A case for Natural Design

You are forgetting those poor parasites and bugs that depend solely on humans for their existence. Without humans, some of them will surely die out. Nature will be the poorer for it. If you look at it that way, our function is to keep those bugs happy. Our planet doesn't appear to have a function necessary to a larger solar system view. Our galaxy doesn't appear to have...Could we get back to natural design?This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 28-Jul-2005 02:43 PM

---

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

Parasomnium asks:

quote:

---

Could we get back to natural design?

---

Frankly, I'm not sure what you are looking for here.If we merely discuss how evolution has generated organisms that are marvellously adpated to their environment, the endeavor seems either self-evident (to an evolutionist) or tautological (to a Creationist).We have limited the discussion to the biological realm, ruling out the discussion of universally emergent complexity as the substrate of biologic complexity and the ground of natural/apparent design.We could consider how the processes of natural design parallel those of intelligent (human) design, say, in their mechanisms of refinement, e.g., the reiterative 'blueprint/model' process of RMNS, or the "open design competition" of stress-induced hypermutability. But I don't see how modelling these analogies will pull any rugs out from under ID.Perhaps you could provide a working definition of "natural design?"BTW, IMHO, to say that the function of the organism is reproduction, and that the function of the genes is replication, does not fall into infinite, fruitless regression, but rather pursues the inquiry where the data lead.

What I'm hoping to accomplish is the acknowledgement of two things:

• that there is design in nature;
• that design isn't necessarily a product of intelligence.

With the assertion that "there is design in nature", I do not mean that there is some qualitative aspect of life that merely resembles design, but that it's genuine design we are looking at. Body parts, organs, tissues, etc. have a specific function or purpose, and usually they are designed pretty well for it. If it can be established that the design we see in nature is genuine, then I'd say one rug is pulled. No one will be able to use the argument that ID is rubbish because there is supposedly no design in nature. I think ID is rubbish all right, but for other reasons. It will make for a healthier discussion.With the other assertion, that design isn't necessarily a product of intelligence, I'm tugging at another rug, the one with ID-ers standing on it. I'd like to sever the link between design and intelligence by showing that design - genuine design - can arise without the interference of intelligence. I think I don't need to spell out how acceptance of this assertion would affect ID-ist argumentation. (Not that I harbour any illusions about imminent acceptance in ID-ist circles, but I can at least try.)A working definition of natural design? How about: This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 28-Jul-2005 03:37 PM

---

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

The words we used are loaded with connotations. That is one reason why I like Dawkins' word "designoid" to label these designs that we are calling "natural design" here.An analogy:
If I have a jigsaw puzzle to solve and instead of looking at the picture, the shape of pieces, how the picture colours match and so on I simply take every single piece and try then with every other one in all orientations can I then say that I have "sovled" the puzzle in any way that is like a "good" puzzler would?If I was trying to write a computer program to solve puzzles clearly I could write one to do a puzzle as described above. But would I have done anything that would be considered an advance in AI research? Would it be an "intelligent" puzzle solver?I suggest that pretty much all of us would say no it is not intelligent.However, we try to say that intelligence is involved in the "design" of living things when the "design" approach is exactly like that of my simply minded (so simple as to apply no mind at all) approach to puzzles.In the end the pattern comes out but at no stage was there any intelligence that recognizes that there is a pattern.

There are a couple of kinds of human-specific bacteria that live in our GI tract, aren't there?

quote:

---

A working definition of natural design? How about:

​

"The occurrence of genuine function and/or purpose in living organisms or parts thereof, which arose by natural means, without the help of intelligence."

---

One might consider focusing that definition further. Clearly, ID wants to trade on the synonymic aura of design: plan, intention, desired outcome.The question of an organism's function or purpose veers into the metaphysical or, due to the limits of language, at least leaves a connotative bolt hole. The question of function within the organism, in contrast, can perhaps set that aside: one can put the purpose of the organism as a whole in phenomenological brackets, so to speak, if focused on the organ systems' support of viability."The occurrence of useful and efficient function, realized without the help of intelligence, within the anatomy and physiology of living organisms."NosyNed, I appreciate the analogy: the brute force approach, basically, and thus RM without NS, esp. since puzzle pieces are of a limited number of sizes and shapes, and the solution could "fail" at replicating the original picture but also "succeed" at producing a novel one.

But you cannot get away from physics in your argument, and the reason is that you are positing the properties detailed in physics and chemistry serves as a guiding influence to produce design.There is no way to deny the role of physical properties that fall under chemistry and physics in the process. In other words, the physical design that pre-exists plays a strong role, even in evolution, of biological designs.So the issue, if you want to argue natural design as the sole means of how design occurs, must deal with how the physical world came to be.Do you have a naturalistic explanation of how the universe came into being and remains that way without any assistance from an Intelligent Force, Designer, or Creator?

How it came into being is unimportant, but yes, the laws of physics explain everything from then on.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I would not say that 'how physics came into being' is unimportant, except to say that it is unimportant as a case for natural design.On the other hand, 'how physical laws came into being' is somethign that has no evidence for, one way or another

As I said I'm not a scientist so I tend to forget about that which is invisible to my eye.We have parasites and bacteria that live on or within us. Did these only come to exist after mankind developed or did they exist in some form before.IOW a brand of parasite or bacteria which fed off something else evolved to feed off of this new human machine. If humans die off the parasites and bacteria would probably evolve to feed off another creature. If they don't evolve, then yes they would die out, but does that negatively impact nature overall.So maybe the true function of living machines is to survive by whatever means necessary. No underlying plan on how or when, just however or whenever they manage to adapt. If they don't adapt, they don't survive and are gone like the Dodo bird.Of course this being in the science forum, I'm sure the scientists prefer to discuss with the big words and microwhosits, but wanted to try a hand at a very simplistic view. Simple science.Thanks for talking with me.

---

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

Purpledawn,I realize that my "can we get back to natural design" may have sounded a bit rude to you. I apologize.If a species dies out, I'd say it doesn't impact nature overall, neither negatively nor positively. There are negative and positive aspects of course, but these are 'local' at most, meaning that things may develop in a negative way for a species, which in turn may be a very positive thing for another. If some species hadn't died out in the past (I'm thinking dinosaurs) we might not be here. And some species (your Dodo) have gone extinct because we are here.Incidentally, one might say that evolving into another species is also a kind of dying out.

---

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

But does it necessarily matter in the context of this discussion whether or not the machine/function does serve the greater good? Even a self-serving purpose is still a purpose.

Pars,
Not that the following example is a "living organism", but might be a natural design minus intelligence example:Snowflakes, elaborate design
- no purpose
- no intelligenceDesign and consistency depends on random factors like humidity ("slush" versus the "fairy dust" type).

randman writes:

quote:

---

Do you have a naturalistic explanation of how the universe came into being and remains that way without any assistance from an Intelligent Force, Designer, or Creator?

---

I am not aware of any stasis that requires maintenance.

That's very helpful, thank you. This is exactly what I mean. Maybe it's even a good idea to include some kind of disclaimer about which connotations of the word 'design' are not meant to be considered. I'll think about that.

---

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