A thought on Intelligence behind Design

Human beings, at some point in history, likely discovered how animals that burned to death in fires were good to eat - most likely an accidental discovery. Humans discovered that the natural gas coming from the earth was flammable, also probably by accident. Would that mean that intelligent design is absent from the gas range? Is the designing intelligence behind the evolution of the gas stove a product of the evolution of life? Is it likely that the emergence of a designing intelligence in life happened accidently? Is the gas range it's final and ultimate creative act in response to the accidental discovery that cooked food is good?How could any thinking human being come to the absolute conclussion that design is absent from evolution as many scientists seem to do? And, on the other side of the coin, how could any thinking human being come to the conclusion that humans are now fully capable of understanding and describing the nature and final purpose of a universal intelligence or designing presence as religionists often do?[This message has been edited by Barryven, 07-29-2003][This message has been edited by Barryven, 07-29-2003]

What you are referring to, I think, is the presence of an intelligent designer who, to exist, must be perfect in it's designing capabilities and certainly wouldn't have struggled with evolution, extinctions, botched individuals, etc. ... A perfect, omnipotent diety God like the God of many religions. So, it seems, the choice is either that or nothing at all.But, what if both positions are wrong (incomplete). The fact that many human beings have burned themselves, died, botched their directional designing efforts in the use of fire, doesn't prove the absence of designing or creative intelligence at work, does it? Are you saying that mistakes in evolution should prove the absence of any creative or designing presence or principle in evolution???And, maybe it is possible that the gas range is a product of a huge number of coincidental events that just look like design. We can know that because no designer or intelligence would have made all those errors.
Barry

quote:
Not all scientists do, and not all feel the need to. The problem is those who assume design, who do research with the end goal of finding evidence thereof, simply to justify their emotional need for a creator god. I don't assume absence of design. I assume that I can understand the world by observing and inferring, and by learning from others who do the same. If there were anyone who presented arguments for design, without having a pre-existing emotional requirement for their work to lead them to that point of view, I would find that compelling, and would take their work seriously. I just haven't ever heard of such a person.I agree with this statement. I also feel that there is a significant element in the scientific community who, because of the efforts of those with a "design" agenda, take an oppositional position based on an emotional requirement to refute.What I find objectionable is that many scientists react to anyone who presents the possibility that there may be more than one way to understand the relationship of things..such as the emergence of human intelligence and the instinct to create using reproduction and natural selection of designing ideas could be a possible expression of universal designing presence.. means that I have taken a position and am insisting that this is how I prove the existence of God..There was a time when some people believed there was an invisible presence that visited itself on human beings causing sickness and death. Others didn't believe in that at all. Both were right and wrong to some extent. Who, on either side of that argument, could have predicted what the lens revealed. And, if we would have absolutely refused to consider the idea that there was something living that interacted with human beings and that was invisible to the naked eye...well, you know what I mean.My only point is that an open mind characterized by truly open ended questioning and research is the best position...like the position you've described for yourself.So, new ideas regarding the relationships of things - the possible relationshiup of the emergence of human intelligence and the instinct to design to universal intelligence and design - do not prove anything...but, they should not always be taken as attempts to impose a religious agenda on science...could just be a question...something like the age old question: is there a relationship between the visible world and some invisible world? Who, a few hundred years ago, could have presented any credible argument supporting that a relationship like that existed?[This message has been edited by Barryven, 07-31-2003]

the laws of physics, mathematics are useful to human beings - seem to exist independent of human beings - and their ultimate source remains a mystery. there are probably some other laws (possibly applying to "dark matter") that we haven't discovered yet.If there is an organizing or directional principle in the universe expressed in the evolution of life on our planet in the reproduction and the natural selection of more complex and adaptible organisms it may be an, as yet, undiscoverd law or principle - something like the laws of physics or mathematics.I know that just this suggestion should elicit some comment regarding a need to beleive in New Age, Happy, Magic, love Science.In a another forum I asked for an naturalistic example of a model of self-organization that would serve in some way to support the absolute absence of any principle or designing presence in evolution.The example cited was that of a crystal. Using the same approach you use, MrHambre, I probably should have expressed some sarcastic agreement that this was a good example...given the fact that New Agers believe that crystals have evolved special healing qualities that are useful in their practices...and that there have been numerous science fiction stories about planets in which crystals evolved into self-consciousness. By using that kind of sarcasm I could dismiss this person and his example...like you seem to do with anyone who suggests that the presence of some form of ID might be worth questioning.That kind of response says more about your emotional state than it does about your capacity for reason and dialogue.[This message has been edited by Barryven, 08-04-2003][This message has been edited by Barryven, 08-04-2003][This message has been edited by Barryven, 08-04-2003]

