Intelligent Design or unthinking blasphemy?

Where did the trial and error part come from. Why does design need trial and error?

But if God is all knowing why would he need to test something first? God would have just said. I am going to create a human that does things like this. That would be god implementing his human design. Naturally, this process does not emulate human design exactly - nothing that God does is humanlike - He's perfect! Unless the agent that created the design is perfect.You also miss another trick. God might have created things with trial and error - theistic evolution style - since that is the most perfect design method! God, in His wisdom let the evolution process go about its business, but bridged any gaps that were insurmountable by the process. We aren't all knowing, so how would we know that this isn't the best way for God to have done things?

I believe it just means we can't get any specifics. ID doesn't comment on how the design was implemented nor does it say "If a human were designing this then...". It postulates that natural and unintelligent processes with no goal or design in mind can not acheive the complex designs we see in biological forms.

Why? Its not 'more complex than human designs', its simply design that it is not possible for nature to create on its own. If nature cannot emulate it, it is probably because of some kind of complexity. Human design is different from Beaver design, is different from evolutionary design. Design is design, why create new words for each different methodology?

Because it is an Agent conceiving of an end product. This is going to go around in circles There is not necessarily the need to design like a human designs. There is merely the conception of a perfect design (noun not verb) followed by its implementation. That's a theological question. Why did God bother with the whole thing in the first place? Beats the crap out of me, and the motivations of God are beyond us. This is the one question that I always wished the major religions answered. Yes, it is very difficult to infer. However, some hope to show that an end product was preconceived by an agent by showing that an unintelligent process cannot design things at certain levels of complexity. In all fairness, we don't know that no evidence exists, we just know that no evidence has so far been found. If God designed the universe there may be signs, but an entity with that kind of power can just as easily hide them should he choose. Perhaps getting a definitive answer one way or another would ruin the purpose behind this farce? OK, passing over the purpose issue since it has been addressed (either to your satisfaction or othewise), are you suggesting that evolutionary methods used to design objects are not design?Removing God and ID from the equation the purpose of the design of living organisms is to replicate DNA. And an omnipotent being need not worry about 'effort' - it gives us wonder and gives cosmologists a job - which might be part of the purpose. You make the assumption that your reason the universe was created is the complete and total reason. If we do not know the full story, then we cannot judge if it is perfect, we can only take His word for it. That's a characteristic of human design, not design. Perhaps, but I'm not changing the word design - you are the one that is limiting design to human methods of design as if there weren't other methods. We both agree there is at least one other design method - evolution. I imagine you realize now how you are not in a position to judge whether or not there is unneeded complexity since you don't know the purpose. Effort is irrelevant. Are you sure? Would we have done the same things and had the same history if that were the case? How do you know that the course of humanity is not part of the purpose behind it all?

Why create a new word just for God's methodology? I don't think the word design is just a human oriented word though. Non human things can design stuff, so why this anthocentric view?

I saw that, but didn't see it as relevant - I have listed several non-human orientated design methods. There is conceivably more than I have not thought of...God based design being one of them. Why create a new word for God-design? Its still design, its just a different methodology, like Beaver design is different methodology and evolutionary design is different from them both.Talking about God in terms of our experiences and knowledge is not blasphemous, its human. Otherwise God is blasphemous for sending himself down in Human form and teaching us parables to understand things. That's if you define design as being something that means having to test something first. I simply don't see why that has to be the case. You can create a new word for it if you must, but Intelligent Design conveys the meaning elegantly and simply. It means people who have never come across the concept before can quickly and easily understand the principle.Design, to me, implies a preconceived idea on how something will be before making it. God conceives the human form and its workings, and then makes it. That is God-based design. Or, God has the conception of the human design and tweaks evolution to attain that end. He has the product held in His mind - that is the design.

