Design/Intelligence Detection

[Steve]

Hi all.

Heres an analogy id like to discuss.
'Suppose there is a remote tribe of people somewhere who belive they are the only people on earth, we then put a car near their tribe without them seeing us and watch to see their reaction when they find it. Some find it and say "this is proof there must be significant intelligence other then us" yet others say "no we know we are alone, so this cannot be the result of intelligence and must have just happened via natural processes"'

Also heres a relavant quote from Dr. Geoff Downes taken from http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/isd/downes.asp
"The whole area of forensic science is focused on this aspect.
Consider finding a dead body in the park. Did the person die from natural causes, or was some other factor involved? If you find a knife in the back, then it is logical to assume that some outside intelligence was involved. However, if you start by assuming that the death occurred from natural causes, then you can never arrive at the correct conclusion. It is not a question of science, but the foundational assumptions you take to the data.
"

What im wondering is do evolutionists belive design or intelligence can be detected? and if so do they rule out an intelligent designer for life beliving that there is no evidence indicating intelligent involvement or do they rule out an intelligent designer because they dont want there to be one.

 

[robtex]

What im wondering is do evolutionists believe design or intelligence can be detected? and if so do they rule out an intelligent designer for life beliving that there is no evidence indicating intelligent involvement or do they rule out an intelligent designer because they dont want there to be one.

That is strange way of looking at. Better question might be why do creationist think they have a personal relationship with an entitiy that they cannot interact with or detect with their 5 senses. If it is undetectable as you say, than why does it even matter if it exists or not?

I am really influenced on this by analogy by Carl Sagan called "The dragon in my garage".
http://spl.haxial.net/religion/misc/carl-sagan.html
In it he says that a god that is not detetable is as real as one that is not real. Which is summed up with this qoute from that piece here:
"Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all?"

To answer your last question for most atheists, self included, it is not a want but a realization. A realization that there is no detectable higher power and by default no personsal relationship with one.

 

[JerryL]

What im wondering is do evolutionists belive design or intelligence can be detected?

At the risk of speaking for many. We are aware of things which we consider the result of design. We are aware of them as such becaues we don't find them in nature, and we do find them designed, or because of the specific nature of them (say, the prime numbers).

Without examples, I'm not sure that you can make a "designed" test. Ceratinly, there's nothing in evolution that seems unreproduceable sans a designer.

 

[Steve]

If it is undetectable as you say, than why does it even matter if it exists or not?

Hi robtex,
I havnt said nor do i belive that the intelligent designer is undetectable.

I am really influenced on this by analogy by Carl Sagan called "The dragon in my garage".
http://spl.haxial.net/religion/misc/carl-sagan.html
In it he says that a god that is not detetable is as real as one that is not real. Which is summed up with this qoute from that piece here:
"Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all?"

I understand your point here, however as i mentioned befor i belive God or an intelligent designer is detectable, and i belive there are good reasons to belive Jesus specifically as that God. Although "who is God?" is not the point im trying to discuss in this thread.

To answer your last question for most atheists, self included, it is not a want but a realization. A realization that there is no detectable higher power and by default no personsal relationship with one.

So you dont belive that an intelligent designer can be detected? then as for the last part of my question - do you rule out an intelligent designer for life beliving that there is no evidence indicating intelligent involvement or do they rule out an intelligent designer because they dont want there to be one.

 

[robtex]

Hi robtex,

So you dont belive that an intelligent designer can be detected? then as for the last part of my question - do you rule out an intelligent designer for life beliving that there is no evidence indicating intelligent involvement or do they rule out an intelligent designer because they dont want there to be one.

1) first question :"o you dont belive that an intelligent designer can be detected" . I am not saying it is detectable or not detectable but more importantly that one has not been detected. At the point when one does become detected I think this question can be evlaluated but to play "what if" on something that has not been evidenced to exist seems somewhere between moot point and not applicable.

2) "do you rule out an intelligent designer for life beliving that there is no evidence indicating intelligent involvement

I can only answer for me and I am saying without evidence of a intelligent designer that I have no personal relationship with I don't see why it matters if there is one or not. There currently is no evidence for one.

3) "or do they rule out an intelligent designer because they dont want there to be one""

I am only answering of me, not any other atheist when I say that a "all loving " personal God seems like a great package deal but from my experiences one is not evident to exist.

