In discussions between proponents of ID and evolutionists, an often heard ID argument is that there is design in living nature and that
therefore there must be an intelligent designer. The unspoken assumption is of course that design can only be the product of intelligence.
I think that this assumption is unwarranted and lies at the heart of a persistent misapprehension with regard to the nature of evolution. The often made mistake is to think that if evolution is a mindless process then there can be no design resulting from it. Although I think that evolution is indeed a mindless process, I do not think it cannot create design.
This perceived (but false) dichotomy between design and evolution is sometimes exacerbated by evolutionists who have themselves fallen victim of this type of thinking. Proponents of ID often feel strengthened in their conviction by the fact that some evolutionists mistakenly maintain that there is no design in nature, where there is clearly an abundance of it.
So the prevailing view, at least among lay people in both camps, seems to be that design implies intelligence. I would like to challenge that view. I propose that there is design in nature and that it arose by natural means. The mechanism of evolution is capable of enhancing this natural design to a very sophisticated level, so sophisticated indeed that it's on a par with intelligent (human) design.
With this proposal I hope to pull the rug from under ID arguments that use design as evidence of an intelligent designer, as well as from under evolutionist arguments that deny the existence of design altogether. The scope of this topic should be the feasibility of the concept of natural design, the details of how it could have arisen, and any arguments against it.
The choice where to place it would be between "Biological Evolution" and "Intelligent Design", I think, but I'll leave that to the admins to decide.
™ Version 4.2