Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is the Designer Still Designing?
Mike O Risal
Junior Member (Idle past 6209 days)
Posts: 10
Joined: 03-26-2007


Message 1 of 40 (391691)
03-26-2007 8:10 PM


I'm brand new here and have only had time for a quick look around, so please forgive me if this topic has been proposed before. It's something I've wanted to ask for quite some time now.
If an initial intelligent designer is posited as the reason for the biodiversity we see today, does that intelligent designer still exist? If not, what happened to it? If so, is it still designing? If the latter of these two possibilities is the case, then why do we not see radically new body plans appearing currently? Just taking animals as an example, we see a very limited number of basic body plans. If the designer still exists and is still designing, why don't we see much departure from these.
As an example, all winged creatures have either six or two limbs in addition to their wings. There are no flying myriapods or quadrupeds. Why not? If one posits the existence of a designer, what constrains that designer from suddenly bringing such radically different forms into existence?
I suppose this topic would go best on the Intellgent Design forum.
Thanks.
Edited by Mike O Risal, : No reason given.
Edited by Mike O Risal, : Typos.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by RAZD, posted 03-28-2007 1:42 PM Mike O Risal has not replied
 Message 4 by Taz, posted 03-28-2007 6:38 PM Mike O Risal has replied
 Message 5 by Cthulhu, posted 03-28-2007 10:15 PM Mike O Risal has not replied
 Message 17 by bluegenes, posted 03-29-2007 4:44 PM Mike O Risal has not replied
 Message 20 by Rob, posted 04-01-2007 12:37 PM Mike O Risal has not replied
 Message 25 by wisdom, posted 12-21-2007 5:02 PM Mike O Risal has not replied
 Message 36 by pelican, posted 01-28-2008 3:01 AM Mike O Risal has not replied
 Message 37 by randman, posted 01-28-2008 3:08 AM Mike O Risal has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2 of 40 (391963)
03-28-2007 9:54 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 3 of 40 (392002)
03-28-2007 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Mike O Risal
03-26-2007 8:10 PM


Welcome to the fray Mike. Saw your post to MartinV on fungi colors.
... why don't we see much departure from these.
Well one also needs to consider the purpose of the designs. In this regard I think we need to look at both sides of the design controversy
Enjoy.
ps - nice avatar ...

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Mike O Risal, posted 03-26-2007 8:10 PM Mike O Risal has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 4 of 40 (392029)
03-28-2007 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Mike O Risal
03-26-2007 8:10 PM


Mike writes:
If an initial intelligent designer is posited as the reason for the biodiversity we see today, does that intelligent designer still exist?
There's no reason to believe the designer has gone anywhere else.
If the latter of these two possibilities is the case, then why do we not see radically new body plans appearing currently?
There's a reason why it is called an intelligent designer. Part of being intelligent is having the choice to stop designing. If tomorrow I decide to stop writing computer prorams, does that mean that all the programs that were written by me in the past weren't really written by me?
I recently wrote a program that solves sudoku puzzles. Before the program, I used to struggle with the puzzle because I honestly never looked at it before. After I got a hang of it, I put down the logical progression into programming codes. I am still modifying the program to solve harder and harder puzzles. But if one day I got tired of it and stop modifying the program, it still doesn't change the fact that I drew out the basic plan for the program and wrote down the codes myself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Mike O Risal, posted 03-26-2007 8:10 PM Mike O Risal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Mike O Risal, posted 03-29-2007 6:29 AM Taz has replied

  
Cthulhu
Member (Idle past 5852 days)
Posts: 273
From: Roe Dyelin
Joined: 09-09-2003


Message 5 of 40 (392049)
03-28-2007 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Mike O Risal
03-26-2007 8:10 PM


Well, an Intelligent Designer would pretty much have to be still designing today, considering the recent emergence of such things as the nylon bug and HeLa.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Mike O Risal, posted 03-26-2007 8:10 PM Mike O Risal has not replied

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 4493 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 6 of 40 (392075)
03-29-2007 6:22 AM


if there is a designer , they must be still at work , just look at all the new varients of flu / colds / mrsa bugs we keep finding , they must also be working dirctly to control the actions of those working on gene sciences who are making new strains of plants , ie resistant wheat or rice . Im sure there are loads of other examples of current changes .
the other question is how the designer has influence on the world ..