Indeed. Evolution is the epitome of trial and error, beaver is slightly trial and error but with some forethought/instinct and humans have a lot of forethought, but still require trial and error. God can be seen as the epitome of forethought with no need for error. The first trial is right.Think on it like this: I want to design a transportation device. I am perfect. So I conceive in my head of the perfect car design. I then build it. It is perfect and transports things in the best way that can possibly be done.
Did I or did I not design this transportation device? When I win an award will someone talk about the amazing device that is the design of the amazing Modulous?Personally, I would consider that an example of perfect forethought design without the need for error, just trial. I don't see why, if perfection is possible, designs have to be flawed in their first implementation to be considered design. I have a body plan, it is a design. If an entity had the forethought to create me, it must have thought about what it was going to create first, then created it. Well, maybe it did do it some other way, but its not blasphemous to consider that God thought about creating man, how man would be built and what man's purpose would be, and then created it. The creation is perfect because the plan is perfect. But you are still clinging to the idea that design is a human (or animal etc...) only characteristic, and I don't see why the idea that God actually conceived of man (designed him) before building him would be considered blasphemous.I mean - God is Wrath, but he is also Mercy and Love. These are human characteristics that we ascribe to God. Only God is ultimate Wrath and total Mercy. So I fail to see the problem with considering him the paragon of design. He thinks it up (designs it in his head) and then builds it. I never got that, because I don't see why design has to be trial and error. We might think of it that we because we are crap designers. The better the designers we are, the less errors. If we are perfect, there are by definition no errors.Ringo, your God-blindness is clearly keeping you from understanding the perfection of God and its ramifications. Wait, perhaps I'm taking the devil's advocate position too far. That said - I stick by what I say - from the Christian ID point of view there is nothing blasphemous about considering God as the paragon of designers.

---

The confusion might lie in the way we look at this.Humans are designed. Everybody agrees that there is a design to the human body. And I mean design in the noun sense. As in (from American Heritage)

quote:

---

A basic scheme or pattern that affects and controls function or development

---

So there is a design. There must something that created this design. Perhaps it was a process of 0 forethought design (eg evolution). Thus evolution/nature is the designer.Or perhaps something that had some forethought designed it, but there was some trial and error (eg aliens). Thus an extraterrestrial designed us, but also a design process (which is a weak evolutionary process) was used.Or finally perhaps it was something that had 100% forethought and some kind of ultimate plan (eg God). Thus God designed us.Given that religion probably started because of the design argument (there must something behind this order...) I fail to see how it can blasphemous to subscribe to the design argument...some pretty big religious leaders would have committed blasphemey Also consider the verb definition of design, from the same dictionary.

quote:

---

1. To conceive or fashion in the mind; invent: design a good excuse for not attending the conference.
4. To have as a goal or purpose; intend.
5. To create or execute in an artistic or highly skilled manner.

---

These are the definition Christian IDers use when they talk of design.
For example, in 1) we see someone fashioning it in their mind. Now when we fashion in our minds we still throw out bad designs, and modify the good ones. But what if the first concept we have is the right one, does it suddenly stop being a design?Well maybe. But then look at 4) This is the big one - ID is contrasted to evolution since evolution has no plan, no goal and no purpose. ID says that there is a plan, there is a goal there is a purpose, that is to say there is a design and the designer is its architect. We did not arrive here in a planless goalless manner, but at the deliberate design of entity X.You seem stuck this definition

quote:

---

2. To plan out in systematic, usually graphic form: design a building; design a computer program.

---

And cannot seem to think of a non-systematic design.Our body has a design. The architect of that design is the designer, he may not have systematcally gone "oops too much haem, reduce that a bit next time", he may simply said, we'll need a brain, which we'll put near the eyes, we'll put the nose there too, and the ears. In fact lets stick the mouth there too, keep it all together. It would be good to see what we are eating and smell it. This'll all be housed in the skull, which we'll cover in skin which...If that's not designing something then I don't know what is I'm afraid.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

That's not really the point. Obviously man is flawed - but the whole point of the design the ultimate purpose. We are talking about God making mistakes and the implications of that. We know that God feels remorseful about stuff and the like, but all that is besides the point. I'm merely pointing out that it is perfectly possibly to be perfect, and design and create a final product. Theological technicalities such as God seems to make mistakes etc are not in the remit of my discussion, though it is another flaw in the reasoning that it is blasphemy to consider God as something that makes mistakes.

