote:

---

Don’t underestimate drunks. Some drunk lawyers have made minced meat of sober ones in court. Some priceless works of arts were made by drunkards. Ha ha ha! Ha!

---

Well, when you finally sober up, you'll probably see that your post really doesn't address any of the issues that we are discussing vis a vis the opening post.Let me try to explain this again. I am a teacher, so I am patient. I will continue to repeat the explanation as long as it takes for you to understand it, or until you decide to take the "F" and go on to other things.Here is the part of the OP which I have been discussing: So the question we have been discussing, or at least the question I have been discussing in this subthread, is: is the existence of common designs among different species evidence for an intelligent designer?I am claiming that the answer is no: this is not evidence for an intelligent designer. The reason is that the pattern of the evidence is different from what we see in designed, manufactured items, but very similar to what we see in things that are not consciously designed but are the result of descent with small modifications.Let us take an example of something we know already is the result of descent with small modifications: languages, and to be specific let us look at the Romance Languages. We know that the different Romance languages and dialects are the result of descent with small modifications because we actually have a historical written record of the evolution of Vulgar Latin into the different Romance languages. We can actually trace the evolution of these dialects in peoples' writings and see how each generation learns a copy of the preceding generation's language, but with small changes here and there.For this reason, we see that many different Romance dialects share many features in common. Is this because some designer sat down and designed each and every one of these languages? No, the common features result simply because various dialects share a common ancestral dialect, and even these ancestral dialects share a common ancestor.And what do we see? We see that these dialects can be placed in a unique nested hierarchical pattern.Now let us take something that we already know is not the result of descent with small modifications but is the result of the design and manufacuring process similar to the cars in the OP, namely, clocks. Examine all the different features a clock can have: hands on a dial vs. digital; spring driven vs. weight driven vs. battery powered; strap onto the wrist vs. carry in a pocket vs. set on a table vs. set on the floor vs. set in a very tall tower; calendar or no, second hand or no; different face styles; different additional features; and so on. Get different people to try to come up with a nested hierarchy for any set of watches. My guess is that each of these people will come up with a very different hierarchy.So this is what we expect. Things that are the product of descent with small modifications should show a unique nested hierarchical pattern; we can even see why this should be the case. Things that are the product of an individual act of design, even when designed features are copied from previous existing items, do not show a unique nested hierarchy. So now, what do we see in the classification of living species? We see a unique nested hierarchy. This indicates that each species or each kind is not an individual act of creation or design, but the result of descent with modification.What is more, we already know that descent with small modification is done naturally, without the need for an individual conscious act of creation, like, say, the medieval manuscript being the result of a human copyist. We already know the living organisms make copies of themselves -- this is called reproduction. Furthermore, we already know that the copies are not perfect -- these small differences from the previous copy are called genetic mutations.So, the question: are the fact that different features found in different organisms evidence of a conscious designer who reuses designs in its creations?The answer: no, the pattern found in the common features are more similar to what we expect in common descent with small modifications, and, furthermore, we already know that descent with small modifications occur naturally in living organisms without intelligent intervention.So, no matter what one may talk about "economy" or "efficiency", the fact that different species have features in common is not evidence that the different species were designed by a common designer.

---

Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied. -- Otto von Bismarck

Yes, every creature. I would agree about the stock, unless the designer had to take things like population control or intended prevalence into account. That's difficult to comment on. Yes, in the brainstorming or workshop process, ideas are welcome. But, when a design is agreed upon, the implementor would need to faithfully stick to that. That's true, sometimes, even when some better design presents itself too far along into the "prototype" stage. I wouldn't pretend to know of some other economic consideration that might have been in play at the time we were spawned. Yet, there may very well have been some constraints that we could not even fathom well, much less discuss.

Another good point.Just let me add that we are all the product of a fairly remarkable design. I wouldn't take anything away from that. Earlier, I wrote to someone that we would have to look like something. This happens to be it. I wouldn't know how to evaluate humans without an appropriate, unguarded context. Sure we can all nitpick. But, my focus is more on clandestine behavior.

Thank you, that's pretty helpful. In the context of DNA, would you deny that there may be rules for syntax and command that would need to be strictly obeyed?That's not to mention the big assumption that the designer would have an ability to withdraw a particular version. Nothing wrong with assumptions at times, if they can be backed up with some logic. In this case, what if you had to give any design a standing chance to respond to its environment and stabilize before you could reliably evaluate its merit? In a Jurassic Parky sense, retracting designs may never be an option.

Are we talking about design by committee now? Why? So you are talking about design by trial-and-error.-------------I have a lot of trouble reconciling the design of every living creature on the face of the earth with such a grossly limited "designer". I think most IDists would be disappointed in your conception of the "intelligent" designer, too.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Chiroptera, I do see where you're coming form, and I can empathize. And, at no surprise to me, the position I take seems to be ambiguous to some. So, let me outline my argument as pragmatically as I can.I believe that there are one or more designers, call them gods if you like. But, I believe our designers are evil. More specifically, I believe that most humans would find them to be evil, once the true circumstances were revealed. It's an unpleasant argument, and one that doesn't have a place to go in most people's heads. However, if given enough time, one begins to see that it makes more and more sense when one considers the things that go on in this world. One would not be expected to immediately appreciate the value of this POV, especially since it seems so negative at the outset. Nevertheless, there are a number of ways to group premises that lead to this conclusion. Here's one example:1) The god to which the bible refers could be one of at least three permutations, a hoax, an honest god, or a deceptive god.2) We see that referenced god pitting three of its religions against each other, without direction or apparent regard.Conclusion: That referenced god is either a hoax or a deceptive god.So, when you say things like this: I would say that characterizing our designer wouldn't be hard to do.And, when you say I would say, not if it was self-serving, malicious to us, and almost entirely corrupt as we would see it. I can see the death part. But, whether you're talking about our death or its death, it doesn't seem to follow because newer generations live on.And, that non-existence thing, I still don't get what you mean with that. Is there something more to the thought that you're not offering?With the remainder of your remarks, it's clear that you reject the claims of religion. And I say, maybe that's ultimately because the idea of a benevolent god is a great deception, one way or another.Now let the onslaught begin.