 

[mr.guy]

...do they rule out an intelligent designer because they dont want there to be one.(?)

doubtful. proof of a designer doesn't mean said desinger isn't presently innocuous.

 

[Ryan2065]

Also heres a relavant quote from Dr. Geoff Downes taken from http://www.answersingenesis.org/hom.../isd/downes.asp
"The whole area of forensic science is focused on this aspect.
Consider finding a dead body in the park. Did the person die from natural causes, or was some other factor involved? If you find a knife in the back, then it is logical to assume that some outside intelligence was involved. However, if you start by assuming that the death occurred from natural causes, then you can never arrive at the correct conclusion. It is not a question of science, but the foundational assumptions you take to the data.

Technically the scientists are the ones who are looking at things objectively... Intelligent design people say "This could not have happened without an intelligent designer" and scientists say "This might have happened with an intelligent designer... but theres no proof for it... so lets keep searching." In the end, the people who believe in intelligent design say "This man MUST have died from outside sources." So in your story the intelligent design people would not be able to find out if the guy died of natural causes, because they automatically assume it was from an ingellingent outside source.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Steve-

A car has seats which fit to human bodies. It has buttons, knobs, and controls within easy reach of human hands. It responds to input in ways that humans are quite able to detect: sounds at frequencies which we can hear, lights at frequncies which we can see, and vibrations which are strong enough so we can feel them. It has pedals right where human feet would be. The car handles are well suited to human hands. The mirrors are in places that allow a human being to see all around the car without turning his/her head. A car is well suited to the human body and the human senses. Yep, it would seem reasonable to say that a human-like being created this car.

However, how do you extend this analogy to nature? What supposedly intelligently-desiged parts of nature were clearly set up to work for humans, to suit our needs, to respond to our senses? None, as far as I can tell. Asteroids hit the Earth, tsunamis rock coasts, diseases wipe out populations, and we can only hear, see, smell, feel, and taste a tiny fraction of what is there. What's more, there is even more there which other animals can sense which we can't even imagine. Nature behaves exactly as one would expect it to behave if it was neither trying to help us nor trying to hurt us. Clearly, nature itself was not designed specifically to suit humans, as a car is.

You could say that the universe was perhaps designed to suit the needs of some other being....clearly, then, this non-human being requires most of the universe to be empty space for some unknown reason, and it requires that the laws of thermodynamics and relativity be true for some unknown reason, and that the universe be expanding for some unknown reason, and that life on Earth consisted of algea for 2 billion years before complex life started to evolve for some unknown reason, and that the dinosaurs rose to supremacy then were wiped out by a comet for some unknown reason, and that there would be a specific number of planets that did not harbor life for some unknown reason, and finally, that we have no idea HOW this being made all these things true.

But in that case, why not just simply say that the universe is made mostly of empty space for an unknown reason, that the universe is expanding for an unknown reason....etc? This explanation has just as much explanatory power as the previous one, only we have not invoked the existence of things (namely this mysterious non-human being) for which there is no evidence. This explanation is also more parsimonious than the previous explanation, which raises more questions than it answers: why would this being want dinosaurs to rise to dominance only to have them wiped out? Why would this being want conditions to sometimes be favorable to people, sometimes not, sometimes favor one thing, sometimes another?

A car is pretty straightforward....the mirrors allow people to see what's around the car, the pedals and wheel allow people to operate the car.....but nature is totally different. Nature would be analogous to a car that has the wheel way up where it's hard to reach, the mirrors are not aligned, and the accelerator is just as likely to cause the car to go backwards as forwards.

 

[SPLogan]

A car has seats which fit to human bodies. It has buttons, knobs, and controls within easy reach of human hands. It responds to input in ways that humans are quite able to detect: sounds at frequencies which we can hear, lights at frequncies which we can see, and vibrations which are strong enough so we can feel them. It has pedals right where human feet would be. The car handles are well suited to human hands. The mirrors are in places that allow a human being to see all around the car without turning his/her head. A car is well suited to the human body and the human senses. Yep, it would seem reasonable to say that a human-like being created this car.

However, how do you extend this analogy to nature? What supposedly intelligently-desiged parts of nature were clearly set up to work for humans, to suit our needs, to respond to our senses? None, as far as I can tell.

Are you saying that cars aren't "natural?" Are bever dams natural? How about your computer?

What about women? Are they natural? They relate to the male body in almost all of the ways you described about the car. (except for the mirrors)

If some thing isn't natural, is it supernatural?