Don't forget that I'm perfect. Perhaps being perfect is magical, but that's not really the point is it? So, as far as you are concerned it is magic for an error free entity to design something without error. You should read the next sentence...."Well, maybe it did do it some other way" So now God cannot think, he can only act? I think we are talking about some really messed up entity here, and is certainly well beyond any Biblical God, who has opinions and thoughts. If God has no forethought then you would be right. Would you like to check the Bible with me to see if God 'thinks ahead'? Probably yes. But this was in retort to the supposed blasphemy of ascribing human qualities to God. In itself, it is not necessarily blasphemy. Saying that God designs stuff is no different than saying God is an architect, a creator, a forgiver, a judge. Nay the architect, the creator, the forgiver, the judge. Are these occupations blasphemous considerations for God? You are asking a human to give you an example of god-design. Sound like a reasonable request to you? If I could, I'd probably be God. I have shown you how design the noun does not imply trial and error and how it is used to demonstrate intent and purpose in contrast to the purposelessness of evolution. I really don't see what else can be acheived. As far as I am aware it has held true as a good axiom for everything else, including biology. The creator doesn't have to be sentient. It sounds like you are just arbitrarily defining away the problem, leaving us with not room for discussion. So, if there was 99.99999999999% forethought, but a little bit of error, that's design. But if you get it right first time, its not design it becomes magic. Why does it become magic? You'll need to justify your decision to call it magic. They aren't vague, they are quite specific. Design is used to contrast against purposelessness. It is used to indicate a plan, forethought and intent. Things which God certainly possesses. Lesson: laypersons aren't really qualified.When we look at the debate, what the IDers are actually saying it becomes clear that design just means it was 'intentional' - there was an intelligence behind the design (noun). It is not specific because ID is designed to be a general concept. It is very well designed to wash its hands of religion, while at the same time being basically compatible with them all. I don't think argument by etymology will work here. Obviously the human concept of design is routed in human methods of design, the meaning in ID is not Intelligent Drawer. Besides I was under the impression that it came from the Latin 'to mark' (ie designate) A design is very much synonymous with a plan. The two don't mean the same thing, but they overlap and it is this overlapping area where ID is. The point is that it isn't an aimless meandering purposeless process, we came about by design, by intent, it was planned.The intentor, the planner, the designer, could be God. He certainly has designs, plans and intents. I could tell you what kind of designs he has for blasphemers...

I'd agree. However, given that we don't know what purpose of being here is, what we were designed for, we don't know that ultimately these things are imperfections. They could be temporally perceived as imperfect, but all be part of a grand and perfect scheme that will be revealed right after these commercials. Right - I'm happy with that. And what I said still applies: it is another flaw in the OP. I was taking it from a different angle - I can't be expected to debate two people at once for a subject I'm basically against and come up with all the good rebuttals. I know I'm damned good, but gimme a break Damned straight. Reply to the OP with this - I'd be interested to see the discussion get the attention it needs. You might want to look at the central point in the OP which says:

quote:

---

Now design, essentially, is when we replace the actual trial and error process with an abstract version of same. Suggesting God did this means He can err.
That's blasphemy isn't it?

---

I was merely gunning for the position of 'OK let's assume God doesn't err...surely He can still be a designer'. Your position shows another (major) flaw in the OP, go rebut spidey!

Science is tentative and non-absolute. Not made. If I made someone else's design, then I am not the designer. The designer has to be the one that conceived it. Design can be shown in nature. The bone of contention isn't design, its the intelligent part. In the God scenario we are talking about infinite intelligence. So, given the ID movement, what is God's motivations. How can an entity that is apart from the universe and time be considered material, and why must the infinitely powerful, all knowing all prescent creator of the laws that we must obey - be subject to those same laws?

No, it utilised an already existing product for its own ends. However, if it conceived of a design for a seat in its head, and then just happened to find that same design occuring in nature, then it still designed a seat - it just wasn't original (poor bear). Yes, design is both a verb and a noun. I have defined them both. God could do it anyway, but why would he do it anyway that wasn't the best way? He could do it two different ways with two different reasons, each time being the best way I suppose. It wouldn't. But a simpler universe may not serve the same purpose as the one we have. Since we don't know what that purpose is we can't say that a simpler universe would be a better design. A pencil is much simpler than a car - but they serve different purposes. Well, I was talking about a perfect entity, not the Christian God for the simple reason that you were talking about a God that doesn't err...You are defining design as the systematic methodology of humans. The God of our hypothesis gets it right first time. He says, I'll have two eyes, a brain, two arms, two legs, a heart, two lungs....That is God's method of design - He just says what He wants and He gets it. The body he conceived of is a design - and it was Him that thought it up, thus he is the designer.Using only one narrow definition of design is the problem here. If you do not consider evolution a certain type of design, then we really have nothing to discuss. Evolution designs things in a blind, 0 forethought fashion. We have used the evolution procedure to design aeriels, radios, computer programs and a plethora of other things. In your definition of design then ID is not a good name. However, we take a step through the looking glass of semantics into the field of pragmatics and we discover what they mean when they say design. And it means 'in contrast to the blind procedure of evolution'. God is simply the exact opposite of evolution. Because He isn't a crap, imperfect designer (assuming the God that doesn't err...which isn't the God of Genesis). He thinks that there should be a thing defined as light, he conceieves of how it will work and then speaks it into existance. That's a theological issue, not an ID issue. I was responding to the criticism that the universe was inefficient/non-perfect. If you now say the universe is perfect then the matter is settled. Evolution tries it ten ways. The bottom designs get thrown out, the middle ones get copied twice and the top ones get copied three times. Each slightly different. This is blind design. If you read Dawkins he will wax lyrical about the wonderful design in nature that cries out for an explanation. The concept that evolution is a (frankly brilliant) design method is not something I dreamed up, here is a random link that shows that other people view evolution as a non-intelligent design mechanism.Pick up a copy of the Blind Watchmaker sometime and when you've finished let me know if you still consider that evolution is not design. We all do that...you yourself consider it blasphemy that God makes mistakes - despite contrary evidence from God Himself (unless the Bible writers were liars of course, but that's another story). That would be impossible (unless that was the reason God gave us free will, but then we are delving to far into theology for an ID discussion). I am suggesting that if God had built the universe in a different (simpler) manner, then it would have been for a different reason than he would have built the universe in a complicated manner.If God created a massive cosmos filled with void -then humanity would follow a different course than if he had built it simple. This is self-evident I thought - but perhaps moon landings, probes, Copernicus, and NASA will convince you that it is so.Given that history is the way it is, and given that God has a plan of some kind, then the universe has to be the way it is, or the plan would be different. (or the plan would fail...but the err-less God doesn't do that).planA -> Simple universe
planB -> Complex universeIF God decided to go with planB he cannot also create a simple universe anymore than he can make p not p.

