A case for Natural Design

jar writes:

quote:

---

As a starting place, once a sufficient amount of hydrogen existed, do the basic laws of physics make it inevitable that some of the hydrogen would be drawn together until density reached a point where atoms would collide to make helium?

---

I'm probably raising my nonphysicist head high enough get it lopped off, but wouldn't that depend on what the hydrogen is doing? If the hydrogen is distributed perfectly evenly and is expansively accerlerating, why would the atoms collide? I seem to recall that current theories of cosmogyny include some element of uneven density to explain the clumpiness of the observed universe, whether that be echos of a Big Crunch, local inflation, etc.Guess that may be a quibble (but an awfully big one in implication).. I would answer, yes: given a universe where hydrogen atoms collide, where there is sufficient mass to form stars, and sufficient time for the process to proceed, evolution would be inevitable. Complexity would necessarily emerge, and sentience with it.As to the definition of design (I am resisting the impulse to grab Webster's), it seems to me that the common understanding of a design (as opposed to the process of design) is a plan, blueprint, or template: DNA and the resulting organism fit that understanding well.So perhaps the question and/or the answer is to examine evolution as an emergent property that produces design.Does the process of design require intelligence? Heck, no--committees produce designs with results that resemble many organisms EDIT: Sorry, Parasomnium, if this seems OT--I hadn't read your rejoinder before I clicked it in...This message has been edited by Omnivorous, 07-27-2005 09:10 AM

purpledawn:

quote:

---

If the machine serves no purpose, wouldn't that demonstrate that there is no underlying plan?

---

"purpose" and "serve" and "underlying plan" are words that carry a lot of baggage.Reproduction is the function.

Parasomnium asks:

quote:

---

Could we get back to natural design?

---

Frankly, I'm not sure what you are looking for here.If we merely discuss how evolution has generated organisms that are marvellously adpated to their environment, the endeavor seems either self-evident (to an evolutionist) or tautological (to a Creationist).We have limited the discussion to the biological realm, ruling out the discussion of universally emergent complexity as the substrate of biologic complexity and the ground of natural/apparent design.We could consider how the processes of natural design parallel those of intelligent (human) design, say, in their mechanisms of refinement, e.g., the reiterative 'blueprint/model' process of RMNS, or the "open design competition" of stress-induced hypermutability. But I don't see how modelling these analogies will pull any rugs out from under ID.Perhaps you could provide a working definition of "natural design?"BTW, IMHO, to say that the function of the organism is reproduction, and that the function of the genes is replication, does not fall into infinite, fruitless regression, but rather pursues the inquiry where the data lead.

quote:

---

A working definition of natural design? How about:

​

"The occurrence of genuine function and/or purpose in living organisms or parts thereof, which arose by natural means, without the help of intelligence."

---

One might consider focusing that definition further. Clearly, ID wants to trade on the synonymic aura of design: plan, intention, desired outcome.The question of an organism's function or purpose veers into the metaphysical or, due to the limits of language, at least leaves a connotative bolt hole. The question of function within the organism, in contrast, can perhaps set that aside: one can put the purpose of the organism as a whole in phenomenological brackets, so to speak, if focused on the organ systems' support of viability."The occurrence of useful and efficient function, realized without the help of intelligence, within the anatomy and physiology of living organisms."NosyNed, I appreciate the analogy: the brute force approach, basically, and thus RM without NS, esp. since puzzle pieces are of a limited number of sizes and shapes, and the solution could "fail" at replicating the original picture but also "succeed" at producing a novel one.

randman writes:

quote:

---

Do you have a naturalistic explanation of how the universe came into being and remains that way without any assistance from an Intelligent Force, Designer, or Creator?

---

I am not aware of any stasis that requires maintenance.

I've been pondering this thread for several days. It has occurred to me that we are not far from a succinct description (though not full formulation) of the theory of evolution.I find that extraordinarily charming.