The Constraints of Design

For the first time in some months, I’ve managed to find a little time to check out some of the current topics that go towards making this forum so fascinating. One thing doesn’t seem to have changed much though - evolutionists are still asking IDers to produce evidence to substantiate their claims, and still no evidence appears.Indeed, on a couple of occasions I have asked IDers to personally ask their ”prime suspect’ for ”IDer in chief’ how it formulated its grand design. Not surprisingly, I have had no positive responses. As somebody who sees no evidence for the existence of supernatural entities, I predict no such positive response will ever be forthcoming.However, it does not follow that non-IDers should give up on the quest to try to illicit some kind of response from the ID lobby, beyond the perfunctory, “we don’t think natural processes can explain this, therefore it must have been designed”.I want to return to the blind watchmaker analogy employed by William Paley, which contended that if he should happen upon a watch he would have no problem concluding that the watch could not have come into existence without the design input of an intelligent designer . and that apparent complexity observed within nature must similarly point to the work of an intelligent designer.At this point the ID lobby tends to go on the offensive by attacking evolutionary theory without a backward glance to the analogy that underpins the intelligent design argument.So I’d like to ask a couple of questions of IDers regarding the above analogy.They have chosen to draw one inference from the analogy, but surely there are other questions raised by it that require addressing. For example, by analysing the watch in much greater detail, much can be learned about the design (and production) processes, as well as the materials that were used, etc, not to mention the amount of design knowledge that existed at the time the design was formulated. These might all be seen as design constraints placed upon designers whenever they look to design and produce anything.So the first question might be, based on what IDers have observed of the designs they perceive in nature, what design constraints did the intelligent designer have to work with in formulating its ”grand design’? Specifically, what design knowledge was available to it? What materials were available to it? Where did these materials come from?If, at this point, the IDers are tempted to play the ”supernatural’ trump card, I think it’s worth reminding them that this option was not available to Paley’s watchmaker, so for the analogy to have any merit, we need to be comparing like for like.Indeed, the very reason that things need to be designed and then produced is because they cannot be ”magiced’ into existence - evidence of design is in itself evidence of the designer having to work within the constraints of the reality they inhabit and is a clear pointer to the designer having no ”supernatural’ or ”magical’ powers.So the second question would be, do IDers accept the proposition that evidence of design within natural processes would point to a designer working within the constraints imposed upon them by their environment and the lack of any ”supernatural’ or ”magical’ powers on the part of said designer?

Sorry ICANT, but you’re going to have to try a bit harder if you want to be taken seriously. The “my god is great, it can do anything” routine may be fine in the playground, but I’m kind of hoping we can aspire to something a little better around here.Do you want to take some time out and come back with something a bit stronger, or are you happy to rest your case with what you’ve presented?

No. What I want to know is what those who propose an intelligent designer for the world we see about us believe the designs they observe tell them about the designer and what constraints were placed upon that designer by its knowledge base, the materials it had to work with, the processes that were required to implement the design, etc.By dissecting the designs of a human designer, we can answer many of the questions posed above. I think it’s a valid question to ask the proponents of ID to do the same thing.

I guess as a designer you might want to pour more concrete to add strength to a structure, but applying the same principle by repeating the assertion “my god is great, it can do anything” does nothing to strengthen your case.Thanks for your contribution.

I presume you’re saying examination of the perceived design by IDers tells them nothing as regards the questions I pose.However, I get the impression this is because there is a predisposition to believe the intelligent designer is ”unknowable’ rather than from any desire to actually ask the questions.

As I’m sure you’re only too aware, I used the phrase you now object to in the context of what we might commonly expect to hear (hence the parenthesis) in the playground - it is the sentiment I am attributing to you, not the exact words. If you are now telling me that “my god is not so great, it can’t do anything”, I’ll be happy to retract the above and issue a full apology. Stop being so infantile. The “my creator is better than your creator” line may be acceptable in the creationist playground, but you’ve chosen to step out of that and take your place in the real world, so please try to behave in a manner befitting that choice.At no point have I made any claims on behalf of any process or processes, so I have no intention of trying to evaluate two misapprehensions held by you.

