Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Argument from Design: Design for who?
Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6011 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 1 of 39 (145988)
09-30-2004 11:19 AM


Part I: Introduction:
William Paley made the most famous formulation of the Argument from Design, but contemporary Intelligent Design ultimately rests on a similar intuition.
There are generally two lines of argument in contemporary ID
1. Known natural mechanisms can't achieve "X". "X" can be either a specific biological system (the eye was the favorite of classical design arguments, but today's IDers prefer biochemical systems), or it can be an abstract quality of certain systems (e.g., "irreducible complexity", "specified complexity", etc.).
For now, let's assume this is correct, because it's the second part I'm interested in.
2. "X" was designed by something intelligent . Classically, this would be God, but these days it's often left unspecified.
Fundamentally this second argument always rests on an analogy with human artifacts, i.e., human artifacts are to humans as living things are to "Intelligent Designer".
For example, William Dembski writes:
There's only one known source for producing actual specified complexity, and that's intelligence. In every case where we know the causal history responsible for an instance of specified complexity, an intelligent agent was involved.
(from http://www.leaderu.com/...ces/dembski/docs/bd-specified.html)
So, ultimately the argument for the existence the "intelligent designer", despite the fancy rhetoric involved in argument 1, always rests on a variation of what Paley stated 200+ years ago.
However it's been noted that there are many differences between human artifacts and living things (for example, living things are self-reproducing) that render the inference as suspect. However, I think an important difference usually goes unnoticed:
Part II: Design for Who?
Why is Paley's famous watch example so compelling? Because the "design" of the watch serves no purpose to the watch itself. Therefore, it must serve a purpose to something else. The inference that another entity must be involved is compelling in the case of the watch.
But what about the design of organisms? Who benefits from the design? Well, the organisms itself does. In this case, the existence of another entity doesn't seem called for.
Indeed, there does seem to be two classes of design in the world.
1. Design that benefits humans, and is known to be made by humans.
2. Design that benefits the organism displaying the design, and is known to NOT be made by humans.
This design-for-other vs. design-for-self seems to be a crucial difference, and this undercuts the strength of many ID arguments.
For example, on this forum there have recently been attempts to say that we can infer the existence of the Designer with the same justification that an archaeologist infers the existence of human makers of excavated tools, etc. But tools by their nature don't benefit themselves, but another, so the existence of another is called for. The design of an organism, however, serves to benefit the organism itself, so invoking another is an unnecessary additional assumption.
Still, the "design" of the organism is something to be explained, I understand. But the general line of argument that a designing entity is a compelling inference based on analogy with human artifacts seems fundamentally flawed to me. I'm wondering what others think about 2nd line of argument listed above, and how this distinction for "design-for-other" vs. "design-for-self" affects either the validity or the appeal of the analogy to human artifacts.
This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 09-28-2004 05:58 PM
Released to [forum=-10]. --Admin

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by PaulK, posted 09-30-2004 11:27 AM Zhimbo has not replied
 Message 5 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 11:43 AM Zhimbo has replied
 Message 12 by Silent H, posted 09-30-2004 12:28 PM Zhimbo has not replied

  
Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6011 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 9 of 39 (146026)
09-30-2004 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by ID man
09-30-2004 11:43 AM


"I would say the design of biological organisms benefits the population and not just the individual organism."
Can you give an example where design benefits the population but NOT the organism? (Actually, more accurately, the organism's genes, but I don't know if we need to get that picky yet.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 11:43 AM ID man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 12:28 PM Zhimbo has replied

  
Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6011 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 14 of 39 (146044)
09-30-2004 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by ID man
09-30-2004 12:28 PM


So, you're saying that it is a general principle of biological design that it benefits "the population"? Does the eye benefit the "population"? Does blod clotting? Does the bacterial flagellum?
All the classic examples of design are of things that benefit the individual, not the population. Can you give me an example of type of design you're talking about?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 12:28 PM ID man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Silent H, posted 09-30-2004 12:51 PM Zhimbo has replied
 Message 18 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 12:51 PM Zhimbo has replied

  
Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6011 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 21 of 39 (146069)
09-30-2004 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Silent H
09-30-2004 12:51 PM


Holmes sez:
" there becomes a problem for the population if individuals are being lost. Thus the advantages to any individual is an advantage to the population."
ID Man, is this really what you mean? If so, that's hardly design "for" the population. That's design for the individual. The benefit to population occurs only in the sense that a population, by definition, is made of individuals.
Of course, this is holmes' version, so I don't want to put his words in in your mouth.
And did I get your point right, holmes?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Silent H, posted 09-30-2004 12:51 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Silent H, posted 09-30-2004 1:44 PM Zhimbo has not replied

  
Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6011 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 24 of 39 (146074)
09-30-2004 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by ID man
09-30-2004 12:51 PM


"All of these benefit the population because of heredity."
Well, yes, it seems you're arguing the evolutionary position here.
All of this *benefit* to the population occurs because of design for the individual. Indeed, for non-social animals I don't see how your reasoning applies at all, other than individuals are required for a population to exist, by definition.
You see, my distinction was between design *for* a designer, vs. design for an individual. I'm more than willing to ammend the second class to "design for an individual and to the extent that the individual's genes are propagated by helping the population, design for the population".
I think that is at least as damaging to the analogy to human artifacts as my original formulation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 12:51 PM ID man has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024