Unless I am mistaken this thread is examining the Designer as the Biblical God. Or why the blasphemy talk? Sure thing. We can talk all about prophecies, and God warning people about something that is about to happen (eg Noah)...clearly thinking ahead. What if you've got it backwards for design? We are made in God's image after all... So you are asking for a human to give an example of a perfect (ie God-like) design? I never said God-like design was possible (I don't believe in anthro-God!), but its philosophically conceivable. I conceive of a pyramid of three blocks. Then I build it. No trial and error. The pyramid is my design. Its not a perfect example for reasons I could get into, but I won't since it serves its purpose for now. If we are going to exclude the reasoned argumentation of that clause then God should be off limits entirely, otherwise whenever the debate got to some level evidence would be required. I am getting this feeling that the argument is going to boil down to ' you can't use words to describe God, therefore...' Actually the OP does - since it claims that God does not err. Come of pope! Show us an example of God designing and creating a universe!You have to explain why it is magic, and what magic is before I can really answer your questions about it. You can't just define it as magic and expect that to settle it. You see, I have a feeling you are defining magic as 'the impossible happening' or some such. In which case you are defining it as impossible, QED and all that. God doesn't need to plan or think? Nevertheless, when God creates something it has a design. He was the creator of that design, and the English language refers to Him as the designer. Perhaps language is woefully inadequate for the job, in which case it doesn't matter what we say, its blasphemy and/or diminishes God. We should probably burn religious texts and stop discussing Him. By who? God never mentioned that such a thing is blasphemous that I can remember. Show me that this is blasphemy.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

The concept is not vague. It is quite specific. Evidence of forethought is the Holy Grail of ID. They think they have it, and if they did, science should consider it. At its extreme ends, that is one argument put forward, in more common usage though, it is a case of 'the things that exist conform to an order and complexity which is just too unlikely to not be the result of forethought. ID is not about seeking God's blueprints, it's about seeking evidence that biological systems cannot come about through a blind process since there are steps required that blind processes simply cannot do (or are absurdly improbable). Design doesn't require an idea to be conceived, but an conceived idea can be design. A design can also be for some purpose, such as replicating DNA. I wasn't talking strictly Biblical, but common attributes associated with him - all-knowing all-wise etc. After all - you yourself weren't being strictly Biblical with your err-less God. I was merely discussin an intellectul possibility. Perhaps God has no intelligence. Wisdom is usually the word used. Nobody is hemming anyone. God could easily have left no evidence of his work. ID is saying that for whatever reason, He did. Or more specifically, he left general evidence that someone was at work. ID is a bunch of political hot air with nefarious motivations that God would be shocked to know of. It isn't blasphemous to consider God as the designer, in my opinion. However, it is sinful to lie, manipulate and cheat your way to selling books spreading the word. However, there are patterns which have a very low statistical likelihood of happening. So low, indeed, that for them to have even a small chance of happening the universe would have to be a million times older. Of course, cumulative selection is rebutted as a means to this end because of irreducable complexity. Quite happily ignoring such things as redundant complexity...but look at us, chin-wagging.