No, I’m not holding out too much hope either.In Message 24 you say:- I think this is such a big point - based on what we know of things that are universally accepted as being designed, are things that are not universally accepted as being designed a good fit for what we know about designed things? If they are, then it lends weight to the notion of an intelligent designer in nature, if not it weakens the argument.Some simple examples might be:-Was Paley’s watchmaker a human being who lived and died as part of the environment for which he created his designs? Or was he something else?Did Paley’s watchmaker specify materials and processes that were pre-existing within the environment for which he created his designs? Or did he need to ”create’ new materials and processes to achieve his design?I could go on, but I think the above will suffice to illustrate the point.

Absolutely. So much of what is designed by humans is either to satisfy a need or solve a problem . and by careful examination of those designs, it becomes possible to identify the needs being satisfied or the problems being solved. This process in commonplace in the field of archaeology, where a very great deal can be learned about the way earlier cultures lived simply by examining the artefacts they have left behind.

Just to avoid any ambiguity, I’m not making the case for intelligent design within nature; I’m simply inviting those that do to answer a couple of questions.Which is why I prefer to work back from the proposed design to the proposed designer, asking if there’s anything in the design that would allow judgements to be made about the designer, the environment in which they design and any constraints that would affect what they could actually design.In the scenario you propose, you start with questions regarding multiverses, etc, which is effectively working forward from the proposed designer to the proposed design, with hypothetical assumptions about what said designer might be capable of, etc.In other words, it appears to me you're starting with your hypothesis and surmising what we'd expect to see rather than trying to examine the evidence and form a hypothesis based on your findings.

You’ll have to forgive my ignorance, but I have no idea what you are referring to in the above. Despite the fact I suspect the possibility of a great dollop of ”pseudo science’ is headed my way, I need to ask you to supply more detail.Thanks.

I accept the wording in the OP is a little ambiguous, but when I used the phrase “what design constraints did the intelligent designer have to work with in formulating its ”grand design’?”, it was aimed squarely at those who have already concluded that they detect ID within nature, not the membership as a whole. Similarly, I am asking IDers what constraints, or otherwise, they see when they examine what they conclude is evidence of ID within nature.I hope this helps ”unmuddy’ the waters a little.

I’m going away for a few days, so I’d like to propose a definition of design, based on observations of what we know of things that are universally accepted as being the product of design by ”intelligent’ entities, i.e. Homo sapiens.Design is the process of modifying pre-existing elements, forms, processes or knowledge and ideas. Based on what we observe, design does not involve the ”creation’ of new basic elements or processes, e.g. we see no evidence of any designs that ”reverse’ gravity from an ”attracting’ to a ”repelling’ force.The above is no more than a proposal to try to start the ball rolling. Doubtless others will have very different ideas.

Yip, it doesn’t look like the IDers are coming out to play.But I suppose their whole strategy is based on a guerrilla campaign of black propaganda - attacking evolutionary theory and offering nothing in return that can be subjected to even the most cursory of observation, let alone the scrutiny of scientific rigour.It looks like this debate is about to die on its feet.

No. What you detect is somebody basing a conclusion on what has been observed. It’s a common enough practice. The downside of this practice is that it sometimes forces those who follow it to draw conclusions that do not give them comfort . which is one of the reasons some prefer not to follow this path.The title you have chosen for your post - Prediction falsified! - is kind of interesting. I’ve re-read the original post, in case something I’d written had slipped my mind, but I see nothing approximating a prediction in what I wrote at the time.I’m happy to rectify that now and give you an opportunity to falsify the prediction I am about to make.It’s a prediction about you. I ”predict’ that you were taught about (and bought into) the god you proclaim before you were introduced to any scientific knowledge of any kind, especially the science surrounding the evolution of species.Let me explain why I say that.You were asked to examine the “designs they perceive in nature” and determine whether it was a good fit for the designs formulated by humans. You answered with this:- Before I go any further, can I ask you to cite the natural ”designs’ which allow you to conclude your god is “all knowing” and knows “all design knowledge” and what it is in particular that leads you to that conclusion.There’s also a very significant problem with the claims you make for your god and how good a fit they are for the human designers we observe in real life.You claim your god is “all knowing”. Are human designers “all knowing”? No. Bad fit #1.You claim, “No materials were available in the beginning”. To the best of our knowledge, has any human designer ever produced anything with nothing to work with. No. Bad fit #2.You then claim, “God created the materials through His infinite power”. Do human designers have infinite power? No. Bad fit #3.Finally you claim, “God formulated His grand design in His mind with His logic. Then He spoke and things came into existence”. Is this how human designers operate? No. Bad fit #4.The design you believe you see in nature looks like a pretty bad fit for what we know about design as carried out by human designers, so it’s tough to conclude what is being observed can be classified as design.To summarise, you were asked to examine the evidence and draw a conclusion. Instead you appear to have taken a pre-existing predilection and imposed it upon the ”evidence’ you observe to reinforce your belief structure. That is the basis of my prediction. Of course you can prove me wrong by refuting my suggestion that you were introduced to your god before science, at which point you will have falsified my prediction.Should you not be able to do so, I invite to return to the original post and try to answer the questions as they were posed, not as they best fit your pre-disposition.

