A thought on Intelligence behind Design

Warren: "Your opinion that ID lacks evidence is worthless since you have yet to tell me what you would consider evidence for ID."John:1) Critters which are not cobbled together from spare parts.
2) Components which are well designed for their function.
I could probably think of more, but those would go a long way.Warren<< Hi John. You are the first person on this thread to to tell me what would count as evidence for ID that isn't either a demand for extraordinary evidence, or a demand to prove the impossible or a demand to observe the designer in action. Therefore you are the only person I'm going to respond to in this recent flurry of replies to me.. This really illustrates where I'm coming from. The other ID critics on this forum would no doubt disagee with you concerning what you say should count as evidence for ID. They want to see "Made by God" written in the cell. Or they want to see an example of something that couldn't possibly have evolved. Or they want to see an intelligent designer designing things.I would like to see some comments from the ID critics concerning what John says would count as evidence for design. Is he right or wrong? Explain. In response to those that think he's wrong I would be interested to see John's counter arguments. If he really means what he says he will probably end up sounding like Mike Gene.[This message has been edited by Warren, 07-20-2003]

As an ID critic, I guess I would have to ask: How well is "well designed"? If I can "intelligently" come up with a better solution, is it still "well designed"?Evolution predicts components that are "good enough"; how would we distinguished between "good enough" and "well designed"?

Another one would be something that has a clear disconnect from everything around it. That might be explainable with other ideas but would be hard. For example, if humans weren't so obviously just more of the same.edited to change to the same to of the same.[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 07-20-2003]

Warren, It is no one elses fault that you have no way to tell a non-designed from a designed one. This is your problem that you cannot, not ours.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

I don't understand why you find this an unreasonable request. When intelligent people design things, they very often sign the item, or label it in some recognizable way to say "hey, I made this!"The signature of the designer is often a feature of a designed thing. Why is it unreasonable to expect this in a cell, if the cell was designed?

I have defended ID in other threads, arguing that it is NOT ridiculous to ask what markers people might use to identify "designed" biological entities from naturally occuring entities.As our ability to genetically modify life (especially plants, as genetically modified foods are becoming more common), this will become a legitimate question.For example, there was the artist who engineered a rabbit that glowed. Let's say he never announced his project and simply set the animal free. And it mated and that trait became inherited and no one noticed these glowing rabbits until there was a small population already established.At first people would be stunned. Rabbits suddenly "evolved" the ability to glow????? Of course study would begin to determine what happened. Well what would they find? How would scientists come to figure out that the rabbit had been invented (even if they are never able to track down the "artist" who created that "species").The problem, Warren, is that ID has yet to come up with anything close to an answer. The closest that ID has come is Behe's "irreducibly complex" entities, but even this has not been fully fleshed out.To make matters worse, ID theorists have jumped from a legitimate avenue of research (how to detect designed organisms), to conclusions that life has been designed! And to top it all off ID theorists are already discussing the social and moral consequences of the fact that we are designed. And this is a great example of the disturbing nature of discussion we have been reduced to. In essence you are saying that unless people agree with you, or talk only in such a way that your theories cannot be questioned, you will not talk with them.IDers limit debate on ID to only discussions on how right ID can be.This is one big problem scientists face even getting onto an official ID forum. Dembski's personal forum requires that no one post anything that questions ID theory. What the hell good is that?You asked what people would consider a real sign that organic entities had been designed. They gave you legitimate answers. You cannot toss them away simply because they are too restrictive FOR YOU or YOUR THEORY.In order to be a science, ID MUST come up with an answer of when we can say we KNOW that an entity has been designed. This requires the ability to select between a designed and nondesigned entity.If it cannot do this, then ID is not a science it is theoretical conjecture.We can always ask in a round about way, well what would we see if life was designed (or even better what if it had been designed in such a way that we can't tell it's designed)? But by its very construction then, it will end up finding design, because that is an initial assumption of the question.Evolutionary theorists do not ask "what would we see if life was not designed?", and then look for clues.What do I think of John's list?I think a designer could just as easily use spare parts as new ones so point #1 is not sufficient.#2 is not an objective evaluation. For example what is the absolute "function" of hair, or nails, or tastebuds, or genitals? They all serve many different functions and to varying degrees of success... though I'd have to say most work "well". Perfection (meaning no failures at all when used) might indicate a pretty good design, but then again I am unsure how to tell between that and perfect adaptation.holmes------------------
holmes

Really the best arguments for design - in general - rather than applied to biology - are those based on the intentions and capabilities of the designer.This is true even of SETI - SETI makes explicit assumptiosn about the sorts of designers they are looking for.So, since the idea that living things look as if they have been designed for a purpose has been raised it is worth asking what that purpose would be. Because there is not much sign of a purpose at all.

quote:

---

So, since the idea that living things look as if they have been designed for a purpose has been raised it is worth asking what that purpose would be. Because there is not much sign of a purpose at all.