Neither is the principle of open minded, questioning and investigation lacking, only your view of it..
Cheers

What can I say?? What can anyone say whose brains have fallen out...so - nevertheless indulge me a little.Evolution produced a replica of itself in human consciousness it seems to me - - the result of my brain falling out..but, nevertheless, it seems to me that evolution produced human consciousness and human consciousness responds to the environment in an evolutionary way that is so much like what is observed in the evolution of life on our planet that it would be difficult for me to see how it is not a replication.I can see this replication in the way that evolutionary stragegies are expressed in human technology,agriculture, societies, etc. I see it in the replicating, expanding and selection of relationships of ideas, materials,people -even genetic material - in response to the environment in an effort to create more desirable results.It goes down dead ends, it responds to randomly occurring circumstances, sometimes seems to de-evolve in favor of simplicity, exhibits stasis and punctuated equilibrium, uses recombination of ideas the way evolution uses genes- I think someone called them memes. It accidently creates things through the combination of unrelated adaptable strategies that are built upon later (my earlier reference to fire, burnt animals and gas stoves). The potential for extinction that seems to occur in evolution is replicated in the human creation of nuclear weapons or WMD's. It has also created what one could call rudimentary artificial intelligence.Because Human creative activity seems to operate so much like evolution, seems to have been produced by evolution, and is supported by a seemingly intelligent, direction giving consciousness - the human mind - therefore anyone who might ask the question: "If human evolutionary creative activity is driven by human intelligence, and if it is a product of evolution, and if it replicates evolution, could there be an as yet undiscovered directional, or creative or intelligent principle that relates to the evolution of life on our planet?"My understanding from the responses I see here is that anyone who would even propose this question could only be someone who's brains have fallen out...or is a new age dying hippie...and if that's the case...I would agree with you that this is not a discussion that I belong in. Adios

Quote: Isn’t this a philosophical question out of the realm of scientific inquiry?Maybe, but science has historically approached questions that were beyond it’s current capacity to explain. For instance, "What was the nature of the invisible presence that visited itself on humans causing sickness?" Before the invention of the glass lens this was beyond science's ability to answer or verify, at best it was a superstitious or religious kind of question. But, sickness did exist and humans continued to ask seek answers as to why? And, it was mostly philosophical until the limits of human inquiry and verification were transcended with the lenssomething unpredictable I think. The idea behind the persistence of the question was that if an answer could be found human beings would be better off.What sort of evidence do we have that the assumption that there is intelligence would benefit scientific inquiry?First of all, an assumption would have little benefit to scientific inquiry. Replace the word assumption with possibility and I would answer the question differently. I’ll go with possibility I think I made a case for the way human consciousness — a product of evolution — very closely replicates evolution in the way it creatively responds to the environment.Because evolution seems intent on replication I don’t see any reason not to consider (and that’s different than assume) that intelligence or directional creativity could also be part of evolution replicating itself. Human consciousness’ creative responses has some problems. It has insanely created the mechanism for its own extinction. Historically, when science has been open to what seemed to be philosophical or religious questions regarding threats to the human condition it has eventually uncovered unpredicted ways to address those issues. The connecting the invention of the lens to the idea that there is some invisible presence that visits itself on human beings causing sickness is an example. (those kinds of examples of the combining of unrelated variations exist in evolution I think). Again, evolution replicating itself in human creativity.Quote: What sort of evidence would you accept that the design you see in nature is not the product of intelligence?Use the example from my previous post regarding human creativity and the way it seems to replicate evolution and provide some evidence that it is not a very close replication and a product of evolution. And, other than the fact that it can’t be verified at this time, tell me what evidence there is that demonstrates how the presence of intelligence in human creativity cannot be part of the replication.Provide some other example of physical activity verifiably devoid of intelligence, design or direction that displays similar levels of sophistication and self-organizing complexity and momentum as both evolution and human creativity do.And, you may have some other evidence that the design we see in nature does not have some kind of undiscovered, universal presence of direction or design that is part of it’s nature? What is it?I like these kinds of questions and responses I have a problem when sarcasm and such becomes a part of it it usually means to me that the other person is either threatened or emotionally too attached to some position for authentic and worthwhile dialogue to continue and that’s when it’s time for me to disappear That’s happened more often with religious people when I propose that evolution is the right answer to the questions about human origins.
Barry

Let me think about your questions and I'll get back. I did ask some questions as part of my response to your previous 3 questions.What do you think of PaulK's example of how human intelligent driven creativity differs from the way evolution works?PaulK Quote: Human creativity can act in some ways like evolution - that is, we can do "descent with modification". However there are differences.
In a New Scientist article a while back there was an article on "evolving" an electrical circuit to perform a particular task. The experiment had worked but the result was not a human design - in fact it was quite hard to comprehend since it had apparently used side effects of the presence of some components as an essential part of the design....So Paulk states that: "there are real differences between human design and the workings of evolution."