 

[s2a]

Hello Steve,

You said:

Heres an analogy id like to discuss.
'Suppose there is a remote tribe of people somewhere who belive they are the only people on earth, we then put a car near their tribe without them seeing us and watch to see their reaction when they find it. Some find it and say "this is proof there must be significant intelligence other then us" yet others say "no we know we are alone, so this cannot be the result of intelligence and must have just happened via natural processes"'

Interestingly, an alternate analogy with differing conclusion may be derived from a similar scenario.

Same remote tribe, thinking they're "alone" in the world. They observe a plane overhead, and it drops a crate into their village. Within the crate is food and water. The villagers assume that they're alone in the world, so the crate must be a gift from some flying god! They develop a new religion to praise and worship this beneficent "god", becoming "Cargo Cultists", in expectation of further "rewards" from the heavens from their amazing flying, roaring, winged god. Sadly, and unbeknownst to these nascently pious villagers, they are confusing a crated "reward" for an accident of chance, and deifying an airplane that is merely manifested by the minds of mortal men.

Also heres a relavant quote from Dr. Geoff Downes taken from http://www.answersingenesis.org/hom.../isd/downes.asp
"The whole area of forensic science is focused on this aspect.
Consider finding a dead body in the park. Did the person die from natural causes, or was some other factor involved? If you find a knife in the back, then it is logical to assume that some outside intelligence was involved. However, if you start by assuming that the death occurred from natural causes, then you can never arrive at the correct conclusion. It is not a question of science, but the foundational assumptions you take to the data.
"

What the good doctor either avoids or ignores:
"Science" does not "assume" anything to be "logical" (or seemingly "true", or "obvious") without establishing a testable hypothesis to be borne out by evidenced fact. Perhaps the knife was protruding from a park bench, and the victim inadvertently stabbed himself in the back when sitting down. Perhaps the person did die of natural causes, and was stabbed after death had taken place. Either possibility is certainly plausible, and not especially extraordinary to suppose. There's no need to "assume" anything until all of the relevant facts are collated, analyzed, and tested against plausible hypotheses. No credible scientist ever works backwards from a foregone conclusion. Dumb "science" does, and often discards/dismisses any evidence that would invalidate their "assumptive" conclusion. Dumb "science" never modifies an assumptive conclusion "known" to be "truth".

ID is the most facile of Argument from Incredulity. "I can't understand it, and you can't explain it to my satisfaction, so there MUST be some 'Intelligent Designer'! What else could it be?"

It could be...dumb "science" - that operates from a foregone conclusion and dismisses/ignores any evidence that suggests that natural explanations are more plausible than a notion of a claimed invisible, yet inevidenced, "Watchmaker".

The good quotable Dr. Downes has merely fashioned a Strawman, and a flimsy one at that.

What im wondering is do evolutionists belive design or intelligence can be detected?

I'm not an "evolutionist", but I do accept the overwhelming majority of evolution theory's conclusions as highly probable fact, and the best available explanation of the defined phenomena as it can be perceived.
As an atheist, I have presented what I would consider to be "detectable evidence" of some "intelligent designer"...here.

...and if so do they rule out an intelligent designer for life beliving that there is no evidence indicating intelligent involvement...

That's pretty much it, yep.

...or do they rule out an intelligent designer because they dont want there to be one.

Why wouldn't anyone want to believe? Christianity claims a "promised" immortal existence of eternal bliss and joy. Other religions suggest variations of a similar nature or theme.

Let me see.

Live forever in love, peace, and joy?
Or...just get dead with no continuing consciousness, and become worm food.
Hmmm. Tough call.

If only wishful thinking made it so...or if only airplanes were gods....

 

[Bennettresearch]

Hi all.
What im wondering is do evolutionists belive design or intelligence can be detected? and if so do they rule out an intelligent designer for life beliving that there is no evidence indicating intelligent involvement or do they rule out an intelligent designer because they dont want there to be one.

Hi Steve,

Even though I may be sympathetic to ID, I really have to say good luck proving it. I doubt whether any evolutionist will say they can detect ID when the evidence can be explained by "natural" processes. What can't be answered is the why of it all. Why is there nature? Why is the life force so strong and able to adapt and survive? Sure, we evolved from single cell organisms which themselves evolved from random chemical chains. Why did this even happen at all? There is no visible proof of the why question so it remains unanswered to them. Only random chance events.