---

As I read this, it occurs to me that humans may be "designed" to eat, sleep, defecate, and copulate. Pretty much what other apes are "designed" do; but with a few special talents, like producing animated movies and weapons of mass destruction.What say you?db

Everybody in this thread:Please read "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" by Daniel Dennett, if you haven't already done so. It spells out that there is a big difference between intelligent design and just design. Read it and you will understand that evolution does not exclude design per se. On the contrary, evolution is all about design and how it came to be. It's just that there is no need for a designer.So, read it and save us all a lot of trouble explaining things.Cheers.

When I opened this thread this was EXACTLY the distinction
I was trying to get at .... and there is a design with no
designer thread too.I want to know what is the evidence for 'intelligence'.

I cannot assess what evidence I would deem vaguely indicative,
let alone compelling, without knowing:1) What is it that was designed (in your opinion)?Was it the cell, extant organisms, some set of previous organisms.
something else entirely?Without this you have no foundation.2) What would be the difference between an 'intelligent design'
and a 'dumb design'?The answers to at least (1) above is REQUIRED before I can tell
you what would make me suspect design.

Hi Warren,Thanks for your reply. Although many here have taken my question to further degrees, I would like to address why I see the "argument from engineering" to be misleading. Leaving aside the fact that no known engineered artifact can self-replicate (absent theoretical Von Neumann machines), an examination of those artifacts that we can definitively state were designed or engineered show that they have two basic intrinsic properties: 1) they have a "purpose", and 2) they have a causative history that can be traced directly to the actions of a known designer. A hypothetical "ID Biology" research program, if based on your engineering analogy, would have to provide an answer - or at least provide some supporting theory or observation - to address one or the other of those two intrinsic properties of designed objects. It doesn't have to do both, initially, but it at least needs to start somewhere.1) Purpose. To get a start on this line of reasoning, I think it would be necessary to examine existing organisms, communities and ecosystems in an attempt discern purpose. Note: I don't mean functional role, I mean "why this organism occupying this niche in this habitat and not this other one". If an unambiguous purpose can't be identified in existing organisms, ID is going to have to begin working towards identifying an "end state" or final purpose for a given species. If ID can predict what the "final form" of an organism might be, then it would could make a reasonable case for the presence of teleological evolution. It might take some time, obviously, so looking at short-generation organisms might be the way to go. After all, the Grants spent 30 years watching finches in the Galapagos to map their natural history so that they could finally provide empirical support for the action of natural selection on a wild population. Alternatively, ID could make a retrodiction by stating what the final purpose of an extinct lineage would be, and hence the final form of the "ultimate" species based on the teleological paradigm, then go examine the fossil record to see if that was the case. In either case, it wouldn't necessarily prove purpose, but if you can prove teleology, that gives you a leg up on it.2) History. One of the key things that can be said about, for example, the computer I'm typing this on, is that we can confidently declare that it was designed because we know the causal history of computers - and we know quite a bit about the designer. "We have met the designer and he R us." With most of the artifacts around us that were engineered by intelligence we can confidently make the same claim. However, consider that the further back in time we go, the less ambiguous are the engineered artifacts. Walk through a vinyard in the Vaucluse - you'll see a myriad of sharp flakes of flint. Most of them are natural pieces formed by the random processes of nature. Occasionally you'll find some that are ambiguous. Very very rarely, you'll find one that was in fact worked by the hand of humans ~30,000 years ago. However, the determination (engineered/natural) relies on external factors not related to the flint itself: to wit, knowledge of purpose (tool), process (flint knapping leaves specific marks readily identifiable by an expert), and the designer (humans). In the absence of those three components, a piece of flint is just a piece of flint. Even with two of the three, the resulting piece of flint is ambiguous at best - not enough to hang a world-shattering paradigm from. Extrapolating to ID Biology, it isn't sufficient to proclaim that "eubacterial flagella couldn't evolve" (Behe's claim from "Darwin's Black Box", f'rinstance). On the other hand, it isn't necessary to have all three ducks aligned at the beginning. If ID can show observations or even at least a testable theory for at least two of the three, even though the results might be ambiguous, it would be enough to get things started - and get real research started.This, I think, goes along the lines of what your pseudonymous friend "Mike Gene" was on about in the most recent cut-and-paste you made. Until ID can provide something resembling substance on either of the two points I mentioned above, it will most likely remain on the outermost fringes of science - with crystal channelers, astrologers, and magnet therapy proponents.

