A thought on Intelligence behind Design

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]

Barry,

quote:

---

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.

---

And all I'm saying is that until it's discovered, how do we know it's there?Pardon me for my sarcasm, but I feel strongly that you New Age types sell nature short in an unforgivable way. The theory of evolution by natural selection, the complexity of DNA, contemporary cosmology, and many other not-so-recent scientific discoveries have presented a picture of our world and universe that is much more staggering, impressive, and thought-provoking than anything dreamed up by ancient mythology or New Age flakes. The fact that I don't feel the need to complement this amazing picture with a few half-baked ideas based on nothing but personal caprices shows that I appreciate the real world as we can currently understand it.If you care to tell me why modern science needs to incorporate feel-good principles or directions or intelligences when there is currently no way to detect or understand them, fine. Otherwise you're wasting our time. Nature is not lacking, Barry, your view of it is.------------------
En la tierra de ciegos, el tuerco es el Rey.

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

Barry,Is my view of 'open-minded' lacking because I don't consider your make-believe mechanisms and principles relevant?Is my view of 'questioning' lacking because I have the nerve to question the scientific basis of a theory put forth as scientific?Is my view of 'investigation' lacking because I mentioned that scientific investigation isn't likely to let you draw whatever conclusions you want?Guilty as charged.------------------
En la tierra de ciegos, el tuerco es el Rey.

Barryven writes:

quote:

---

Neither is the principle of open minded, questioning and investigation lacking

---

It's good to have an open mind......but not so open that your brain falls out.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

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:

---

"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

---

No one is saying you shouldn't ask the question, Barry. I personally answered your question in the affirmative. It's certainly conceivable that you are correct. However, I and several other people here have asked you questions in return and you have not acknowledged them:1) Isn't this a philosophical question, out of the realm of scientific inquiry?2) What sort of evidence do we have that the assumption that there is Intelligence would benefit scientific inquiry?3) What sort of evidence would you accept that the design you see in Nature is not the product of intelligence?

quote:

---

if that's the case...I would agree with you that this is not a discussion that I belong in. Adios

---

We've heard it all before, Barry. If the discussion doesn't tell you what you want to hear, you say you're leaving. Then you come back and say you're through discussing the matter, etc.------------------
En la tierra de ciegos, el tuerco es el Rey.

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

Barry,Thank you for responding to the questions. The reason this particular forum was set up was to determine if there is any way to distinguish between intelligent, directed design and natural undirected design. 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. 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.In that case, why do you accept the notion that disease is the product of microbes? 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? 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?In other words, where do we draw the line?------------------
En la tierra de ciegos, el tuerco es el Rey.

The history of the example you just gave, should explain the problem in your reasoning (or that of the ID camp, if you are merely playing devil's advocate).It was NOT the people that ascribed illness to eternally "invisible presences", like demons or Gods, that eventually discovered microbial organisms were responsible. Neither were they discovered with the help of those who argued scientists (at the time) shouldn't bother seeking natural causes, and instead look for supernatural connections (like sin causing illness.If the techniques advocated by ID theorists--- or the logic you just set up--- had held sway, we might still have no explanation for illness. After all, the microbes seen under the scope could have ideologically been written off as piggy-backing on other "invisible intelligent entities" which actually cause the damage, or have designated that person for disease.And this is exactly what ID is doing today for scientific investigations into human origins. Teachers and scientists are being told that they should throw out their tools and restructure investigations so that "teleology" and "intelligent designers" are always left open as scientific explanations until ruled out (which they never can be by their very nature), or preferably be the default position (based on lame analogies).By the way, I believe you made a slight mistake in answering MrH's question. He asked "Isn't a philosophical question out of the realm of scientific enquiry?". "Realm of scientific enquiry" means the scope of science itself, not the current limits of technology or accumulated data. You seem to have equivocated between the two in your answer.If you don't understand what I mean, let me use an example. Let's say seismic readings suggest something "happened" at the very bottom of an oceanic trench. We might not have the physical means to find out exactly what happened due to the depth of the trench, but that does not remove the question of what happened from the realm of scientific enquiry.However the question of whether coral reefs are "built" according to the taste of Poseidon, IS beyond the realm of scientific enquiry.Uhmmm, while I'm at it let me note Mr.H made a mistake as well. Since science is a branch of philosophy--- natural philosophy--- scientific enquiry answers philosophical questions all the time. I believe what mr H meant to say is "metaphysical" questions. That is the branch of philosophy dealing with reality beyond the scope of the physical. IMHO, you did not make this case at all, or at least not a convincing one. Evolution in biology is similar to the evolution of ideas, therefore a force which has the capability of thinking might be influencing/driving evolution?First of all, just because something is like something else does not mean either are connected in any way. It feels like an analogy has once again escaped its boundaries, to become a description of reality.Second of all, anything that "adapts to the situation or environment" will be like something else which "adapts to the situation or environment". It doesn't seem that hard to find other examples in nature.How about the flow of water from a mountaintop? A river will do all sorts of changing based on changing conditions, to reach a lower level. or how about solar systems reacting/adapting to new gravitational/energy environments (like intruding planetary bodies). Maybe those are a stretch...How about societies? or even collectives of social organisms (like beehives and ant colonies)? It is very easy to see these colonies of organisms adapting to both internal and external changes, as if it was an intelligent entity separate from the beings which make them up. But it is simply the collective response of each individual organism which add up to a seeming "decision" or "change" being made by the collective.Lynn Margulis would probably have more examples along this line. Think symbiotic relationships. I actually loathe these kinds of questions and responses. Having to continually explain that a good analogy, or similarity, does not mean anything more than that is annoying to me.When people use analogies to avoid answering direct questions of how we can measure, or detect some phenomema--- a phenomena those same people raise as a "possibility" science MUST consider--- it usually means that THEY feel threatened.For example, I notice Warren has never answered any concrete question I have raised. Not even the very simple one of what we should do if everyon totally AGREED with him that there is reason to SUSPECT that ID exists.In the end that is the only important question to science. How do we move from "suspicion" to "knowledge" on a subject?It seems to me the only medium an ID culture can survive in, is one of suspicion. ID theorists can surprise me at any time by finally connecting the dots.------------------
holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 08-04-2003]

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.In a more recent article there was a discussion of Niles Eldredge's attmept to produce a phylogenetic tree of the cornet. Because the designers were copying each other's innovations it was a lot harder to produce a tree showing the ancestry than it was for trilobites and the tree looked rather different.So there are real differences between human design and the workings of evolution.

This isn't the article but I think it refers to the same study you are talking about.------------------
He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife.
- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy

That looks right - here's the one I was referring to :Page not found | New ScientistSadly the other article is not so easily available.

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."

Barry,

quote:

---

What do you think of PaulK's example of how human intelligent driven creativity differs from the way evolution works?

---

What do you think about it? It might be very relevant to your assertion that the similarities between human design and evolution somehow point to Intelligence behind evolution. What do the differences between the two processes suggest?And again, I say you could claim that anything and everything is the product of an as-yet-unverifiable Intelligence. But you can't call the claim a scientific one.------------------
En la tierra de ciegos, el tuerco es el Rey.