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by ringo, posted 03-29-2007 1:02 PM ikabod has not replied
 Message 12 by Mike O Risal, posted 03-29-2007 2:24 PM ikabod has not replied

  
Mike O Risal
Junior Member (Idle past 6209 days)
Posts: 10
Joined: 03-26-2007


Message 7 of 40 (392076)
03-29-2007 6:29 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Taz
03-28-2007 6:38 PM


So what's the designer doing now that it's retired from designing? When exactly did it stop?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Taz, posted 03-28-2007 6:38 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Taz, posted 03-29-2007 1:04 PM Mike O Risal has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 8 of 40 (392130)
03-29-2007 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by ikabod
03-29-2007 6:22 AM


ikabod writes:
if there is a designer , they must be still at work , just look at all the new varients of flu / colds / mrsa bugs we keep finding....
Interesting that the software designer is content to remove existing bugs while his counterpart, the Intelligent Designer, delights in putting new ones in.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by ikabod, posted 03-29-2007 6:22 AM ikabod has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 9 of 40 (392131)
03-29-2007 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Mike O Risal
03-29-2007 6:29 AM


Mike writes:
So what's the designer doing now that it's retired from designing?
Whatever the damn hell it wants.
When exactly did it stop?
Whenever it decided to stop, assuming it stopped designing.
You still don't understand the term "intelligent designer". You are trying to box in this intelligent designer as if it's some kind of automated process. Part of it being intelligent is its unpredictability. If we can predict what it's going to do next, then it's not intelligent anymore.
Edited by Tazmanian Devil, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Mike O Risal, posted 03-29-2007 6:29 AM Mike O Risal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by ringo, posted 03-29-2007 1:30 PM Taz has replied
 Message 11 by Mike O Risal, posted 03-29-2007 2:12 PM Taz has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 10 of 40 (392136)
03-29-2007 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Taz
03-29-2007 1:04 PM


Tazmanian Devil writes:
If we can predict what it's going to do next, then it's not intelligent anymore.
Does that follow? We are using our concept of "intelligence", after all. If we can "see" the telltale signs of Design, shouldn't we be able to "predict" the Designer's thought processes to some degree too? Aren't both inextricably woven into our thought processes?

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Taz, posted 03-29-2007 1:04 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Taz, posted 03-29-2007 2:58 PM ringo has replied

  
Mike O Risal
Junior Member (Idle past 6209 days)
Posts: 10
Joined: 03-26-2007


Message 11 of 40 (392148)
03-29-2007 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Taz
03-29-2007 1:04 PM