Your rightPaulK’s example seems to support rather than refute, that human creativity operates very much like evolution. He uses a kind of reductionist approach to that example that fails to acknowledge that human intelligence drove the experiment and that the removal of human intelligence would eliminate that specific evolutionary attempt and the opportunity for components to come into some kind of unpredicted relationship.The only example that I know of that could be considered as evidence for the presence of some kind of intelligence, designing or creative principle within evolution is the varafiable and predictable presence of human intelligent driven creativitythat this creativity is exclusively a product of evolution and that it mimics evolution in so many ways . And, it is a scientific fact that evolution is in the business of replication....all this I’ve said before.This doesn’t prove anything and I don’t claim that it does. But, I think that it is a piece of evidence.Regarding your question of where does it end: I don’t see that kind of evidence anywhere else in any verifiable, predictable way as is demonstrated in human creative activity. So, at this point I think that should provide a limit to investigation or scientific questioning.Holmes response that this is a lame analogy that wears him out...well, to say that this is not evidence and say that it is irrelevant to evolution seems to me to smack of the same kind of reasoning that creationists use when they say that similarities in genetic variation and physical variation are absolutely not evidence of some evolutionary process. Genetic variations are simply a component of how God independently created everything in its current state. If someone is absolutist in that perspective, there is little that one can say to change that.I do have some assumptions that support why I think this evidence should be considered. First is that human intelligent driven creative activity was exclusively produced by evolutionnot by an independent act of some other force or some deity in the sky. The human mind is a product of evolution. The five senses are products of evolution. All of it exists because of billions of years of evolutionary driven replication.The differences seem to be that evolution produces variations in organisms and their relationships. Human creativity produces (for the most part) variations in artifacts and their relationships. (and cultures) That’s a difference. There may be other differences that demonstrate why intelligence driven human creativity has no relationship or relevance to evolutionI’m open to looking at thatMy perspective may be limited..If one ran an experiment and predicted that human creativity would act like evolution in all the ways I mentioned before, I think the prediction would prove out. I think if you removed human intelligence from the experiment and randomly mixed human developed processes and materials elimating any elements of purpose or direction well, I don’t think that the results would have the same similarities to evolution.The resistance to this argument, I think, is that if this was seriously taken as a piece of evidence it could open up fissure in the defenses that science has developed in reaction to the creationist’s efforts. And, it seems to me that science knows that if there is any crack at all in these defenses it will simply encourage and maybe empower creationist’s do their thing in our educational system and, who knows, where else.And, you know they will since evolution ultimately proposes that human nature is almost certainly a product of evolution and not the result of Adam and Eve’s original sin.. For Christians that brings up a huge question: What did Jesus die on the cross for?? Since the foundation of so many Christian’s beliefs is based on the idea that Jesus died for the atonement of the sinful nature that was caused by fully formed, fully responsible human beings Adam and Evewell, you know they are going to fight any threats to that with everything they haveI don’t think one should expect anything else.So, the best thing might be to say that the emergence of intelligent driven creativity in human beings that so closely replicates evolution has absolutely no evidentiary value or relevance in terms of the question whether or not there could be a corresponding creative or directional principle in evolution. But,you know I don’t really think that that’s the best thing.
Barry

MrHambre,
Here's my promised reply to #219Quote: If I understand your argument correctly, it seems that you don't believe there is any design that can be considered the product of purposeless, undirected forces. I don’t think I or anyone knows enough to say scientifically that any appearance of design in the universe is or isn’t the product of purposeless, undirected forces. And, so I don’t propose that idea should be given serious scientific consideration - for or against - with the exception of the evolutionary process present in organic life.Quote: This is because it is always conceivable that we simply don't understand the basis of the designer's intentions, so declaring a phenomenon void of teleology is always premature. It will be premature to declare any universal kind of conclussion until proof or evidence exists. So, I do think it is premature to declare anything like that. Not because of the idea that we simply don’t understand the creator’s intention, but because we simply don’t understand.Quote: In that case, why do you accept the notion that disease is the product of microbes? I don’t understand why you asked this question.I accept it because science has disclosed that microbes are one of the causative factors of disease.Quote: Shouldn't we either ascribe purpose to the microbes themselves or acknowledge the possibility that the Creative Principle is using the microbes for its greater purpose? I do think they have an essential role in evolution.a purpose....what would it be like without them? and, if there is a creative or directional or intelligent principle in the evolution organic life, they would have a purpose.Quote: Isn't it conceivable that the weather only seems to be the result of air pressure, electrical polarity and other natural forces, and is in fact directed by Creative Intelligence? Even though weather may be a factor in stimulating an adaptable (desirable) response from organic life in evolution, I don’t see any evidence that would indicate that science should investigate intelligent design in weather in the same way that there is evidence in the evolution of organic life- the evolutionary produced a replica of itself in intelligent driven human creativity.Quote: In other words, where do we draw the line? The above is as good a place as any I think.Barry

