Does complexity require intelligent design?

I have seen the assertion on this, and other religious debate boards, that the complexity of the universe could only have been achieved by an intelligent designer. This leads me to a specific question:1 - How/Why does (apparent) complexity necessitate an intelligent designer?The apparent intelligence behind the universe's "design" is due to human perception. Sort of like looking at the stars and seeing patterns. Ancient humans saw shapes in the sky and saw visions of Gods, now we know that the constellations are just coincidental arrangements of stars. The apparent design of one group of stars, obscures the that fact that the vast majority of stars are arranged in a random pattern. In fact, focusing on any system that works ignores all of the systems that didn't work. The millions of species that became extinct because they couldn't compete. The millions of planets that were destroyed because they were hit by meteors or comets, and the millions of stars that are too hot or too cold to sustain life.Citizzzen

Well, I agree with all the above (At least the parts I understood...) I was hoping to get a contradictory opinion, so that I could understand why ID proponents believe in it. If ID is proposed as separate from Christianity, or any other religion, then what is the basis for it? Surely not science... While science regularly proposes ideas for what it can't explain, it then tests those ideas "theories" to see if they hold up... ID proponents seem pretty sure about ID, but I can't imagine what tests they have conducted.If this doesn't draw out contradictory opinions, I may have to double dog dare someone...Citizzzen

"...Mere complexity does not necessitate an intelligent designer. Complexity with purpose and function seems to indicate an intelligent designer..."So, the proof of intelligent design is dependent on the intelligence of the observer? It seems to me that if you were trying to PROVE ID, you could just keep finding purpose for everything. Is there no criteria you can set out in advance to test for ID? Also, does that mean a complex organism or system without apparent function or purpose, say the platypus, is indicative of no intelligent design?"...I have never witnessed nature [the natural universe] creating anything. I have witnessed intelligent individuals creating machines, works of art, structures, theories, literature..."Astronomers have witnessed the natural universe create new stars, I would say a stable, self sustaining fusion reaction is a pretty complex system. On the other hand, I have see elephants and other zoo animals make "art", and I have seen animals use tools. Again, this whole concept seems to be based on the observers idea of complexity and art..."...How do we know this? (Constellations are coincidental) Is there a mathematical formula that proves this apparent supposition..."I am not sure why there would need to be a mathematical formula... Constellations are three dimensional arrangements of stars. They only look like dippers or whatever from a specific vantage point. Given the billions of stars and the nearly infinite possible viewing angles, there are probably constellations visible from lots of planets. Also, are you arguing that constellations have a purpose and function?"...Which systems that didn’t work are you referring to? Can you give some specific examples..."Well, again, this is dependent on the observer's idea of the purpose of each system. If the purpose of a planet is to host life, then any barren planet is a failure. If the purpose of the planet is to effect the tides on another planet, then maybe it's doing a great job... This is a little like going to a high school and saying, "Show me the kids that dropped out...""...I know that many species are extinct, I didn’t know that it was proven that any are extinct due to an inability to compete with what? Other species? Please give some examples..."Well, what would constitute proof of why a species became extinct? For whatever reason some are simply not around, but we know from fossils that they were. A species that gets hunted to extinction could be said to be a failure at hiding, unless of course you argue that they were designed to be yummy and get hunted to extinction..."...Please give some examples of these planets that were destroyed by meteors or comets..."Well, even without examples (I am an accountant, not an astronomer...) unless you are arguing that every planet ever formed is still around, you can see my point. However, I believe the current theory is that the asteroid belt in our own solar system is the remains of a destroyed planet."...Isn’t the temperature of the stars in question less important than the orbital characteristics of the planets involved? Rates of spin, angles of inclination, distance from the star and other factors? Couldn’t most stars support life as we define it if the conditions were right on the planet? Of course our planet’s life systems are dependant not only on the above mentioned factors, but the presence of the moon to activate the tides and prevent the oceans from stagnating, and the unique quality of water as a solid becoming less dense than the liquid form, thus preserving life in bodies of water by forming an insulating blanket of ice on the surface, rather than the entire body freezing solid. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me that it's all chance..."Short answer, I dunno... There are tube worm growing at the bottom of the oceans in total darkness, living next to intensely hot steam vents. Since the deep oceans rarely freeze, they might not be affected if ice were denser than water. If the planet's surface got hotter or colder by a few hundred degrees, again, would they care? Do the tides have any substantial affect at their depth? Maybe a stagnant ocean would suit them just fine...Again, the point is that in your model the intelligence of the designer is up to the observer to deduce. If you wanna see him/her/it you will. If you don't you won't. Looking for failed systems could work the same way, as long as you see all the randomly aligned stars as failed constellations...Citizzzen

---

The message is ended, go in peace.

