A case for Natural Design

In discussions between proponents of ID and evolutionists, an often heard ID argument is that there is design in living nature and that therefore there must be an intelligent designer. The unspoken assumption is of course that design can only be the product of intelligence.I think that this assumption is unwarranted and lies at the heart of a persistent misapprehension with regard to the nature of evolution. The often made mistake is to think that if evolution is a mindless process then there can be no design resulting from it. Although I think that evolution is indeed a mindless process, I do not think it cannot create design.This perceived (but false) dichotomy between design and evolution is sometimes exacerbated by evolutionists who have themselves fallen victim of this type of thinking. Proponents of ID often feel strengthened in their conviction by the fact that some evolutionists mistakenly maintain that there is no design in nature, where there is clearly an abundance of it.So the prevailing view, at least among lay people in both camps, seems to be that design implies intelligence. I would like to challenge that view. I propose that there is design in nature and that it arose by natural means. The mechanism of evolution is capable of enhancing this natural design to a very sophisticated level, so sophisticated indeed that it's on a par with intelligent (human) design.With this proposal I hope to pull the rug from under ID arguments that use design as evidence of an intelligent designer, as well as from under evolutionist arguments that deny the existence of design altogether. The scope of this topic should be the feasibility of the concept of natural design, the details of how it could have arisen, and any arguments against it.The choice where to place it would be between "Biological Evolution" and "Intelligent Design", I think, but I'll leave that to the admins to decide.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "design." You seem to be using the term to mean "organization." I thought it was supposed to mean a project with an end in view.

to go back to some basics?Although I understand that there are subatomic particles, for this question I'd like to begin with just the elements.Does Entropy make evolution inevitable?As a starting place, once a sufficient amount of hydrogen existed, do the basic laws of physics make it inevitable that some of the hydrogen would be drawn together until density reached a point where atoms would collide to make helium?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

No, I mean design in terms of "having a functional construction". Take the human eye, for example. It has a lens that can be focussed. The lens has the function of concentrating light on the retina in such a way that sharp images are projected. That is it's only function, apparently.Obviously, I don't think natural design has an underlying plan, I've already made it clear that evolution is a mindless process.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

I'm sorry Jar, but I think I outlined the scope of the topic to be about natural design in connection with the evolution of life. Of course we could talk about a designer tinkering with the fundamental laws of physics, but that wasn't my intention. If you'd like to start a thread about it, I'd be happy to join you there, but here I'd like to concentrate on natural design in biology. Let's take physics and everything that follows from it, right up to random mutation and natural selection as a given, and go from there.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

I think it will tie together. If I can show that evolution has to happen, that more complex things must occur, then the basis for building life will be supported.What I was considering are the arguments that seem to come up related to the impossibility of evolution. If the basic laws assure that all of the elements MUST get built up over time, then it become inevitable that natural evolution must also happen. It's not about tinkering with the laws but that the laws assure evolution.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

jar writes:

quote:

---

As a starting place, once a sufficient amount of hydrogen existed, do the basic laws of physics make it inevitable that some of the hydrogen would be drawn together until density reached a point where atoms would collide to make helium?

---

I'm probably raising my nonphysicist head high enough get it lopped off, but wouldn't that depend on what the hydrogen is doing? If the hydrogen is distributed perfectly evenly and is expansively accerlerating, why would the atoms collide? I seem to recall that current theories of cosmogyny include some element of uneven density to explain the clumpiness of the observed universe, whether that be echos of a Big Crunch, local inflation, etc.Guess that may be a quibble (but an awfully big one in implication).. I would answer, yes: given a universe where hydrogen atoms collide, where there is sufficient mass to form stars, and sufficient time for the process to proceed, evolution would be inevitable. Complexity would necessarily emerge, and sentience with it.As to the definition of design (I am resisting the impulse to grab Webster's), it seems to me that the common understanding of a design (as opposed to the process of design) is a plan, blueprint, or template: DNA and the resulting organism fit that understanding well.So perhaps the question and/or the answer is to examine evolution as an emergent property that produces design.Does the process of design require intelligence? Heck, no--committees produce designs with results that resemble many organisms EDIT: Sorry, Parasomnium, if this seems OT--I hadn't read your rejoinder before I clicked it in...This message has been edited by Omnivorous, 07-27-2005 09:10 AM

Okay, so there are these group of frogs with not very long tongues. Then by random mutation a frog is born with a slightly longer tongue. This frog is able to snatch bugs easier than the other frogs, and so it lives and reproduces other frogs with the slighter longer tongue, and eventually the frogs with the shorter tongues die out becuase the longer-tongued frogs eat all the bugs. So the "function" of the construction of the longer tongue was to catch bugs better? It was just by chance that the tongue was able to serve that function. There might have been a mutation that served no function at all or negatively affected its chance of survival.

No, the function of the tongue as a whole is to catch bugs, period. A function doesn't appear overnight. A seemingly endless row of mutations that were selected for has resulted in an organ that happens to be very functional for a particular task. A single mutation usually only slightly changes a design. But a long row of them is what refines the design to its level of sophistication. No, it was only by chance that the tongue, which was already pretty good at catching bugs, had the potential to become slightly better at it. Natural selection did the rest. Yes, there might have been. But such a mutation would obviously not be carried very far in the development of the frogs.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

Out of curiosity, do you know of any thing in nature that is a nonfunctional construction?I understand what you are saying about the human eye, but is the entire human being a functional contruction?IOW, the parts of a machine each have a function, but what is the function of the machine itself.If the machine serves no purpose, wouldn't that demonstrate that there is no underlying plan?I'm not a scientist, so take what I say accordingly.

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

purpledawn:

quote:

---

If the machine serves no purpose, wouldn't that demonstrate that there is no underlying plan?

---

"purpose" and "serve" and "underlying plan" are words that carry a lot of baggage.Reproduction is the function.

Vestigial organs? They may not always have been nonfunctional, but they are now. Right now, I can't think of anything that has never had a function, but I'll give it some more thought. That's a very interesting take on the matter. What an intriguing thought! I'm pressed for time right now, but I'll get back to you on this one, after I have thought it over.This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 28-Jul-2005 08:58 AM

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

Logically, yes.An objection might be that the underlying plan may be to have a machine that serves no purpose. But strangely, by serving no purpose, the machine is serving its (planned) purpose. So, logically, there can be no plan for a machine that serves no purpose. Therefore, if a machine serves no purpose, that demonstrates that there is no underlying plan.The problem is of course to prove that the machine serves absolutely no purpose.In reply to Purpledawn's post, Omnivorous wrote: This is reminiscent of Dawkins' idea of the selfish gene. In this view, the organism is a vehicle for genes and the instrument for their reproduction. So the purpose of the organism - Purpledawn's machine - has been made clear in this view, but the problem remains. It's only pushed back to the level of the genes. For what is the function of the genes?I don't think there is one, they're just there and they reproduce.This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 28-Jul-2005 09:27 AM

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

So we have reproduction as a function of the human machine. The human machine also consumes resources.So our machine consumes resources, produces waste and reproduces.Is the function of our machine necessary to the overall planet or nature?IOW, if our machine is removed from the picture, would any other part of nature then cease to function? I would say no. Actually nature would probably be better off without our machine.Our machine doesn't appear to have a function necessary to a larger planetary view.Is there any part of nature that depends on the function our machine provides?

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France