A thought on Intelligence behind Design

I demand niether proof nor certainty.All I require is coherent explanation of why you assume
Intelligent Design.I have not heard anything beyond incredulity ... feel
free to enlighten me.By 'all machines have an IC core' I assume what you mean is
that some components of all machines are IC.As pointed out before, the major problem with inferring ID from
IC is that it assumes that the current function was the
intended function. If this is not the case (and we cannot
know that it is) then the argument fails.

So .... has Warren left the building ...?

quote:

---

There is no evidence that non-intelligent processes can produce machines

---

This has already been answered in terms of 'what is a machine?'
and Genetic Programming as an example of 'dumb design'.I'll point out the minor technical detail that an absence of
evidence doesn't point to anything AT ALL!!! Even if there
were a lack of evidence.It would be difficult to conceive of a dumb process producing a car,
I agree. But life is based on chemistry ... very complex, mulitple
interacting reactions that have, as an emergent property, what
we call life.Chemical reactions CAN and DO happen all by themselves in nature.I find it hard to understand how you cannot see that the whole
ID concept is founded in culturally programmed incredulity.

quote:

---

Warren<< [...]Science has no test to distinguish between teleological and non-teleological causes, yet that has not stopped it from investigating non-teleological causes. [...]>>

---

And until there is such a method ID is dead in the water.That's all anyone here has said: 'Show us the intelligence.'

quote:

---

Warrren<< I see. So imagining a vague story with potential pathways counts as the experimental evidence that establishes neo-Darwinian evolution as the cause behind flagellar origins.>>

---

No. It refutes the claim that IC cannot evolve though. ANY
biologically feasible evolutionary route refutes the claim
that IC sub-systems cannot evolve.

quote:

---

Warrren<< 5. You have no way of distinguishing a non-teleological origin from a teleological origin for the flagellum.>>

---

Neither do you.You, however, don't even have a half-decent proposition about
how it could have come about, nor any evidence (of any form)
to suggest that life was intelligently designed.

quote:

---

Warren<< Right back at you. The ID critic assumes non-teleological processes are sufficient to explain every aspect of biotic reality and challenges the ID proponent to either show them the designer or prove blind watchmaking impossible. Failing that the ID critic wins by default.>>

---

What ID critics ask for is a testable hypothesis, some methods
of determination, and some evidence to support the stance.None is forthcoming, and any refutation or even mild criticism
is met with evangelical vitriol.

quote:

---

Warren<< What would you accept as evidence for ID? Seeing the designer in action? Proof that blind watchmaking is impossible? Yeah, you're open-minded alright.>>

---

Tell me exactly what the IDer designed.
Show me the evidence that it WAS designed.
Show me the evidence that there was intelligence behind that design.The above are the minimum necessary (including approriate defintion
of terms) to be able to critically assess your opinion.

quote:

---

Warren<< Your opinion that ID lacks evidence is worthless since you have yet to tell me what you would consider evidence for ID.>>

---

I could recite a whole host of evidential support for evolutionary
theory whether you tell me what you are looking for or not.I have asked creationists 'What evidence would make you consider
evolution a possibility?' and got replies that amount to
'Nothing would.'

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.

There is no reason to assume that IC cannot evolve .... unless
you are using it as evidence for design of course!!!What's that book again? It's got a bit in it that starts
'there are none so blind...'

Evolutionary algorithms refute that claim in any case.The model presented is of a number of 'components' which
go together as 'circuits' ... the 'Darwinian mechanism' of
descent with modifaction governed by natural selection is applied
.... and leads to new circuit designs (and sometimes ones that
do things they were not expected to -- like act as a radio
receiver).There may be intelligence in the design of the rules, but the process
blindly follows Darwinian 'rule' and leads directly to
complex, in some cases IC, electrical circuits (IC in the sense
that removing a component stops the circuit from working to
meet the 'selection pressure').

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.

---

This is true -- until we have evidence of it we can make no
further comment than it is possible.It is possible that I am a bluey-green octopod from a planet
in the vicinity of Beetlejuice -- without evidence one can niether
confirm or deny that (any other response is one of incredulity).To BASE a whole system of thought around an untested, unevidenced
notion is as wrong as denying that the notion is a possibility
(no matter how remote).

quote:

---

Sure, but that isn't the kind of argument that ID theorists are making. Life is machine-dependent and code dependent. We associate machines and codes with intelligent design not geochemistry. You want to make the case that codes and machines can be produced via non-intelligent processes? Then present your case. I'm all ears.

---

Electrical circuit designs have been produced via non-intelligent
processes -- that's what evolutionary programming is for. Yes the
'system' is set up, but the 'process' that does the design and
outputs the 'circuit' is non-intelligent.Show me that there are any codes in biological systems. DNA
is referred to as the 'genetic code' in a somewhat loose
analagous way, not literally as a 'code'.The things that go on in cells are all chemical, the transcription
etc. processes may appear code-like, that does not make it
a code in the informatics sense.

quote:

---

In the world of software or systems engineering we frequently borrow a concept "...which is suited to a particular purpose..." and adapt it for another purpose. However, the fact that we use it in its original or a modified form does not justify your statement that "... then we do not require any intelligence behind the design."

​

Indeed, whenever an artifact is used for a purpose other than that of it's original designer, we still benefit from the intelligence of that designer. It saves us time trying to design something that will work as well.

---

The 'system' in either of these cases is an intelligent design
since the 'new/modified' artifact had a design intent.What I am talking about is the emergence of a system that
just happens to do something useful -- anything useful in fact.And in software/systems engineering the concepts are not
'suited to a purpose' they are 'designed for a purpose'.I am pointing out that intelligence is not a pre-requisite
of design, and so design cannot be used to infer an intelligence
behind the design.If one wishes to show intelligence then one needs to look
for something else.

quote:

---

Any algorithm that does "design" has merely been designed by it's creator with some part of the knowledge base (intelligence) of the designer embedded in the algorithm.

---

Not necessarily.Evolutionary design algorithms emulate the supposed natural
process of evolution i.e. random change + selection wrt environmental
factors.There is no knowlegde base, there is a process and an environment.The results are patentable circuit designs.In one experiment to create an oscillator, a radio receiver was
generated instead ... because the environment included (accidently)
a radio source emitting at the right frequency.The design fit the environment, but the circuit was completely
unaticipated by the people who created the design program.Intelligent Design postulates 'intent', but uses 'design' to
infer it.This is incorrect.It assumes that what something does, is what it was intended
to do -- but there is no support for that assumption available.

quote:

---

Indeed, whenever an artifact is used for a purpose other than that of it's original designer, we still benefit from the intelligence of that designer. It saves us time trying to design something that will work as well.

---

Here you pre-suppose a designer.In biological systems we cannot pre-suppose an intelligent designer
if it is an intelligent designer that is being sought.I have seen many lines of reasoning that basically say 'if
it is designed it has an intelligence behind it'.What I am saying is that change+selection can produce entities
that appear as though they were designed. So that something
'looks designed' does not mean it had an intelligence
behind it.Design does not have intelligence as a pre-requisite.What else indicates the 'intelligence'?