I see the ID argument as one of trying to overcome the shortcomings of creationism. We know for a fact that living things don't just appear out of thin air. This is a stigma that ID may not be able to overcome. There are things that we do that are not necessary for survival; art, literature, etc. Why would we even ponder why we are here?

 

[Bennettresearch]

That is strange way of looking at. Better question might be why do creationist think they have a personal relationship with an entitiy that they cannot interact with or detect with their 5 senses. If it is undetectable as you say, than why does it even matter if it exists or not?

Hi Rob,

You only have five senses? I am sorry to hear that.

 

[michel]

Hello Steve,

You said:


Interestingly, an alternate analogy with differing conclusion may be derived from a similar scenario.

Same remote tribe, thinking they're "alone" in the world. They observe a plane overhead, and it drops a crate into their village. Within the crate is food and water. The villagers assume that they're alone in the world, so the crate must be a gift from some flying god! They develop a new religion to praise and worship this beneficent "god", becoming "Cargo Cultists", in expectation of further "rewards" from the heavens from their amazing flying, roaring, winged god. Sadly, and unbeknownst to these nascently pious villagers, they are confusing a crated "reward" for an accident of chance, and deifying an airplane that is merely manifested by the minds of mortal men.


What the good doctor either avoids or ignores:
"Science" does not "assume" anything to be "logical" (or seemingly "true", or "obvious") without establishing a testable hypothesis to be borne out by evidenced fact. Perhaps the knife was protruding from a park bench, and the victim inadvertently stabbed himself in the back when sitting down. Perhaps the person did die of natural causes, and was stabbed after death had taken place. Either possibility is certainly plausible, and not especially extraordinary to suppose. There's no need to "assume" anything until all of the relevant facts are collated, analyzed, and tested against plausible hypotheses. No credible scientist ever works backwards from a foregone conclusion. Dumb "science" does, and often discards/dismisses any evidence that would invalidate their "assumptive" conclusion. Dumb "science" never modifies an assumptive conclusion "known" to be "truth".

ID is the most facile of Argument from Incredulity. "I can't understand it, and you can't explain it to my satisfaction, so there MUST be some 'Intelligent Designer'! What else could it be?"

It could be...dumb "science" - that operates from a foregone conclusion and dismisses/ignores any evidence that suggests that natural explanations are more plausible than a notion of a claimed invisible, yet inevidenced, "Watchmaker".

The good quotable Dr. Downes has merely fashioned a Strawman, and a flimsy one at that.


I'm not an "evolutionist", but I do accept the overwhelming majority of evolution theory's conclusions as highly probable fact, and the best available explanation of the defined phenomena as it can be perceived.
As an atheist, I have presented what I would consider to be "detectable evidence" of some "intelligent designer"...here.



That's pretty much it, yep.


Why wouldn't anyone want to believe? Christianity claims a "promised" immortal existence of eternal bliss and joy. Other religions suggest variations of a similar nature or theme.

Let me see.

Live forever in love, peace, and joy?
Or...just get dead with no continuing consciousness, and become worm food.
Hmmm. Tough call.

If only wishful thinking made it so...or if only airplanes were gods....

An excellent post, as usual, my friend. I agree far more with your analogy of the 'plane God' - that was the way I would have visualized it,

I would imagine the same could have been said of early man, when he first saw thunder and lightening...............

I also agree with your points about the scientist's approach; I suppose perhaps I am 'lucky' in being able to have a Faith in something that I will never be able to prove while I am alive, and at the same time being able to understand and respect the science- orientated atheist. It might be said that I have the best of both worlds........

I dare say you have 'come across' the books by Von Daniken - who went to great lengths to produce what he called 'evidence' that our 'Gods' were in fact beings from other planets, and who landed on Earth in their spaceships - oh, and yes, there is proof, because if you look at this cave drawing, tou can make out the astronaut's helmet and oxygen system...... I have often thought that that indeed might have been a valid possibility (But his books go nowhere near 'proving' his theories to my mind).

However, as a Christian, I have my 'blind' Faith, and although I quite realize that to you it may seem absurd, it makes me happy. I don't hurt anyone because of my beliefs, so I see no reason to be persuaded that I am deluded.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Put a young child on the floor surrounded by colored blocks. He'll pick them up, drop them, stack them, knock them over, throw them, and, of course, try to eat them. The result will be a happy - or at least occupied - baby and a huge, colorful mess to be picked up later (after the football game).