Hello yourself, thanks for having me..."...yes the complexity of the universe does require intelligent design...the existence of the universe alone requires a creator, or first cause..."Several people have already asked the obvious question here, but if a universe requires a creator, why wouldn't a sentient, all powerful being require one? Unless you are applying Christian or some other religious values to God, how does his/her/it's eternal nature follow from observation?It seems to me what we have is another argument between believers and non-believers. Only in this case, it seems like the believers are hesitant to simply admit that ID follows from their beliefs, as opposed to following naturally from the evidence. For example:"...Everything does have a reason for existing or God would not have created it..."Why? Even if the complexity and wonder of natural design were proof that there had to be a designer, why would she/he/it have to assign a reason for everything? Couldn't the creator have made fjords because they are cool? Or the (now much maligned) platypus for a joke?"...There is evidence of a big bang type of event, [first described in the bible] which indicates that at that one exact moment the universe as we know it began. That was the effect, God is the cause..."Actually, there are other religious texts, like the Hindu Upanishads that pre-date the bible. So do the religions of ancient Egypt, and I believe Greece and Rome, among others. They all have creation stories. Your claims that the Christian Bible first described the creation of the universe. or that the Christian God had to be the cause display a particular religious bent.And that really is the point. Can you honestly say that, without the bible, you could look at the complexity of the universe and create Christianity?Citizzzen

---

The message is ended, go in peace.

Xev,You do seem to be one of only a few batters for your team... Good luck, and stop working weekends or you will find out who is right and wrong about God too soon!: )"...Zweemer, author of The Origins of Religion, found that the oldest traditions were of one supreme God and that other beliefs came later. I am of the opinion that the Hebrew writings are the oldest and best documented manuscripts that we have. I will take a look at the Upanishads, but you are the first person to tell me that their writings are older than the torah..."My study of Hinduism, admittedly limited to Eastern Religions I, concurs with that. As I recall, the Hindu concept of the Atman Brahma is essentially a supreme intelligence that is removed from day to day interaction with humans. The more popular Hindu icons like Krishna and Rama are a more modern construct. Also, I am not sure if the claim is that the Upanishads pre-date the Hebrew texts, or that the belief system, based on sacred objects and archeology, seems to predate Judaism.In any event, I have read your rationale for not believing in an undesigned universe. I am trying to understand the logic of this:I am a "creationist". I am bothered by the idea that the natural universe is eternal, with no initial "cause". I am bothered by the fact that evolutionary theory changes with new findings. I am also bothered by the fact that there are holes in the fossil evidence and other anomalies.So, how does ID resolve these concerns? The scientific evidence for creation is at LEAST as incomplete as the evolutionary evidence. Also, in trying to theorize a starting point for the universe, you theorize an intelligent, all powerful entity that can create an entire universe at will, but his hypothesis is hardly better supported by the scientific evidence or the empirical data.I just don't see get it. Geologists study rocks, geologic history, etc. and come up with theories about the age and history of the earth. Archeologists do the same for human history, and astronomers do the same for the stars and the other planets. They all admittedly find issues that they can't explain, but the history of all fields of scientific study is that better and better hypothesize come along and many previously unexplainable phenomenon are eventually explained. Scientists have never found an any issue that could only be explained by divine intervention.You have pointed out a variety of issues with evolutionary theory, but it seems to me if you applied this same level of scrutiny to creation theory you would have just as many inconsistencies. If neither theory can be proven 100%, why would you default to the one that involves an unseen, all powerful entity the likes of which has never been observed outside of religious texts?Citizzzen

---

The message is ended, go in peace.

Ok, never say never, Let me take one more stab at this...For me, many of the discussions on this forum devolve into either overly technical discussions of eye formation and ark water line stress tests, or faith vs. proof standoffs that end the discussion.I have read all the posts with interest, but this isn't really the discussion I was looking for.There were two posts, I think Xevolutionist made both but I could be wrong, that are more on track for me:"...What is scientifically wrong with postulating the existence of an unknown thing..."Two things are. One, does it fit the evidence that you have, and two can this postulate be tested? For example, I leave a chicken sandwich on the counter, I walk away. I come back and the chicken sandwich is gone. I did not observe what happened, so I speculate. Maybe the dog ate it, or maybe an unseen, previously unknown intelligent force ate it, and left no proof of his/her/its existence.Now, is the second idea possible, sure, I can't prove otherwise. But, does it follow from empirical data, and does it best fit the evidence I do have? No. Once we get into complete speculation, all bets are off... We can speculate on new technology, new life forms, and new laws of physics. But, how could we test any of these theories? If a theory can neither be proved or disproved, it's useless, even if it's right."...If man is merely the product of mutations in animals, rather than the special creation of God, morality is just an abstract concept, with no standard, or guidelines of behavior, from an authoritative source..."I have suggested before that ID is proposed by people that have an idea who the ID is, and or his/her/it's motives. This is a case in point. Essentially this says, "I can not prove that there is an ID, but without one the world has no absolute moral authority..." Postulating the existence of a non-proven in order to support a scientific theory is fine. But to postulate one in order to provide emotional comfort is not science.Can anyone provide me with an example of a line of scientific inquiry that was based in observable reality, but that ultimately led conclusively to the need for an ID?And for what it's worth Morality is an abstract concept... There are some pretty barbaric things happening in the world, but local customs consider them moral.Citizzzen

---

The message is ended, go in peace.

