It seems to me that, if an explanation relies on a concept so heavily as to include the word in the name of the hypothesis, ( Intelligent Design ) then it should be scientifically accessible and measurable. So please, look past my attempts at sarcasm, as there is a valid point there...I think. ( I think...therefore I design ! )
I would like to know how the commodity of "Intelligence" - or the intelligence 'factor' is defined in the ID hypothesis.
By what standards is this implied intelligence measured ?
Is this level of intelligence constant, or does it fluctuate based loosely on the relative complexity / simplicity of various, known organisms ?
How is that objectively determined ?
Is this method, of determining the intelligence factor, testable ? …falsifiable ?
Would this “intelligence” have to answer every question ?…or be instructed to just answer the questions it knows ? …since only “wrong answers” count against their final scores ?
If you think such questions have no valid basis, tell us why.
Why should we rely on an unknown ( unknowable ? ) quantity or quality, to explain an intrinsically critical element of a given explanation, if we didn’t also propose methods and techniques by which to test this “intrinsically critical element”, which could verify or falsify the initial hypothesis ?
If Complex organisms cannot form randomly, thru natural mechanisms, then they must be “designed ” by an intelligent, creative source, composed at a pre-existing level of complexity - greater THAN - the organism being designed.
How intelligent did the designer need to be ?
Can we establish a meaningful range, between a critical minimum and maximum value ? Above or below which, design efficiency degrades ?
So then, can we also establish a design “RATIO” by factoring the design ‘efficiency’ with the Intelligence factor ? Once we factor all the infinite grades of complexity that are observable in nature today, we could lay out some nice 5-color graphs, a few 3-D renderings, a short documentary….THEN !!!
THEN !!! and only THEN !!!
…would we publish and submit to peer review.
It’s good to have a plan, first.
errr….I mean ….a Design. (Intelligence optional ) Regards,
------------------ "I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
Adolf Hitler 1923 - Creationist, Man of God
[This message has been edited by Jeff, 06-10-2002]
--Bottom ID line: Intelligently 'Created'-->'Cursed'-->'Redeemed'
Can any geniuses or non-geniuses here propose a higher intelligence factor that does not violate this nature of the cosmic ID. Albeit, many of you reject the hypothesis outright.
--Obviously, for design to be benign and of maximum intelligence, GLORIOUS IMMORTALITY would have to be factored in. That this may or may not be suggested by natural observation(s) alone (scientific deduction) remains somewhat a matter of parsimony and/or faith biases. Most men ascent to the hypothesis a ‘glorious immortality’ as suggested by the data.
For example, men presently expect to see infinities existing within the good ole space-time continuum. Not all infinites are perceived as intelligent nor benign, many appear ominously cursed (i.e., the lifeless outer darkness), yet they are perceived nonetheless.
Infinity of time is assumed in science (sans relativistic twists) parsimoniously. Time itself seems immortal.
‘Glories’ are ‘objectively’ evident in ‘harmonies’, ‘symmetries’, ‘proportions’, and such excellencies on all cosmic levels. Then ‘subjective glories’ are parsimoniously evident: a ‘spouse’, a ‘child’, a ‘friend’, a ‘lover’, a ‘good’ meal, etc.
‘Redemptive’ events are expectedly seen by all of us. If nothing else, a ‘smile’, a ‘healing’, a good rest, a burst of ‘fresh air’, and so forth
As such, glorious immortality may be theorized under a broad array of ‘appropriate’ faith-biases, i.e., the Christian ones. This would mean parsimonious factoring and ‘appropriately’ weighing such natural observations via scientific-conscience, not merely concluding the Mega-ToE (which unjustly negates all ‘redemptive’ observations as arbitrarily mutated).
quote:Originally posted by Philip: --Bottom ID line: Intelligently 'Created'-->'Cursed'-->'Redeemed'
Can any geniuses or non-geniuses here propose a higher intelligence factor that does not violate this nature of the cosmic ID.
I don't understand this. Intelligence higher than what? And why are we limited to this particular "nature"?
quote:--Obviously, for design to be benign and of maximum intelligence, GLORIOUS IMMORTALITY would have to be factored in. That this may or may not be suggested by natural observation(s) alone (scientific deduction) remains somewhat a matter of parsimony and/or faith biases. Most men ascent to the hypothesis a ‘glorious immortality’ as suggested by the data.