Whatever the damn hell it wants.
Like what? What does the designer do when it stops designing? You used yourself as an analogy. When you finished designing yuor software, did you stop doing anything at all, leaving your software as the only means to discern that you'd ever existed?
Moreover, if it can do anything it wants, why did it stop designing things in the first place? Could it start again? And if it designed not only living things but the abiotic conditions of the universe, doesn't that also mean that everything exists entirely at its caprice? That sounds like a raher deterministic state of affairs, and still begs the original question of what the designer does when it stops designing.
You still don't understand the term "intelligent designer". You are trying to box in this intelligent designer as if it's some kind of automated process.
Not in the least. In fact, I'm assuming that an "intelligent designer" would be some individual or group of individuals capable of making decisions. So in the case that this designer is no longer dong what it did at one point in time, we must assume that it is doing something else at this point in time, even if that activity consists of taking a long nap.
Part of it being intelligent is its unpredictability.
This has nothing to do with making a prediction; it has exactly to do with what's happening right now, which by definition can't be a prediction. Unless it has ceased to exist altogether, it is doing something at this very moment.
Intelligence makes an entity more unpredictable, of course, but it's not a necessary part of intelligence. For example, I can assume that you are intelligent and at some point in the next 24 hours will take water into your body in some way. I can't predict (without a lot more information) whether or not you'll drink it out of a paper, plastic, or glass container, but with the information I have right now, I can make certain predictions about you, regardless of your intelligence.
Moreover, I'm sure that someone else who designs software and saw the software you've written (to continue your analogy) could make certain prediction about how you write software, and so how you would write software on your next project. Perhaps you do something particularly skillful with exception handling or create very useful object libraries. Someone who knew about software and needed someone with those skills who had never met you in person could look at the product of your work and make a decision whether or not you would be a good person to employ for a particular task; they could make a prediction about what you would do in the future based on your intelligence itself. Your intelligence would make you more predictable in that case, not less.
If we can predict what it's going to do next, then it's not intelligent anymore.
Only if you're assuming that it's actively trying to deceive us... in which case, we could compensate for that, too. Armies win wars based on "intelligence gathering" capabilities, making them able to make predictions about what their enemies is likely to do in a given situation. Con men judge their marks in just such a way, Making predictions based on the intelligence of another is, in fact, something that people do every day.
So, again, when did the designer stop designing, and how do we know whether or not it has, in fact, stopped?
Edited by Mike O Risal, : Forgot to close a tag.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Taz, posted 03-29-2007 1:04 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Taz, posted 03-29-2007 3:14 PM Mike O Risal has replied

  
Mike O Risal
Junior Member (Idle past 6209 days)
Posts: 10
Joined: 03-26-2007


Message 12 of 40 (392152)
03-29-2007 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by ikabod
03-29-2007 6:22 AM


if there is a designer , they must be still at work , just look at all the new varients of flu / colds / mrsa bugs we keep finding , they must also be working dirctly to control the actions of those working on gene sciences who are making new strains of plants , ie resistant wheat or rice . Im sure there are loads of other examples of current changes .
Interesting ideas. And yes, we do see new strains of flu all the time, and we also have a very clear of how they arise; a friend of mine works on exactly this problem and has been for years. It has to do with proteins (at least I think they're proteins) called hemaglutinins and neurominidases and how little bits of genetic code recombine over time. That's how the virus strains are named, in fact (i.e., bird flu is H5N1, which means it has a type 5 hemaglutinin and type 1 neurominidase). Look some stuff up on it sometime; it's pretty cool stuff!
I must admit, though, that the idea of a designer pulling the strings of genetic engineers as they work in their labs is a little unnerving. So much for free will! Even so, if the designer is making that happen, we're still stuck with the question of why we don't see any radically new life forms suddenly coming into existence. Even if we assume that the designer created the rules by which living things come into being, what body forms are permitted, we would still need to find out why it doesn't just change those rules and whip us up some nice winged moose or amphibians with dry skin or the like. What constrains the designs, and what could we infer about this designer by such observations?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by ikabod, posted 03-29-2007 6:22 AM ikabod has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Doddy, posted 03-29-2007 9:53 PM Mike O Risal has not replied
 Message 23 by IamJoseph, posted 11-23-2007 10:34 PM Mike O Risal has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 13 of 40 (392159)
03-29-2007 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by ringo
03-29-2007 1:30 PM


Ringo writes:
Does that follow? We are using our concept of "intelligence", after all. If we can "see" the telltale signs of Design, shouldn't we be able to "predict" the Designer's thought processes to some degree too? Aren't both inextricably woven into our thought processes?
Not necessarily. Take the case of an architect. I can take a look at a building and see similarities between this building and another building that enables me to be able to identify who the architect for this building was. But can I really sit down and say "ok, this is what the architect is going to do next..."?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by ringo, posted 03-29-2007 1:30 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by ringo, posted 03-29-2007 3:10 PM Taz has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 14 of 40 (392161)
03-29-2007 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Taz
03-29-2007 2:58 PM


