A thought on Intelligence behind Design

I have said a few times that I feel intelligent design
to be a tautology ... but having read varous posts over
the last few months I have changed my mind.If we take design to be the production of a system which is
suited to a particular purpose (note: not designed for that
purpose, but the result is suited to it) then we do not
require any intelligence behind the design.An algorithm that produces electrical circuits or landscape
drawings is performing design, but has no intelligence
behind it.Heritable variation + natural selection operates to 'design'
biological systems to suit a particular set of environmental
constraints.Viewed this way evidence of design is not evidence of
'intelligent design'.To find the intelligence behind a design requires something
else.Doesn't that reduce ID to a search for the designer?

Well I never thought it was anything else, but I hadn't
thought of a clear and logical way of asking the
question before.

I was hoping for some kind of ID comment on any ideas
here .... ah well.In essence I am asking why ID uses 'evidence' of design to
infer a designer, when it can be shown that evolutionary
processes can produce 'designed' objects.

Still no takers?No IDer's tuning in at the mo'?

It seems to me to be even more insidious.The definition of 'irreducible complexity' doesn't itself
preclude step-wise development of the IC system.I have not seen any proof of 'IC cannot evolve' ... and
opened a thread sometime ago suggesting it was an argument
from incredulity.The main thing I was looking at here was the relationship
between 'design' and an 'intelligence' behind the design.It seems to me that ID focusses on the idea that 'design' automatically requires an intelligent designer ... so all
they look for (as far as i can see, correct me if I am wrong)
is 'evidence' of 'design' and then say 'See!!'Given the 'genetic programming' model of evolution, and the
highly complex results leads me to conclude that 'design' is
possible via mechanistic process being directed by some form
of selective pressure. This removes the need for
intelligence.We then need to look at any complex system and see if we can
find the fingerprints of intelligence ... more importantly to
consider what such fingerprints might look like.The focus of ID has been on D when it should be on I.

In science we pu forward hypotheses ... if they can be refuted
then we must conclude that the hypothesis is inaccurate.ID proponents say 'this could not have evolved.' This statement
is refuted as soon as someone can present a biologically feasible
route by which the evolution could have happened.This has happened over and again.This (in any other scientific discipline) would lead a proponent
to the possibility that the argument is not quite right (at least).To then say 'But you don't know that that IS what happened.' is
irrelevent (it's unsupported for a start). The test was 'cannot
evolve' the refutation is the 'it could like this'.It's that simple.

I'd also add that I think it unlikely as it would
proove impossible to build a safety case for a design
that no-one knew how it worked.In aerospace safety is paramount, and there must always be
complete traceability in the event of a failure.

All (1) says is that life has the appearance of design.We are not disputing this ... genetic algorithms suggest that
we do not require an 'intelligent designer' to produce complex,
patentable designs via an evolutionary process.(2) is one way of looking at the fact of biological systems.
Fundamentally biological systems are vastly complex chemical
systems ... the emergent property of which is life.That many of us find it hard to beleive that such things could
have come about by chance is not suprising ... evolution isn't
about chance ... it's about filtering out the bits that are
better suited to the prevailing conditions.The question rasied here is about the inference of 'intelligence'
behind these 'designs'.With Mount Rushmore we don't need inference, we know it was
desinged. If we find a watch in a field we assume design becuase
we know about watches (and in our experience watches are built by
people) ... but what about primitive cultures, like those that
thought the conquistadors mounted on horseback were some
kind of centaurian gods, or that aircraft were great silver
birds?What evidence points to 'intelligence' when there is evidence that
points to 'designed' objects coming out of non-intelligent
processes ... life is a 'dumb design' not an 'intelligent design'.

So what claims does ID make based upon irreducible
complexity?I thought it was along the lines that 'IC systems could not
have evolved in a step-wise manner by succesive small changes
therefore they must have been designed 'as is''.

It's not that they just happen to have a useful sub-function
at all.Your argument shows that you have a (possibly sub-consious)
assumption that the current function of an IC system was it's
intended function all along.This is not the case.The sub-function (in Darwinian terms) provided some kind of
selective advantage and was passed on. Combine a number of
such effects and you get (not by random chance but by reason
of utility) complex interactions that cannot be backward decomposed
without breaking them.It's not about chance ... it's about utility.And it's avoiding the subject of the OP:::If evolutionary process can be shown to produce complex,
apparently designed objects (genetic algorithms producing
patentable circuits) then we have separated 'design' from
'intelligence'.Showing that something can be considered 'designed' is no longer
sufficient to support ID ... one must show 'intelligence'.How does ID show 'intelligence' if 'design' does not require
it?[This message has been edited by Peter, 06-19-2003]

quote:

---

Warren<< I assume the current function of an IC system was it's
intended function all along unless there is evidence that this is not the case.>>

---

Why take that particular stance?I thought you were seeking evidence of ID ... your comment above
is founded in the framework of ID being the correct proposition.
If you believe that something indeed has an intended function
you are automatically assuming intelligent design (since only
an intelligent designer can have an intent).

quote:

---

Warren<< Sure, one can imagine this was the case but again I'm not interested in mere possibilities. We are talking about history (What actually did happen). How about some evidence
to support your nice little story? >>

---

Try a web-search on current ideas for the evolution of feathers.I read an article in Scientific American about research into
developmental biology wrt evolution. They have suggested a
possible route to the evolution of modern avian feathers based
upon the current growth and development of such. To support
this they have uncovered fossil evidence of the stages along
the way.

quote:

---

Warren<< I don't know that computer programs that attempt to mimic evolution actually map to biology. I have read articles by scientists that don't think they do. The one you are talking about
doesn't seem to me to be really Darwinian, with truly random mutation. Also, if the `phenotype' is able to feedback directly to the `genotype' then this would be Lamarckian, not Darwinian. In the
program you mention, the GA's cannot fail to work because they have been *designed* to infallibly achieve a goal of finding an optimal solution. Are you claiming that an intelligently
designed algorithm which works within defined limits to infallibly achieve a desired goal, is an analogue of a blind watchmaking process? >>

---

First, the program is not designed to achieve a specific goal
(what would be the point of that?). By a process of reproduction
and mutation the circuit output is compared to the desired output.
Those that match best are allowed to reproduce (and random
mutations are introduced).In one case, when the target signal was an oscillator, the process
produced a radio receiver.I always see the argument 'Yes but the program was intelligently
designed.' But the program simply runs the 'rules of nature' that
are suggested by evolutionary theory....and how does the phenotype feedback into the genotype in this
process anyhow??

I think your discussion at this point is in line with
my original question in this thread.ID proponents spend a lot of time supposedly identifying
design ... and then infer intelligence.If a mechanistic, dumb process can produce 'designs' then
that inference is inappriate.What is the evidence for 'intelligence'? That's basically
what I have been asking.

It's always been my assumption that those who insist
on intelligence behind the universe have problems relating to
the possibility that we are just here, and that's all there is to
it.Some people seem to need to feel that they are part of some
greater purpose.IDer's would doubtless claim otherwise, and say that evidence
of intelligent design is staring us all in the face ... and
then forget to tell us what that evidence is.That life 'looks' designed is a reasonable (if subjective)
statement.They need to show me the 'intelligence' though.

I argued in another thread that the 'sign' of an
'intelligent design' was simplicity ... which didn't go
down well with IDer's, but kind of died through then
abandoning the train of thought ... funny that.

Some people talk about how wonderful the human body is too ...
but try doing an FMEA on it sometime ... you'd never get
it through a design review team!!!!!