Glorius immortality? Maybe... but I think your assumption that the design(er) be benign and maximally intelligent are out of line. It begs the question of intelligence. In other words, would it require infinite intelligence to design the world or could it be accomplished by a designer of average human intelligence, for example, or could my dog-- who is very smart-- manage the task?
quote: Infinity of time is assumed in science (sans relativistic twists) parsimoniously. Time itself seems immortal.
Not really. Space and time are the same thing. Time begins and ends with space. (You can't just eliminate "relativistic twists" if you are going to talk science) And it collapses in extreme conditions, like black holes.
quote: ‘Glories’ are ‘objectively’ evident in ‘harmonies’, ‘symmetries’, ‘proportions’, and such excellencies on all cosmic levels.
Sorry but no. I don't see this. I see a big freaking mess, but I don't base anything on it. It is subjective. You need some proof or argument stronger than simply stating an interpretation.
quote: As such, glorious immortality may be theorized under a broad array of ‘appropriate’ faith-biases, i.e., the Christian ones.
Wierd conclusion, not to mention that it doesn't follow from anything you've said. Is glorious immortality not not compatible with non-christian theory?
Thanks for the reply, Philip, but for the life of me...I can't tell whether you answered my queries or not.
Is it subjectively possible to evaluate the extent of this alleged Intelligence, based on the complexity / simplicity of living organisms ? ID has been proposed as an hypothesis, to explain the diversity of life. It DOES have advantages that plain old YECism doesn't have, namely - it doesn't require the undermining of the ToE to stand or fall on its own merit.
So, -IF- life REQUIRED an Intelligent force for its design - and this conclusion is based on the study of current organisms - HOW much intelligence is required ? All I ask for is an established range, like
-Smarter than a cricket ( based on ??? evidence ) but... -dumber than 10,000 Einsteins ( based on ??? evidence )
How can Intelligence be invoked into a scientific explanation if it cannot be evaluated ? Does it not matter ?
--Jeff (and John). ‘Intelligence’ is a loaded word, meaning different things to all of us. ----To me it implies ‘metaphysical’ wisdom, (as the wisdom of natural things is passing). ---To others it may be, mere IQ (the ability to score high on tests?), --the ability to ‘catch’ a ‘beautiful’ wife (sorry John, I used that word ‘beauty’, un-objectively), --the ability to make excellent order out of chaos (oops, I did it again, John). --the ability to be free from ‘sin’. --etc.
--I don’t feel like looking up the parsimonious term up in the dictionary.
--I honestly ‘see’ that the creation ‘appears’ ‘intelligently’ ‘astonishing’ on all these levels, i.e.: Ka-Zillions intelligence-worth of Christs, Einsteins, Peace-Makers, Hugh Hefners, Devils, Johns, Brads, Philips, Jeffs, etc.
--How ‘bout you-all? Where does the intelligence lapse?
quote:Originally posted by Philip: --Jeff (and John). ‘Intelligence’ is a loaded word, meaning different things to all of us. ----To me it implies ‘metaphysical’ wisdom, (as the wisdom of natural things is passing). ---To others it may be, mere IQ (the ability to score high on tests?), --the ability to ‘catch’ a ‘beautiful’ wife (sorry John, I used that word ‘beauty’, un-objectively), --the ability to make excellent order out of chaos (oops, I did it again, John). --the ability to be free from ‘sin’. --etc.
In otherwords you are tailoring your interpretation of 'intelligence' so that it will match your picture of god. Why do you do this? Is it because you have already descided that your god created the universe and now you are looking for a theory that you can interpret in such a way that it supports what you believe to be truth?
Slightly off topic. Be careful of the 'free of sin' part. The god of the bible has murdered and has therefore sinned and would, by your definition of intelligence, not be a candidate for the post of creator.
[This message has been edited by compmage, 06-12-2002]
[This message has been edited by compmage, 06-12-2002]
quote:Originally posted by Peter: Intelligent Design is tautology anyhow.
How can something be designed WITHOUT a guiding intelligence ?
Marvelous point you make, Peter, worthy of further consideration. -Is it possible to design without intelligence ? ( y/n)
If not, then how can we be certain if something were designed if we cannot evaluate the intelligence aspect ? Should we not establish the Intelligence first, before attributing it as the source of various designs ?
What implied the intelligence ? The design ? Its beginning to sound like circular reasoning, since neither element ( design & intelligence ) can be independently verified.
