When does design become intelligent? (AS OF 8/2/10 - CLOSING COMMENTS ONLY)

Hi, ICDESIGN. Perhaps the question would be more accurately phrased, "when does pattern become design?"I think, in the context of this debate, the term "design" is assumed to refer to some kind of intelligence.----- Based on what criteria?If the point is to try to make intelligent design into an objectively defined concept (as your OP seems to suggest is your intent), then it would behoove you to try to make your case for it without appealing to subjective reasoning such as, "____ sounds pretty intelligent to me."What I gather from your OP is that you have so far used three criteria to determine whether some observed pattern is due to intelligent design:

1. It works
2. It does something interesting or remarkable
3. It is complex

You'll note that, not only do these seem to be rather low standards for intelligence, but they are all left completely open to a lot of subjective interpretation.I also don't believe that any of these three criteria can be consistently applied to adequately explain any meaningfully broad range of distinct phenomena.For instance, can you simultaneously argue that both human visual organs and a 10-pound rock fit the three criteria above equally well?If so, then congratulations: your idea seems to be consistent.
If not, then you must accept that either (1) some things (like rocks) are not intelligently designed, or (2) the criteria you seem to be using are not really useful for discerning design and non-design, and those of us who would genuinely like the opportunity to test the possibility that design occurs in nature are still waiting for the Intelligent Design movement to produce criteria that will be useful in such a test.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Ha, the "Real Theory of Evolution"! As if there even is such a thing. And a consensus none the less. What an even more gratuitous bit of nonsense.A supposed theory which accounts for altruism except when it accounts for evil. Which accounts for slow minute changes, except when it accounts for rapid, extreme ones. Which accounts for beauty except when it accounts for ugliness. Which explains why species die out except when it explains why they didn't. Which explains disease resistance except when it doesn't. Which explains for strength except when it explains for weakness. Which is a tree of life, except when it is a bush. Which developed from a single lineage, except if it developed from multiple starting points. Which doesn't know what mechanisms drive it, except that it knows that it must be materialistic.Spare me the pompous argument from, and of ignorance. Your Theory can't be proved wrong, because it doesn't even know what it says. Before you start telling me to know what it says before I disagree with it, perhaps YOU should first decide what it says-because so far, with each and every year that it changes, all it really says is, well, its materialistic in nature-but don't ask us why, or how, or how we know."Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" except when it is evolutionists claiming that they know how life came to be, and that they have a consensus-then no proof at all is required. Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.

That depends: you see Monkey is either a badly defined group, or all apes are Monkeys. Cladists would argue the latter.

To answer your question, I say a design is intelligent, for as long as that design exists without someone being able to give some other CLEAR and exact explanation for how it came to be.Until that happens, it is intelligent in origin.

Hi, Bolder-dash. I think you’re suffering from a misinterpretation of scale here.Evolution is a broad-scale phenomenon. The Theory of Evolution is only meant to explain what will result when there is differential fitness between organisms over time. It has nothing to do with our judgments about what is beautiful and what is ugly; nor about what is good and what is evil.When you refer to these dichotomous ambiguities, you are really only dealing in the finer-scale field of ecology, which has a large number of theories and hypotheses to explain its internal dynamics. Ecological theories are usually based on the concept of fitness. It asks the question of how organisms can be successful when they employ a certain strategy or lifestyle.The Theory of Evolution does not deal with things on this scale. It only considers what will happen (or, more usually, what has happened in the past) when the comparative fitness of multiple organisms is altered over time.That there are multiple ways to achieve fitness is not a weakness of the Theory of Evolution, because ToE is not meant to detail the mechanisms that can lead to fitness. It is only meant to detail the outcome of changing fitness.Does this make sense to you?Perhaps we're getting away from the topic here. Can I suggest we take this to another thread somewhere?Edited by Bluejay, : underlined wrong partEdited by Bluejay, : "phenomenon" instead of "pattern."