MrHambre:
Quote: "Barry sees the evolutionary development of human intelligent creativity and decides that this must have been the purpose of the evolutionary process."I' ve said that intelligent driven human creativity is a PRODUCT of evolution. I think that's verifiable.What you attribute to me above I don't believe any more than I believe that the purpose of human experimentation with fire was to invent a gas stove... the gas stove wasn't the purpose, it was a product of the directional, intelligent driven human creative process... an intelligence created by evolution which is in the business of replication. And, I've said this repeatedly!!! Could Warren have been right when he accused some of you of building strawmen and then knocking them down??? I know you can do better than that!I've directly addressed most of your questions the best I could and I've asked a number of questions and made statements earlier that you've not directly addressed.And, I would be glad to share with you what I think might be the purpose of evolution if your interested. But, only after you respond directly to questions and statements I've made earlier. And, if you don't know which ones...ask and I will tell you.
Barry

Human, intelligence driven, creative activity that responds to the environment in a way that mimics evolution...meaning the ongoing creation, re-combination and re-creation of desirable (adaptable) relationships between ideas, organic and non-organic matter and energy in ways that are desirable(adaptable)is a produc, I REPEAT "PRODUCT" - of evolution.The mechanics of the human brain, the nervous system and the five senses that enable that to happen are products of evolution. The emergence of human intelligence is directly related to - caused - by evolution...it is much more than an analogy...it is an accepted fact in the scientific community that evolution produced the intelligence that drives human creativity, is it not?Added in the edit: "Here's the premise: If some, as yet unidentified, form of ID were present in evolution and if that replicated itself as human intelligence that mimics evolution, then we must be able to experiment - predict - something that supports that if that hypothesis were to be have any scientific relevence or value.Hypothesis: "If replication is what's going on here and if ID in evolution replicated itself in human intelligence then human intelligence should be also be driven by replication and should try to replicate intelligence in it's creative activity." That would have to be verifiable by observing and evaluating human ideas and the artifacts those ideas give birth to.In other words, it should be predictable that human intelligent driven creative activity should, like evolution, also try to replicate intelligence in what it creates - intelligence that has the capacity to respond to the environment in desirable (abaptable) ways.And, of course, we know - we can verify -that humans are attempting to do that.This is not proof of ID, IT'S ONLY A PIECE OF EVIDENCE. (I'm tempted to repeat this statement because, my experience on this forum is such that I think that some one will likely accuse me of presenting this as proof.)I think that those who practice, what seems to me to be, "The Religion of Science," (not every scientist) and who's denominational creed is that "intelligent design cannot be part of evolution" will never be able to entertain the idea that evidence can be found. Any evidence that points to ID cannot be evidence since it is already known that ID can't be present..so anything that looks like evidence can't be that....must only be lame, irrelavant and unrelated analogies.
Barry[This message has been edited by Barryven, 08-07-2003]

Holmes: "But why couldn't it just as easily be the force of collective will of Nature... i.e. Margulis' Gaia... that creates a biosphere, to continue replicating itself, with all sorts of offshoots (including ideas)? This doesn't even require intentional "design".Does Margulis' Gaia help support your point of view?? Is this something you agree with or disagree with? Is it a position that provides an alternative to ID?? I haven't read it so I can't comment on it, thus I'm not clear about your purpose in citing it...but I'll read it soon.Holmes: First, evolution is similar to other processes seen in an active universe where things must constantly adapt to changing situations in order to "survive". Why do we not address these as well?Give me some examples of the processes you're referring to so that I can comment on them in this context.Also, even though I have focused on human intelligence as a product of evolution I do recognize it as only a small part of what evolution has produced...but, it is a very recent product and has some qualities about it that seem unprecedented in the evolution of life (Although expanded consciousness is apparent in the history of evolution) and it it has a great potential to impact evolution...and to impact the survival potential of the human species. I used the stove as an example but that doesn't mean I fail to recognize that it is only a small part of what human creativity has produced in the evolution of its ideas and strategies on the use of fire.Barry