Perhaps it was the complexity of the design that implied intelligence. Then we must measure the relative complexities of various organisms, since not all organisms share the same amount of complexity. Is a locust more complex than a fichus tree ? Is a paramecium more complex than a human ?
What about other non-organic natural phenomena ? Like the generation of crystals…snowflakes…rainbows…?? Do they rate as being ‘designed’ ? Do they require designers ? Can certain natural phenomena require “designing” while others do not ?
What standards are used to determine this ?
And even if we establish a method to evaluate varying complexity, wouldn’t this mean the responsible intelligence was also varying ? now back to your point again…
-Is it possible to design without intelligence ? ( y/n)
If so, then we must amend the name of this hypothesis the just ‘designed’ or 'Directed design’ . Consider a spider. A marvelous engineer, capable of spinning complex webs with threads of differing chemical makeup – some sticky, others not, all in order to implement a functional mechanism to trap nourishment. But let’s say the spider spun a web right across the walkway to my backyard. I walk into it, tear it down…run away screaming with a spider web on my face and the next day…I see the spider has rebuilt the web. This time I don’t walk thru it, I take it down with a broom. The next day the spider has restored the web again…and I tear it down. This poor spider will starve before it catches half a dozen meals. So, while the spider is capable of ‘designing’ a structure of relative complexity…the spider itself is far from being intelligent.
So, I propose the answer to your question is: Yes, it –IS– possible to design without intelligence. So now we can claim it is possible to design without intelligence…AND it is possible to design WITH intelligence.
The next step might be to evaluate the impact or effect that intelligence has on its designs. Designs can have varying levels of complexity. We can attribute the most rudimentary designs as not requiring intelligence. As the complexity rises in the designs we are studying, we could attribute a rise in the intelligence of the designing agent.
Now we have a spectrum of intelligence –from Spider to Solomon² - that account for a spectrum of complexities observed in designs.
What about other factors of design ? What about ‘efficiency’ of design ?
Could a simpler design be a more efficient design ? Objectively speaking… Yes it could.
So now we’re burdened with yet another aspect to evaluate: the relative efficiency of design, indexed with the designs complexity.
Does a simpler, more efficient design imply a lesser intelligence was required than for a complex, inefficient design ? Perhaps we must know more about the designs being compared. Were they devised to accomplish the same goals ?
And if you attempt to cut thru the Gordian Knot with a sharp thrust of “ all designs ( simple & complex – efficient and inefficient ) can be attributed to the same Great Designer – who is capable of causing all such scenarios “ you must provide substantiating data to support this notion.
How do you go about accomplishing that ?
How do you evaluate the Intelligence of an unknown, unverifiable entity ?
ID just keeps getting messier and messier the deeper we try to understand it USING Science.
Can any of our IDists clean this up for me ?
[b] [QUOTE] However we define that intelligence. [/b][/QUOTE]
However DO YOU define that intelligence ?
[b] [QUOTE] Perhaps instead if ID it should be called 'Directed Creation' or just plain old 'Creation' [/b][/QUOTE]
That’s fine too. Just don’t pretend it’s science.
------------------ "Freedom of Religion" equates to Freedom -FROM- those religions we find unbelievable.
[This message has been edited by Jeff, 06-12-2002]
quote:Originally posted by Philip: --the ability to ‘catch’ a ‘beautiful’ wife (sorry John, I used that word ‘beauty’, un-objectively),
Fine, just don't pretend it proves anything.
quote: --I don’t feel like looking up the parsimonious term up in the dictionary.
Whoa...... parsimony? YOU USED THE WORD FIRST, PHILIP!!!!! And you used it several times in post #2 of this very thread. Now I find out that you don't know what it means and don't have the time to look it up. Maybe post #2 was by another Philip? The address matches yours? Maybe you are quoting someone else? But there is no citation?
quote: --I honestly ‘see’ that the creation ‘appears’ ‘intelligently’ ‘astonishing’
How can you see 'appears' or 'intelligently' or 'astonishing'? It doesn't make sense.
quote:Originally posted by Peter: Not sure whether you got the idea that I was an IDer from my post ... I'm not.
That was not my intention. I didn’t see much relevance to the question in your reply.
[b] [QUOTE] But I'll respond to some of your points anyhow (from MY perspective I might add).
What evidence do we have that the spider DESIGNS a web ? [/b][/QUOTE]
Perhaps we should agree on a definition of ‘design’ before proceeding. Do spider webs follow a generally repeated pattern ? Do they all serve a similar function ? Are they constructed in a similar fashion using similar materials ? Are there generally similar limitations that must be observed ?