Dear all,I think that if we would ever find that there is a certain goal toward which evolution’s design is progressing, we might suspect intelligence. (Well, 'agency' at least.) Or if it would be established beyond reasonable doubt that there is a 'meaning of life' (other than 42), or a 'higher purpose' or something. But there are no goals in evolution. And there is no meaning of life, other than that which we define for ourselves within our own limited bubble of existence.There is a lot of purpose in evolution though, on all scales even, but that's just acquired or emergent purpose, not 'higher purpose' (as in "The higher purpose of man is to worship his Maker"). After all, nobody in his right mind will deny that, for example, that overused paragon of ID-ers, the eye, is for seeing, i.e. it has the purpose 'to see things with'. But it evolved in a mindless process, without the end product (or rather: the current intermediate result) as a premeditated goal. Now that it's there, it's the best thing we have to see things with, although it has its flaws.We are uncertain about the existence of God. If he exists, then anything is possible and nothing can be said with certainty about anything.But we know for a fact that DNA is a replicating molecule. We know for a fact that sometimes the replication isn't flawless. We know for a fact that it encodes all kinds of hereditary traits. We know for a fact that replication mistakes lead to differences in those traits. We know for a fact that sometimes those differences give individuals an edge in the struggle for life. We know for a fact that sometimes they do the opposite. We know for a fact that beneficial mutations will tend to accumulate, and that detrimental ones will tend to disappear. That's a lot of facts we know there. And all of those facts together tell a story of how things may have come to pass. It's a compelling story that dispels the need for an intelligent creator, at least for those who are willing to set aside their preconceived notions, if even for a brief moment. Even before modern science presented us with the facts about DNA, Darwin’s story was already quite plausible. And then the knowledge about DNA started trickling in and fell into place, like the pieces of a puzzle, giving us a better idea of the whole picture. You have to be blind, or rather blinded, not to see this.I'm sorry for all those ID-ers out there, but that's what science tells us nowadays, and until there are compelling reasons to think otherwise, let's keep things simple and stick to what we do know and not to what our fantasy might lead us to believe.Cheers.{edited to correct a few small slips of the keyboard}[This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 07-23-2003]

Howdy...

quote:

---

You are the first person on this thread to to tell me what would count as evidence for ID that isn't either a demand for extraordinary evidence, or a demand to prove the impossible or a demand to observe the designer in action.

---

Neither request is unreasonable, Warren. In fact, the only absolute proof we could find of a designer is to meet the designer. But we aren't talking about absolute proof-- at least, I'm not talking about absolute proof. I'm talking about scientific proof, which is compiling the evidence and working out the most likely explaination for it.

quote:

---

The other ID critics on this forum would no doubt disagee with you concerning what you say should count as evidence for ID.

---

I've read through what others have written. I'll comment in a moment.

quote:

---

They want to see "Made by God" written in the cell. Or they want to see an example of something that couldn't possibly have evolved. Or they want to see an intelligent designer designing things.

---

All reasonable requests. The first would certainly clench the deal. Finding a manufacturer's tag would certainly prove ID. Not finding such a tag does not disprove ID. I don't know why you find this so objectionable. The second... well, every ID theorist I have ever read has made the Irreducible Complexity argument and that argument is just this-- that X couldn't have possibly evolved. This one is the ID theorist's fault. As for the third, if it were going to happen, it likely would have. Nonetheless, it falls into the same category as the first.Now, comments on my criteria:Crash, in Post # 167, states that... I think we'd have to deal with this statistically. Basically, as Crash suggests, if we mere mortals can find flaws/weaknesses in a design and/or improve the design we are forced to consider it less than optimal and place it on a scale accordingly. Minor problems count few points against. Major problems count more. The 'perfect form' would be the most flaw-free form we could devise. It is an abstraction, obviously, but we do it all the time-- auto safety ratings, for example. There is no perfectly safe automobile, but that doesn't stop us from having a standard for comparison.NosyNed, in Post # 168 states...

quote:

---

Another one would be something that has a clear disconnect from everything around it. That might be explainable with other ideas but would be hard. For example, if humans weren't so obviously just more of the same.

---

This is basically what I meant by 'critters not made up of spare parts.' So, no problem there.Holmes, in Post # 171 states... I agree. It isn't sufficient. It would be an indication, however. It is a matter of the direction of inference. A designer could use spare parts as well as new, so finding the use of spare parts does not rule out design. On the other hand, finding all-new custom parts in significant quantities would indicate, but not prove, design.Holmes raises another issue which I have already addressed.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Well the title is my point. An intelligent designer has some purpose of their own in mind. Therefore examples of intelligent design should be seen to serve the ends of the designer.THere are two important reasons for bringing this out. Firstly it shows how the ID movement does not follow the usual methods for identifying design, and secondly to show the difficulty of producing a coherent ID view (something that is rather important if ID wants to be a real scientific alternative to evolution).