ICDESIGN, in message 1, writes:
When does design become intelligent? [...] Is a paperclip an intelligent design? Why or why not? Is the space shuttle an intelligent design? If the paperclip is not an intelligent design and the space shuttle is, at what point does design become intelligent?
First some thoughts on these questions.
The idea of a paper-clip can occur to one person. They can perceive a problem with holding together some papers, try to think of a solution and come up with some sort of pinching clip, the ends of which must be rounded so as not to damage the papers, or for the purpose of broadening the pinched surface (or something along those lines).
The space shuttle cannot be conceived in every detail by any one person alone. It contains too many techniques, materials, processes and whatever else you can think of for one person to be able to design the whole thing in every detail. It builds on the cumulative knowledge of hundreds of years of science and technology, and the time is long past when any single person could know everything that was known.
So, the paper-clip can be seen as intelligently designed. It's an apparent deliberate solution to a well-defined problem. The space shuttle, on the other hand, although a magnificent piece of work, is a convolution of designed parts, cobbled-together solutions, serendipitous inventions, discovered principles of chemistry and physics, lucky mistakes, unlucky choices, budget decisions, et cetera, et cetera. Intelligent design is in there somewhere, but it's certainly not the whole story.
So your last question is a misrepresentation of the comparison between a paper-clip and a space shuttle, as far as them being intelligently designed is concerned.
Now, for some meat on the bones.
The above does not detract from the meaning of your question, which I think is "how do we decide whether something is intelligently designed or not". The way you presented it makes it apparent that you think a certain level of complexity is an indicator of intelligence. As I've tried to show, some very simple things are intelligently designed, whereas some very complex things are not - at least not completely. So complexity actually isn't a very good indicator.
I think we should not so much concentrate on the complexity of the end result of a design process, but more on the process itself, i.e. the different ways in which design can arise. Since we like to think in dichotomies let's consider two methods: planned design, and trial and error.
With the first method a designer needs to think things through, set a goal that is to be achieved, and anticipate any problems that might arise. You cannot have planned design without a plan, and you cannot have a plan without a planner.
The trial and error method is different, however. By definition, there can be no set goal, and no plan to achieve it, because you don't know what errors will occur that will steer the process in continually differing directions. And without a goal and a plan there is no need for a planner. All that is needed is a mechanism for generating trials and a testing environment that eliminates the errors. In principle, it can be a purely mechanical process.
Another hallmark of the trial and error method is that the results are sometimes brilliant, but not always. Often, they're just good enough to pass the test to survive until the next trial. Also, once a certain path has been taken that leads to a design like the human eye, with its retinal layer behind the nerve layer - a design that isn't optimal, but suffices - then there's no turning back to correct the error. Mutations in the direction of a reversal of the layers tend to be detrimental and will generally be wiped out.
To sum it up:
Complexity is not necessarily an indicator of intelligent design;
Design can arise in more that one way, and can be a mechanical process;
Sub-optimal designs may be good enough, but cannot be reversed.
I hope this helps.
(added by edit)
An afterthought on the fine-tuning argument: I think the universe is finely tuned to wipe out all life at the earliest possible occasion, but that life is too good at hiding in improbable places for its demise to have happened yet.
Edited by Parasomnium, : No reason given.
Edited by Parasomnium, : No reason given.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
™ Version 4.2