quote:

---

I believe that there are one or more designers, call them gods if you like. But, I believe our designers are evil.

---

This is an interesting claim, but not very new. The Gnostics beleived that the demiurge that created the world was basically evil. And, of course, conspiracy theories are pretty common. Not to mention that Lovecraft pretty much invented the modern genre.But in the end, what is needed is good, solid evidence to support claims such as this. If there is no evidence in favor of such a claim, and if the phenomena under investigation easily have more mundane explanations, then I don't see what the invention of "evil creators" really does for us.

---

Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied. -- Otto von Bismarck

Joining the discussion late, but late is better then never.Hello limbosis, nice to meet you.Thank you for clarifying your position limbosis. Here are a few questions about your beliefs from a scientific point of view. Is this God "intelligent," and what is meant by intelligent? How were the species orginally created, and when?As for your question-

quote:

---

But, what I'd also like to know is, when is everyone who believes in evolution going to express a fair amount of rage, for being publicly deceived with messages about some god that's supposed to be worth a darn. Don't you think that's in order?

---

I don't believe anyone in evolution will express either rage, surprise, or concern over such a proposition, because the nature of the creator has nothing to do with science, and will have no influence on scientific thought. Science is concerned with understanding the nature of the world- what some may call the product of the creator. Science wishes to describe the world through set rules and relationships. Whether these relationships were created by a benevolent or malevolent being or by no being at all is inconsequential to understanding these relationships.So why did I ask the questions above? The questions I asked are scientifically important questions for which we can give definite answers based on evidence. If you are claiming that several evil beings created the world 4.5 billion years ago in an incompetant and constantly modified way, and additionally that this modification happens slowly through the means of natural selection, then you are basically describing the evolutionary process, with an minor extra bit about evil beings.

quote:

---

Newer designs appear to have originated as modified copies of earlier plans.

---

This statement makes no sense without a tree of common decent. How do you define "newer" and "earlier" plans? Most views to date that I have heard concerning designers involve everything being created at the beginning moment in time. In this case, the same blueprint may be used for many organisms, but it is unclear how to determine which designs are "newer." This is perfectly explained by a common ancestor tree, as this naturally groups older and newer models.Considering that there is no older or younger in a design argument, then any position that argues for a designer based on an analogy with modern engineer companies that can modify designs falls apart. Unless it is argued that the designers modify designs after they are made. In which case it must be asked how do they modify designs? In which case the answer is natural selection, and we are back to something that looks a lot like an evolutionary viewpoint.

quote:

---

Parenthetically, how it gives anyone the notion that DNA lends credibility to the theory of evolution is still beyond me.

---

Since this concern has not been directly and succinctly addressed, I will attempt to do so. DNA gives a mechanism by which organisms can be modified through time. It describes how genes can be passed on and changed in the process. This is the neccessary basis for evolution. With these mechanisms in place, there is no longer a need to ask for a designer, we can describe how all organisms evolve from one original ancestor.One further point against a designer- vestigial parts. Why do some creatures have parts that they no longer use? No one would ever design a car with a lead pipe sticking out of the back which a) serves no purpose and b) may actually decrease the cars efficieny. Yet these cases are commonplace in biology, and perfectly reasonable things to expect if all organisms have been and are currently evolving from one state to another.The only other explanation is a very stupid designer.

I think that DNA has syntax only in a fairly limited sense. There are four symbols and "rules" on how these are translated into amino acids. There are "stop codons" which stop transcription. There are other factors involved which somehow control which areas of DNA are transcribed, also the products of some genes somehow affect transcription activity. It's a complicated process and very much an interaction between the DNA and it's environment. And that is pretty much the limit of my knowledge. YOu'd need a developmental biologist to tell you the details.On your other point, I am not suggesting "retracting" a design. The lifeforms based on that design could certainly be allowed to continue. What I mean is that a "new generation" of lifeforms with some radical redesign work would be expected appear from time to time. There comes a time when just tinkering with the current models gets to be more trouble than it's worth.

Limbosis, I can think of at least one more possibility - a work of collective self deception based on natural ethnocentrism and innate need to explain the world.

I'm wouldn't doubt that a lot of people in this age, have considered it. It struck me when I first got a sense of the magnitude of corruption in this world. I know that alone doesn't prove the existence of an evil god. But, it certainly suggests the possibility.I had heard of H.P. Lovecraft, but have not read or listened to anything by him or her. Is there a story you would recommend? Is there a main theme, or a common thread in his/her writing? Heh, I don't imagine it would anything for us. But, don't be mistaken into believing that any explanation is likelier if it is simpler, more mundane, or easier to swallow. That is simply not true. Or, should I say, that is complicatedly not true. By the way, in this world, the lack or scarcity of evidence doesn't have much to do with things either.