Does complexity require intelligent design?

I have seen the assertion on this, and other religious debate boards, that the complexity of the universe could only have been achieved by an intelligent designer. This leads me to a specific question:1 - How/Why does (apparent) complexity necessitate an intelligent designer?The apparent intelligence behind the universe's "design" is due to human perception. Sort of like looking at the stars and seeing patterns. Ancient humans saw shapes in the sky and saw visions of Gods, now we know that the constellations are just coincidental arrangements of stars. The apparent design of one group of stars, obscures the that fact that the vast majority of stars are arranged in a random pattern. In fact, focusing on any system that works ignores all of the systems that didn't work. The millions of species that became extinct because they couldn't compete. The millions of planets that were destroyed because they were hit by meteors or comets, and the millions of stars that are too hot or too cold to sustain life.Citizzzen

Moved here by AdminJar.

Everytime this subject of ID comes up a pack of Agnostic and Atheist decend upon it like wolves. ID is considered by many as psuedoscience, in the same camp as creationism. Presupposing a "designer" to the universe is the old God of the Gaps mentality. I like to think that the universe evolved naturally, It is a uncaused, reality. Ironic that some theist also believe that God too is a uncaused reality. How or why does complexity nessitate a intelligent designer is impossible to answer IMO. The anthropic argument is silly and it is obvious that humans probably will always be superstitious and religious creatures. Thats one of the things that makes people so interesting I think.

It has to do with actual relation of physicotheology to physical teleology (the former being perceptual while the latter is not dependent on human activity, per say). But because there is no study in the academy of either, really ,your correct noticing of the difference between the two-is-swamped by Kant's notation that in the end physicotheology is but a propaeduetic or prepartion for theology (hence biology does not inform physics as is classically taught), but as such is "only adequate to this design by the aid of a foreign principle on which it can rely, and not in itself, as its name seems to indicate."Kant Critique of Teleological Judement 85Of course if you refuse to accept the possiblity of any kind of teleological force a priori as Mayr did and Provine seems to have followed a two decades and a half later, not that you do, the seperation might get fused otherwise in your mind even to the point of accounting for the percepts by way of the physical connectivtiy.I suppose if physciotheology were informed by all of modern discussion in creation and evolution it is possible that this phrasing of Kant's need not apply (much more). It is my educated opinion that Croizat's panbiogeographic method DOES provide at least in part this preparation. I have no idea why Quine felt he had to insist that Aristotle's fourth cause does not exist. At least Mayr has not done due dilligence to Bertrand Russel's notions on Kant in terms of geometry of speciation etc,which he could have choosen to deal with in his having to mediate the tension of Wright and Fisher and Ford as editor of "Evolution" in '49. Quine's contribution to set theory felt there was no use for modern propositional functions of Russell beyond some formalisms (in short) and so somehow I think biology never got the chance to find that Croizat's paragon indeed is perceptive in the sense you indicated (as to a Woodger functor say to keep with Russell etc etc) but this would not be a universal thought but one bound to life tracks(etc etc etc) and I can not say if that in particular is absolutely able to answer(yours)... if the naming was necessary as Kant had it. It might be nonetheless.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 03-12-2005 22:45 AM

IMHO, Simplicity is more likely to require intellegent design. The whole goal of good design is to make sure things are no more complicated than absolutely necessary.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

what is complexity?is it whatever appears complex to the human mind? this makes it relative to the observer, the simpler mind seeing more complex structure than the more complex mind ...a lack of understanding? does understanding always result in a simpler answer? (is occams razor always correct?)is it finding a pattern that you feel is important within a cosmos of patterns that are ignored, and then saying look: this pattern is important, for it to have happened needed a creator, it is too complex to ocur naturally? a kaleidoscope makes pretty patterns of a fairly complex degree, and yet it is a perfectly random event (so much so that it is virtually impossible to cause the same pattern to be repeated) -- do we pick one and say it is any more special than all the others?or is there some definition of complexity that can be applied to differentiate designed complexity from random complexity?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Well, I agree with all the above (At least the parts I understood...) I was hoping to get a contradictory opinion, so that I could understand why ID proponents believe in it. If ID is proposed as separate from Christianity, or any other religion, then what is the basis for it? Surely not science... While science regularly proposes ideas for what it can't explain, it then tests those ideas "theories" to see if they hold up... ID proponents seem pretty sure about ID, but I can't imagine what tests they have conducted.If this doesn't draw out contradictory opinions, I may have to double dog dare someone...Citizzzen

I'm not such a proponent, but it's not hard to see why ID is so sedutively compelling. Think about it - setting aside biological systems and living things for a moment, how often do you see complex, interrelated, high-functioning systems arise through any mechanism besides people putting them together?Now, of course that's begging the question. But its a difficult argument to refute - framed as simply as it is, the scientific response is so much more complicated that it fails to be compelling. A simple question demands a simple answer; audiences are likely to view a complicated answer as simply an attempt at a smokescreen.

For every complicated question there is a really simple answer, that answer is always wrong.joy!

heh ... off topic rant: and that is why shwub is president ...(I'll go to my corner now ..)

I kinda like the story of the Gordian knot, though.

If arguments are going to be made for an "intelligent designer", why not an "intelligent design team". Can't the Designer delegate? What's the point of the Heavenly Host if not to do the Designer's bidding?Like Santa's Workshop. So, in my view, any discussion of an Intelligent Designer has to include the probability of design groups and delegated functions. We've assigned every known human attribute to God, so why not his CEO abilities.If you're going to jump off the cliff of absurdity, then make sure you've got a good running start.(:raig

Thanks for that quote, I need a good laugh especially on Monday mornings! Is that an original by you or was it by some other wit?Well, if you have design teams you have to have design meeting, status, methodologies, test teams, QA, ... The list is endless. Could you imagine listening in on a design meeting for (insert favorite absurdity here). LOL! Thanks for brightening my Monday!

Been there. Oxymoron.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

IMHO, Simplicity is more likely to require intellegent design. The whole goal of good design is to make sure things are no more complicated than absolutely necessary.

---

That is something I have been arguing for a while now. Behe, unwittingly, runs into the same problem.In describing the complexity of his Irreducibly Complex biological systems he talks about the comics created by Rube Goldberg. These comics portray insanely complex machines that do very simple tasks. Another example is the overly complex traps that Foghorn Leghorn constructs to kill the dog. Somehow, Behe doesn't see the irony. These comics are funny because it is not how an intelligent designer would design. The simplest arrangement is always the best. Complex systems for simple tasks are frowned upon, and often labelled ad hoc. However, ad hoc systems are EXACTLY what a process such as evolution would create. I think this point should be brought up more often within ID discussions.