The consequences of an intelligent designer

What does "Intelligent" mean, in this context? Does it merely mean "conscious", or does it mean intelligent? If we hypothesise a real klutz at creating Universes, one of those Designers who only just scraped through Cosmology, then obviously any feature of the universe, however dumb, could be consistent with that hypothesis.NOTE: The inference that the Designer is one of a community, that Design is something that they teach to their young, and that talents in this field vary, is just as valid as the inference that the "Designer" has a personality, since it is based on exactly the same analogy. From this premise we can make one clear and unambiguous prediction: one day, our Universe will be exhibited at a Science Fair. It will not win.

But let's say we mean intelligent intelligent. Then shouldn't we be able to work out something about the constraints under which the designer labored?One might, for example, suggest that Jupiter is a stupid waste of matter. But who knows? Maybe some waste is inevitable. By analogy, a being accustomed to a different set of physical laws might think it very wasteful that our heat engines emit waste heat: but our designers are constrained by the second law of thermodynamics; there is no way to avoid a certain amount of waste.Now by by postulating an intelligent designer, the design theorists should be able to work out, at least broadly, what these constraints were, and I assume that this is a hot topic of research in the ID community ...... oh, wait ...... I mean, I would bet dollars to donuts that none of them has ever written a single word about this topic.---The other open question is what effect the designer was trying to achieve. So long as it remains open, we may imagine a conversation as follows:"... yah, supernovas are always tasteful. Was there anything else.""Life.""What sort of life?""Oh, you know, just life. My wife likes it, says it gives a universe a nice organic feel.""Well, I'll tell you what I'll do. I saw a universe in downtown Eternity where life evolved?""Evolved! But that must mean that the life-forms reproduce with variation!""Yah.""So ... in this universe ... organisms don't just magically pop into existence for no apparent reason, like we do?""Yeah, freaky isn't it. And the great thing about it is --- no copyright! So I'll get my people to run you off a copy of the organisms, and we'll get some of the lads from Omphalos Associates to slap down some strata for that really authentic feel.""And is it insured against flooding?"

Well, I think I can answer your question.* Adopts ID pose, dons Magical Hat of Analogy, says the mystic ocult words "Petitio principii!" *Designed objects fall into two categories. First, there are those which are useful. Now the Earth and its ecosystem are not evidently in use. Moreover, so far as we are aware, no design theorist has ever even postulated a use that the Designer (or the Owner) might have for a life-bearing planet, still less shown positive evidence that it has one.What is it supposed to be for, after all? Is it a manufactory? A conveyance? A utensil? It seems ill-adapted for any purpose.Experience teaches us that when an object is well designed, but has no practical purpose, it is intended to be ornamental. The Earth, we know, is well-designed. From the fact that the Earth has no conceivable use, it follows that the Earth must fall into the second category. The Earth must be an ornament, a decoration, a work of art.Hence we have a strong and testable prediction: that the Earth should, in fact, be ornamental. Now the Earth, I think everyone will conceed, is quite stunningly beautiful; and it is noteworthy that the principal exceptions are those parts which have been modified by humanity for practical purposes. Similarly, all our experience teaches us that the most highly ornamental objects are never intended for practical purposes.To summarize our findings: the Earth has no apparent use; it is evidently highly ornamental; hence it is an ornament.This deduction is in line with other sciences which deal with the study of design, such as archaeology. If an archaeologist were to unearth an item which was evidently designed, which showed no signs of use, had no conceivable practical use, and was unarguably very beautiful, then that archaeologist would classify it as ornamental in function.---I wonder how many other people in the Wonderful Scientific World Of ID have come to this conclusion? I wonder how much ink has been expended over this point?I wonder ... and I can guess.