Okay. The prediction I very clearly made is that I expected no positive responses from any IDers regarding my request that they personally ask the intelligent designer about how it formulated its grand design. I’m happy to repeat that prediction. To falsify it you would need to produce some evidence of such an exchange and any design information that passed from the intelligent designer to the enquirer. I deliberately put the word ”predict’ in quote marks to show I was not using it literally. It was shorthand for, I don’t know the first thing about you, but if you were to tell me your history now, I predict the part of your life where you are taught about your god predates the part where you start to learn some science. It was a prediction about what I would expect to learn should you choose to impart that information.Incidentally that ”prediction’ and invitation still stand. I’m not afraid of being proved wrong on a public forum. As I’m sure you’re only too aware, the claims made for your god in the bible are wholly unverified and, as far as I’m aware, untestable.I’m not going to address the “just a few..” instances you refer to, as Cavediver has already done so and there is nothing I could add (even if I had the depth of knowledge to do so). The whole basis of the ID argument is in drawing a comparison between observed design by humans and implied design in nature by some alternative agency. You were asked to tell us what examination of the implied design you perceive in nature tells you about the designer. You claim “He is obviously superior. Infinite in fact” - what in the ”design’ leads you to conclude infinity on the part of the designer? The phrase “all knowing” is yours from Message 60, but without the quote marks. I’m sorry, but my read on “all knowing” is to be in possession of all knowledge of all things. You are obviously using the phrase to mean something else. Please clarify. Are you aware of how often you cite how things occur in nature to justify what you believe your god is capable of? It tends to give a mixed message about what might be stirring deep within your sub-conscious. It also reads a bit like, this is how things occur in nature - my god can do these things as well. I’m not sure where you get all this “infinite power” stuff from. It might be common currency in Sunday school lessons, but as far as I’m aware, the universe consists of finite amounts of mass and energy and always has done. No, it’s a really bad fit. Design knowledge and intelligence evolves, in some cases over many centuries or even eons. Had Seymour Cray been born two hundred years earlier he could not have “formulated His grand design in His mind with His logic. Then He spoke and things came into existence”, thus bringing us the Cray supercomputer two centuries before he did. Cray’s contribution to the design intelligence that brought us his supercomputer was relatively small - without the design intelligence that was accumulated over the 150 years that preceded his, there’d have been no supercomputer.Design intelligence is accumulated very slowly and tends to progress in a similar fashion. The idea of something like a universe being formulated in the head of a single entity who then brings its existence about is nothing whatsoever like the way human design evolves . unless you’re suggesting your god took the accumulated design intelligence of many earlier gods and tweaked his universe to suit its tastes or needs . Is this the point at which we say, “oh yes I did, oh no you didn’t”? Clearly I do not accept your refutations, as they do not grasp the distinction between what human design consists of and what you are proposing on behalf of your intelligent designer. This seems like a very defensive position to take. Instead of trying to refute my claim in this instance, you have chosen instead to characterize scientific endeavour as a belief structure similar to your own - the implication in the tone you use is that you see belief structures as being inferior in some way, so science has to be reduced to a belief structure to allow your religious beliefs an equal footing in you eyes.