"...Evolution cannot be tested, yet as you see it has many faithful believers asserting it is a "proven" theory..."Who says evolution can't be tested? It is tested all the time. Scientists propose theories and then look for evidence that supports or discredits their theory. For example, anthropologists theorize that if evolution is real, there should be a fossil record showing steps in the evolutionary path. While not every piece of every evolutionary path has been found, many steps that appear to be part of many evolutionary paths have been found. This is an example of testing evolution."...Regardless of the claims made elsewhere in this thread, when that code is tampered with, the observed results are always deleterious..." Always? Genetic manipulation in plants has produced pest resistant hybrids, and protein enhanced grains. You can argue about GenMod foods being deleterious in the long run, but right now there is no proof that these examples are dangerous."...There is no evidence of a mutation causing perfect eyesight or super strength..."This assertion has been directly refuted, which I think is kinda funny, but I did know about the super kid. My thought is that a mutation would not have to cause perfect eyesight to be an improvement, would it? Simply an improvement over the likely eyesight that a kid would have due to the genes of their parents could be an example of a beneficial mutation..."...The information contained in the simplest of life forms is so complex that it led Sir Fred Hoyle to conclude that life could not have risen by chance on this planet..."And a good magic trick can convince a four year old that quarters can be pulled out of their ears. Just because Sir Hoyle was stumped doesn't provide proof of ID, it just provides proof of the limits of Sir Hoyle and his research methods.My question is this, you start to examine the simplest forms of life. You learn how they reproduce, you learn about their chemical make-up, you do your best to learn about previous generations of the species, and so on. While the researcher may posit questions they are unable to answer, that is not evidence of the divine. I am looking for an example where a question is answered with an specific indication of divine means. What I see presented are claims that lack of another answer confirms the divine... That is a very different claim."...And I was postulating that His existence fits best with the evidence that we have..."Huh? Every person you have ever known was born from the sexual union of two other humans. So, how does that empirical evidence support the idea that the first two humans were created divinely? Everywhere we look in the universe we see examples of the birth, life and death of stars, planets and solar systems. Where have we ever seen the hand of God at work?"..Im glad that someone agrees with me about morality. Sometimes I think that my positions get attacked on this site merely because they are my positions..."I truly hope that your positions are not attacked, but that your assertions are challenged by evolutionists and creationists, whenever they seek more understanding.Citizzzen

---

The message is ended, go in peace.

"... I maintain that the fossil record does not support such (evolutionist) claims...If there exist actual fossilized remains, the location of them is a secret..."Let me take this away from the purely technical/research driven discussion that it has become, and ask an opinion question. If the fossil evidence is so slim, why are so many archeologists convinced? I realize scientists make mistakes, but science as a whole usually corrects for this. Is this truly a case where the findings point you to believe in ID, or does your belief in ID cause you to question contrary findings?"...Sir Fred Hoyle, a world-renowned astronomer, is acknowledged to be one of the most creative scientists of the 20th century...Apparently, Sir Hoyle did not believe in ID, but he pretty convincingly, in my estimate, disproved abiogenesis on this planet with the laws of nature as we understand them..."Maybe I am lumping apples and oranges here, but I think I see a lot of this sort of logic from creationists on this site. They use science and the findings of scientists only as far as they are useful, then they abandon them when they become troublesome. In the above example, because Sir Fred seems to agree with your opinions about evolution, you promote him as an expert witness. However, according to you he doesn’t support the core assertion, which is that complexity requires ID. (You deserve credit for being intellectually honest enough to point this out, though...) There are PhD's that claim HIV does not cause AIDS. I don’t see how one or two opinions, learned as they may be, should count more heavily than the weight of the combined experts in the field."...If accidental, or spontaneous, formation of life is impossible, what other options are left..."Well, if accidental or spontaneous formations of life are impossible why wouldn’t eternal, omniscient, invisible ones be?"...Where have we ever seen spontaneous formation of any life form? The evidence all around us is that life is resistant to change, not prone to it..."I don’t agree with your assertion re: life being resistant to change, but if you are looking for proof, where have we ever seen a galactic intelligent designer?I keep coming back to my original thought. When you are researching a physics or biology or math problem, when do the facts lead you towards ID? When you first get stumped? After three tries? How many current advances in medicine and science would be beyond the comprehension of scientists only 200 years ago? To them, a lot of what we now take for granted would only be explainable by posting assistance from the divine.Citizzzen

---

The message is ended, go in peace.