Tazmanian Devil writes:
But can I really sit down and say "ok, this is what the architect is going to do next..."?
With some degree of accuracy, yes. You can say that he is more likely to use this material than that one. You can say that he is more likely to do this than that in a lot of areas, based on his past performance.
After all, one of the tenets of Intelligent Designism is that "the designer would use the same bone structure on a bat's wing and a chimp's hand and a dolphin's flipper". In that sense, he's very predictable.
So, if he's been a hands-on workaholic designer in the past, it's reasonable to predict that he wouldn't retire suddenly.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Taz, posted 03-29-2007 2:58 PM Taz has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 15 of 40 (392163)
03-29-2007 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Mike O Risal
03-29-2007 2:12 PM


Mike writes:
Like what? What does the designer do when it stops designing? You used yourself as an analogy. When you finished designing yuor software, did you stop doing anything at all, leaving your software as the only means to discern that you'd ever existed?
Ok, I'm going to take a shot in the dark and say that the designer is currently designing a lot of stuff on a galaxy far far away. Why don't you take your car and go there to see what it's doing.
What I'm trying to get at is that questions like what's the designer doing now are unfair questions. You are demanding the IDists to know everything about everything about everything about the designer. I don't know, perhaps the designer is taking a 50 milion year bathroom break.
Moreover, if it can do anything it wants, why did it stop designing things in the first place?
Why not?
Could it start again?
Why not?
And if it designed not only living things but the abiotic conditions of the universe, doesn't that also mean that everything exists entirely at its caprice? That sounds like a raher deterministic state of affairs, and still begs the original question of what the designer does when it stops designing.
The designer is taking a 50 million year bathroom break.
Not in the least. In fact, I'm assuming that an "intelligent designer" would be some individual or group of individuals capable of making decisions. So in the case that this designer is no longer dong what it did at one point in time, we must assume that it is doing something else at this point in time, even if that activity consists of taking a long nap.
50 million year bathroom break.
This has nothing to do with making a prediction; it has exactly to do with what's happening right now, which by definition can't be a prediction. Unless it has ceased to exist altogether, it is doing something at this very moment.
Ok, what's George W. Bush doing at this exact moment?
Intelligence makes an entity more unpredictable, of course, but it's not a necessary part of intelligence. For example, I can assume that you are intelligent and at some point in the next 24 hours will take water into your body in some way. I can't predict (without a lot more information) whether or not you'll drink it out of a paper, plastic, or glass container, but with the information I have right now, I can make certain predictions about you, regardless of your intelligence.
Part of being intelligent is being able to decide not to do something. If you want, I can start not drinking water for 24 hours.
Moreover, I'm sure that someone else who designs software and saw the software you've written (to continue your analogy) could make certain prediction about how you write software, and so how you would write software on your next project.
Of course. But being an intelligent being, I can also decide to suddenly stop and never touch a computer again.
Only if you're assuming that it's actively trying to deceive us... in which case, we could compensate for that, too. Armies win wars based on "intelligence gathering" capabilities, making them able to make predictions about what their enemies is likely to do in a given situation.
Your analogy is faulty. These armies you speak of are almost at the same technological level with each other. Even the best biology lab today can't create a worm without using another worm. Clearly, whatever this intelligent designer(s) is is a lot more advance than we are.
A closer analogy would be to compare a sophisticated army such as the 21 century US Army to a primitive army of stoneage neanderthals.
Con men judge their marks in just such a way, Making predictions based on the intelligence of another is, in fact, something that people do every day.
Ok, here is an experiment you can do. Go to south america and pick out a native tribesman in the middle of the amazon forest. Start telling him about quantum mechanics. Not just the concepts but also the mathematics and theories behind it. After that, ask him if he can predict the next discovery based on quantum mechanics. Go ahead and try it.
For the record, I am an atheist. My background includes but not limited to physics, computer science, and ass kicking. I just don't like to see unfair questions being asked of the ID side. Might as well ask the IDist what the designer's penis look like... if it's circumcised or not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Mike O Risal, posted 03-29-2007 2:12 PM Mike O Risal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Mike O Risal, posted 03-29-2007 3:44 PM Taz has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024