If no design is required then a single strand of silk could be considered an entire ‘web’. …and a single pebble could be considered the Roman Coliseum.
[b] [QUOTE] If the spider is sans intelligence, then the method for building a web must be imprinted in its genes ... i.e. instinct. [/b][/QUOTE]
Agreed. Spiders design and construct webs without intelligence.
[b] [QUOTE] Complexity::
Complexity has nothing at all to do with design, and can niether point to design nor point to a lack of design. [/b][/QUOTE]
Hey, ID isn’t MY theory either. But the merits of such a ‘theory’ depend on how well it can explain. Most IDers reference the concept of “Irreducible complexity” as substance of their theory. But you’re saying they’re all wrong. I agree.
[b] [QUOTE] If you find a long stick next to a rounded stone, it could be just a stick and a stone ... or it might be a fulcrum and lever that somone has thought about, designed, and used then discarded. [/b][/QUOTE]
I agree, then. It is very difficult – if not impossible – to determine whether something was designed if we have no knowledge of who the designer is…and for what purpose or goal the design was meant to serve. So far, ID has been postulated on these very observances with no prior knowledge of who the designer is…or even whether this alleged designer exists. That’s very poor science.
[b] [QUOTE] Efficiency::
Has no bearing on whether something was designed or not. [/b][/QUOTE]
Ahh…but we’re not interested in just demonstrating it was designed! The hypothesis calls for “INTELLIGENT” design. I was suggesting we may be able to evaluate this alleged intelligence by examining various elements of design for their sophistication. If you are saying that we could drop the “INTELLIGENT” factor of ID – then I’m all for it. Especially since there doesn’t seem to be a method to determine the level of intelligence in “INTELLIGENT DESIGN”. Maybe intelligence isn’t required. Maybe a moron-god created life.
[b] [QUOTE] It is an attribute of an object/entity which performs a function. [/b][/QUOTE]
And IDers claim we can establish the existence of said designer by examining that which it designed.
[b] [QUOTE] In a non-IDist world we see efficiency in many non-designed things and inefficiency in many designed things. [/b][/QUOTE]
Are the IDists somehow impaired from doing this ?
[b] [QUOTE] Design without Intelligence::
If it was designed then there had to be intelligence behind the design. [/b][/QUOTE]
We’ve gotten no where, so far. How do we determine if it was designed ? ...and then demonstrate that it was Intelligently designed ? According to your comment, we have to establish the fact that life was designed FIRST, and then we can assume intelligence. IDists do not feel compelled to show how something HAD to be designed rather than evolved. That wouldn’t fit their agenda.
Besides, my spider example contradicts your notion that something demonstrating a design HAD to have had intelligence behind it. ID theory would stipulate a spider web WAS designed.
It’s reassuring to know that others suspect their claims too.
[b] [QUOTE] Design (unless I'm mistaken) means planning something before you do it. Planning in advance is an indicator of intelligence. [/b][/QUOTE]
Planning in advance is not a requirement of design, but for the sake of argument let’s ask this:
Does the spider PLAN to catch bugs with the web ? Is there a pre-existing incentive or need that the web fulfills ?
[b] [QUOTE] The quesiton here i.e. How intelligent must a designer be ? in my opinion, can be answered by saying intelligent enough to plan in advance. [/b][/QUOTE]
Like a spider. Agreed. But that not raising the bar very high.
[b] [QUOTE] The problem being that intelligence and levels of intelligence are not sufficiently understood to quantify in the first place. [/b][/QUOTE]
Agreed !! Outstanding !!! Hardly the basis for a theory, then right ?
[b] [QUOTE] All I was saying in any case was that the term Intelligence, in ID, is pointless ... and we are left with Design ... which is analgous to Creation ... and hence my view that ID is just Creationsim.
Oh, and I agree ... I have seen no science in ID yet.
For any IDer's out there ::
I think that research effort should be placed into 'Determination of Design'.
If you do not have a peer reviewed, mainstream science accepted theory for design determination you have NO basis for your hypotheses ... and are not being scientific. [/b][/QUOTE]
Thanks, Peter, I was hoping I made a little sense.
I’m surprised that more such objections haven’t already been raised by the scientific community when IDists come to town.