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

BD, You can be assured that there is. You can find it by looking in books, something that might account for your lack of familiarity with it. I think you'll find a 100% consensus that we are not descended from turtles. If you want to highlight "gratuitous nonsense", you couldn't hope to find a more perfect example than that.To reiterate, no evolutionist thinks we're descended from bloody turtles. That you characterise us as doing so is laughable. You only make yourself look foolish and ignorant when you attack such ludicrous strawmen. I know that it says we're not descended from turtles. That's just fucking stupid.You are welcome to believe what you like. You can claim anything you like as your opinion, that's your right. But when you represent the opinions of others, you should do so accurately. Misrepresenting other people's claims comes across as either ignorant or dishonest. It makes your wider arguments look silly when you behave this way. Well, not that we're descended from turtles that's for sure. You made that bit up, remember? Remember when you just made that up and typed it? Sure you do...Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

It doesn't matter much whether the explanation (evolution) is clear to YOU. It probably isn't clear to the turtle mentioned above either but that's a reflection of his intelligence, not a measure of how clear the explanation is.Call it a paradox. It takes more intelligence to understand the explanation than it does to see intelligent design.

---

I rode off into the sunset, went all the way around the world and now I\'m back where I started.

You are focusing on the "intelligent" part of "intelligent design". However, the most controversial part is the "design" part.What evolutionists are mainly claiming, is that biological diversity results from evolution, rather than from design. And if there was no design, then the question of whether the design was intelligent is a question that never actually arises.I'll grant that some people see an appearance of design when they look at biological organisms. I don't. It seems clear to me that evolved things are very different from designed things, and that no design, no matter how intelligent, would result in what we see when we examine biological organisms.

So ... "fairy rings" of mushrooms used to be intelligent in origin ... until someone figured out another explanation ... at which point they ceased to be intelligent in origin?Funny world you live in.

Your abject ignorance of the theory is not a weakness of the theory.

Well, it just so happens you are very fortunate, because there is a clear and exact explanation - it's called the Theory of Evolution.Why don't you read some books on the subject (written by evolutionary biologists who have constructed the theory, and not by creationists) and then come back with some intelligent questions about anything you may not understand?

Of all your blithering nonsense, this bit struck me as particularly laughable: There are lots of other "supposed theories" which suffer from the same supposed weakness.For example, the theory of electrodynamics explains why some things are conductors and why some things are insulators. It explains why some things can be magnetized and some can't.The theory of gravity explains why some things (like apples) fall to Earth and other things (such as the Moon) don't. It explains why some things orbit the Sun and other things orbit Jupiter.Chemistry explains why some things (such as chlorine) react with sodium and other things (such as argon) don't.Damn, our evil atheistic science is in such a mess, isn't it? It's adequate to explain all phenomena, which is apparently a weakness.So, please tell us about the superiority of intelligent design. Apparently to be a good theory, it must account for either beauty or ugliness, but not both. Which can't it account for? It can explain either strength or weakness, but not both. Which? It can account for altruism or evil: so please tell us which of these two aspects of reality it fails to account for. Does it explain resistance to disease or susceptibility to disease? --- for, as you have explained, a theory is no good if it can explain both.Does creationism explain the Sun --- or the Moon? Cats --- or dogs? Salt --- or pepper?Let us know when you guys have made up your minds.

So the default position is invisible man with magical powers until someone can explain it better to you?I think the point was, where do you draw the line.Take this example:
Is every rock on earth designed, or did they form naturally?Is every rock that orbits a star designed, or did they form naturally?...and, how can you tell the difference?- Oni

My answer to the question is that anything more organized than things observed which require no intelligence to design by obversation is intelligently designed.For example no intelligence is required for wood to petrify. No design is required for a volcanoe to erupt. No intelligence is required for stalagmites to form in a cave. Such things can form or occur, having the natural resorces in place. We observe them being formed as elements cause them to do so.As for complex organized things, what we observe is disintegration, deterioriation, weakening, a lessening of the varieties of species, increase of disease and so forth.One could give evolutiion a huge head start by skipping on ahead of abiogenesis, placing a thousand fully developed living organisms, having no means of reproduction singly in a thousand perfectly suited terrariums for them (one in each terrarium) to begin the process of evolving and every last one of them would soon die. The unlikelihood of abiogenesis from non life developing would be grossly compounded from these thousand models.I know, this is not considered to be scientific, but it's my answer to the quesion.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Well, it's the case that things we have designed without intelligence include radios, airplanes, cars, robots, jokes, shipment routes, and encryption algorithms. 15 Real-World Applications of Genetic Algorithms – BrainzSo, I'd say that leaves plenty of space for organisms to have evolved without need for intelligent input. If they have no means of reproduction they are by definition not alive, and therefore cannot evolve.