And, perhaps, somewhere in that chaotic jumble will be a structure that any really small Pixie would be more than happy to call home. You can almost see her flitting through the geometric jungle of colors, shapes, and sizes, encountering her new abode, and exclaiming like Jacob in the Bible: "how awesome is this place!".

All available evidence suggests, not intelligence, but a glorious jumble of unintended consequences and emergent properties.

 

[michel]

Put a young child on the floor surrounded by colored blocks. He'll pick them up, drop them, stack them, knock them over, throw them, and, of course, try to eat them. The result will be a happy - or at least occupied - baby and a huge, colorful mess to be picked up later (after the football game).

And, perhaps, somewhere in that chaotic jumble will be a structure that any really small Pixie would be more than happy to call home. You can almost see her flitting through the geometric jungle of colors, shapes, and sizes, encountering her new abode, and exclaiming like Jacob in the Bible: "how awesome is this place!".

All available evidence suggests, not intelligence, but a glorious jumble of unintended consequences and emergent properties.

Oh, I don't doubt that you are right, having seen my own two sons at play when they were little.........

 

[linwood]

Nature would be analogous to a car that has the wheel way up where it's hard to reach, the mirrors are not aligned, and the accelerator is just as likely to cause the car to go backwards as forwards.

Thank you Spinks, you saved me alot of typing.

I am only answering of me, not any other atheist when I say that a "all loving " personal God seems like a great package deal but from my experiences one is not evident to exist.

I think that speaks for the whole group Rob.
I know none that would disagree.

If some thing isn't natural, is it supernatural?

if it`s not natural it doesn`t exist.
Spinks is refering to the methodology of nature not whether the material composing an object is natural or not.

Consider finding a dead body in the park. Did the person die from natural causes, or was some other factor involved? If you find a knife in the back, then it is logical to assume that some outside intelligence was involved. However, if you start by assuming that the death occurred from natural causes, then you can never arrive at the correct conclusion. It is not a question of science, but the foundational assumptions you take to the data.

You`ll never be able to harmonise the death of Judas with that attitude mister.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Are you saying that cars aren't "natural?" Are bever dams natural? How about your computer?

Good question SPLogan. No, when I said that cars aren't "natural" I was not saying that they are supernatural. What I meant was that cars are the product of an intelligent animal. Beavers have some intelligence too, of course, so whether or not dams would be "natural" I guess would depend on where you draw the line on "intelligence".

 

[michel]

Good question SPLogan. No, when I said that cars aren't "natural" I was not saying that they are supernatural. What I meant was that cars are the product of an intelligent animal. Beavers have some intelligence too, of course, so whether or not dams would be "natural" I guess would depend on where you draw the line on "intelligence".

I agree; SPLogan,

I don't see too great a stretch of the imagination to give the Beavers the intelligence to make their Dams;
From:- http://www.paddling.net/sameboat/archives/sameboat132.html


................"Why do beavers build dams, anyway? Simple self-interest. A dam makes a pond in a river, and the pond makes a moat. Beavers need deep water to survive, and if the water where they decide to make their home isn't deep enough, they'll make it deeper. They're a lot like us, really. They don't accept geography as destiny.

Beavers are eclectic vegetarians. Though they eat buds, leaves, and the roots of aquatic plants, their favorite food is the inner bark of trees. Trees grow on land, but beavers are clumsy once out of the water—all but defenseless, in fact. Water is their element. So they make use of water to float harvested trees back home, even digging canals deep into the forest. And home for a beaver is usually a hemispherical lodge—a spiky igloo built largely of mud-chinked branches. Surrounded by deep water and thick-walled, a lodge is proof against all but the most determined carnivores. Even bears have a hard time tearing their way into a beaver's house."....................

It is nature; it is part of self preservation - the natural need to survive and procreate (for sheer survival) enables animals to 'make tools' - this is just another example.

Besides which, I believe that God himself is part of nature - super-natural is just a name for that part of nature that is beyond our comprehension..........

 

[mr.guy]

Nice bit there, michel. For a minute there, one could admire and appreciate the ugly little rat that is my nation's mascot.

 

[JerryL]

"Why do beavers build dams, anyway?

Because it's their instinct... which comes from their brain... which is the resultof interacting cells and protiens... which are spawned by a self-replicating molecule we call DNA.

At the end of the day, it's just chemistry.

Why do we make cars?