------------------ "Freedom of Religion" equates to Freedom -FROM- those religions we find unbelievable.
quote:Originally posted by compmage: In otherwords you are tailoring your interpretation of 'intelligence' so that it will match your picture of god. Why do you do this? Is it because you have already descided that your god created the universe and now you are looking for a theory that you can interpret in such a way that it supports what you believe to be truth?
--Of course. Scientific inquiry involves hypotheses, gathering empirical data, testing, and looking for a theory c/w results.
quote:Originally posted by compmage: Slightly off topic. Be careful of the 'free of sin' part.
--What, some people don’t define intelligence as wisdom, to varying extents? Even Sir Huxley cited ‘avoiding sin’ (albeit, for Evo reasons).
quote:Originally posted by compmage: The god of the bible has murdered and has therefore sinned and would, by your definition of intelligence, not be a candidate for the post of creator.
--That you focused on the last arbitrary definition of intelligence I merely postulated … seems apparent. The ID as “murdering/sinning” (in or out of the Bible) seems more a projection of bias. For, how can the thing that is formed complain to the one that formed it, saying, “He has made thus and thus and then sinfully murdered them?’ On the other hand, consider the ‘mass-murders’ by Israelites that were left undone in Canaan after the Exodus? Had they been finished, the US and other countries probably would not be under Palestinian Terrorist attacks. Also, when the damned are resurrected (assuming the ‘ethical intelligence’ is valid) there should be infinite justice against sin, right? Any premature death(s) (or “murder” as you call them) by a just ID would LESSEN THE ETERNAL SEVERITY of hell-fire. This is smart and timely mercy to the wretched life-form/soul, no? Add that to the IQ.
--Or let the God of the Bible speak on such logic/intelligence: Romans 9:20 …Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory…
quote:Originally posted by Philip: For, how can the thing that is formed complain to the one that formed it, saying, “He has made thus and thus and then sinfully murdered them?’
If you accept the premise that there is in fact a 'thing that formed it' then this makes a lot of sense; but it does require that assumption. I don't understand how you can get to this conclusion without assuming ID in a premise. Since this topic is about ID's IQ, how is it even possible to debate this at all? This rule essentially prevents any criticism of an ID in light of observable phenomena. No matter what we observe, we have to merely accept that ID knows best.
quote: On the other hand, consider the ‘mass-murders’ by Israelites that were left undone in Canaan after the Exodus? Had they been finished, the US and other countries probably would not be under Palestinian Terrorist attacks.
Yikes.... frightfully reminiscent of Nazi rhetoric, just substitute Jews for Caananites.....Sorry Phillip, this is scary.
quote: Any premature death(s) (or “murder” as you call them) by a just ID would LESSEN THE ETERNAL SEVERITY of hell-fire.
How can you lessen the eternal severity of hellfire? Forever minus fifty years is still forever. Any lessening would turn out to be an infinitely small fraction-- literally. Conscience soothing but hardly significant...
quote:Originally posted by John: How can you lessen the eternal severity of hellfire? Forever minus fifty years is still forever. Any lessening would turn out to be an infinitely small fraction-- literally. Conscience soothing but hardly significant...
--(Note; this reply was to the elusive Compmage, albeit I heartily welcome anyone’s inquiry/debate) --I should indeed clarify, John; my comments are mere speculation with regards to the Lord’s ‘extermination’ programs, mere speculation. I agree my speculation seems bigoted and/or judgmental. I’m sorry. --But regarding hell-fire, I was speculating on the severity (intensity) of the heat/pain per second, not the temporal coordinates. E.g., Hitler: Hitler may merit more of a fiery-intensity of hell-fire for his unbelief/hate than say the local whoremonger. Assuming Hitler has already been in hell 55 years (or even a pre-lake-of-fire/hades-pit as some ‘dispensationalists’ would argue) would seem to have little to do with the qualitative intensity of the justice rendered … and little to do with the infinity thereof, as well. This concurs, somewhat, with what you cited. Perhaps the unrepentant whoremonger will spend eternities in a less entropic ‘darkness’ than the Hitler-types; albeit, this is just a thought. --The point is: An intelligent designer’s smart IQ would seem to have to factor in qualitative and/or quantitative judgment of all sin, and that in a just/smart manner. --Incidentally, the IQ of the ID would have to be smart enough to provide an alternate course of judgment that forgives the incessant sinners (that you and I are) as well, namely the ‘Christ-crucified-for-sin’ judgment. Of course, the nature of the IQ of such an ID might be scientifically worked up by natural observations as we..
[This message has been edited by Philip, 06-16-2002]