Required evidence for design?

[Parsimony]

For those who do not believe that the Universe was a product of intelligent design, what qualities of the Universe would you expect to be different if it was intelligently-designed? What would have to be different about the Universe so that intelligent design would be considered the most likely explanation for these qualities? Take note that I am not talking about absolute proof, just whatever evidence would be sufficiently strong to lend weight to intelligent design.

Please take note that this isn't about evolution, the Big Bang or abiogenesis per se, unless you want to work those into it somehow.

 

[Quintessence]

Nothing would need to be different. The problem I have with "intelligent design" is that claims to be science when it isn't (aka, it is pseudoscience). If "intelligent design" framed itself as the mythos it is, I would have little problem with it even though I disagree with its theological assumptions. I still wouldn't accept it because I disagree with its theological assumptions, but it makes for good storytelling when it is understood as storytelling.

 

[Parsimony]

Nothing would need to be different. The problem I have with "intelligent design" is that claims to be science when it isn't (aka, it is pseudoscience). If "intelligent design" framed itself as the mythos it is, I would have little problem with it even though I disagree with its theological assumptions. I still wouldn't accept it because I disagree with its theological assumptions, but it makes for good storytelling when it is understood as storytelling.

Just wondering, but would you consider a universe designed by a deity to be indistinguishable from a universe that wasn't designed?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

For those who do not believe that the Universe was a product of intelligent design, what qualities of the Universe would you expect to be different if it was intelligently-designed? What would have to be different about the Universe so that intelligent design would be considered the most likely explanation for these qualities? Take note that I am not talking about absolute proof, just whatever evidence would be sufficiently strong to lend weight to intelligent design.

I think this is a very pertinent question and one of the reasons I don't accept intelligent design as a reasonable conclusion. Simply put: I don't think there is an answer. The Universe could exist in any form and it wouldn't exclude or preclude the possibility of design in general. If a God exists, in any form, there's no way to categorically demonstrate that said God didn't "design" the Universe in whatever form it is, or isn't in some way behind the natural processes that we observe are responsible for the Universe. Heck, "God's method" could in fact be natural processes, so the difference may indeed be non-existent. The assertion of design is an un-falsifiable proposition, at least if we assume a very broad and general definition of a designer.

However, there is a difference between "design" as a general assertion about the origin of the Universe and far more specific accounts of creation itself. It's one thing to say "The Universe is designed", and quite another to assert "The Universe was designed in such a way as it was formed in six 24-hour periods, with all currently known lifeforms existent, via supernatural means". The first claim doesn't present a testable hypothesis, but the latter presents a series of claims that we can indeed test, so whether or not we should expect to see signs of design in the Universe entirely depends on what specific interpretation or method of design you are asserting.

For example, if you believe in a design process that specifically resulted in all species of animals appearing simultaneously, we would expect to see a fossil record in which all animals appear within a similar time-frame in the geological strata without any prior transitional forms or any indication of previous life. If you believe the Universe was designed in a very small time period and is no older than a few thousand years, we would expect to see facts that refute the geological and archaeological evidence of the earth's age, and that overturns our understanding of big bang cosmology. Please note that neither of these claims indicate anything about "design" in general, only specific claims about exactly HOW the Universe was designed. Unearthing a fossil record that completely refutes the notion that all life appeared simultaneously as-is, doesn't rule out the possibility of a design process which didn't require all life being created simultaneously. Demonstrating that the Universe is far older than a few thousand years doesn't rule out the possibility of a design process which spanned over a far greater period of time.

In conclusion, the question of what we should expect to see in a "designed" versus a "non-designed" Universe is only a question that can be suitably answered by providing more specific, testable predictions within a framework of design, and as such is not a question that can be accurately answer by those opposed to the proposition of design in general, but is a question that has to be addressed by those advocating for a specific design framework.

 

[vombatus]

For those who do not believe that the Universe was a product of intelligent design, what qualities of the Universe would you expect to be different if it was intelligently-designed?

We would need to know more about the properties of the proposed designer. For example, is it imagined to be benevolent / malevolent, anthropocentric / indifferent to humans? If it is wholly indifferent to human well-being, there is no reason to suppose we would see any difference at all.

 

[Nietzsche]

For those who do not believe that the Universe was a product of intelligent design, what qualities of the Universe would you expect to be different if it was intelligently-designed? What would have to be different about the Universe so that intelligent design would be considered the most likely explanation for these qualities? Take note that I am not talking about absolute proof, just whatever evidence would be sufficiently strong to lend weight to intelligent design.

Please take note that this isn't about evolution, the Big Bang or abiogenesis per se, unless you want to work those into it somehow.

Depends. Are we assuming the designer isn't a sadistic monster? Because if we're assuming a sadist dick designed the universe, I'd believe that. The problem comes in when you declare "loving creator".

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

This video should give you an idea of what we might see if all life had a designer.

If we had a non-omniscient creator that created life forms much like our technological development, then we shouldn't see life forms suggest much nested hierarchy. There should be animals that have both fundamental similarities and fundimental differences.

For example, dolphins, which are mammals, would perhaps be able to breathe underwater with gills, rather than just holding their breath for a long time. You might see hexapod vertebrates. There may be multiple groups of animals that are fundamentally the same, but have completely fundimental differences. For example: Lions and tigers, which are both species of cats, might have many of their cat-like similarities. But maybe one of the species has an extra heart. Maybe the other has green blood. Maybe one of the species can regrow limbs. Maybe the other has an exoskeleton.

You see these types of things in human technology. A notable example being cars.

The BMW 3 series, for example, is the luxury compact model of BMW. But within the 3 series, which is one model with the same general body, have some cars that have turbo-charged 4 cylinders. Some have naturally aspirated 6 cylinders. Some have 8 cylinders. Some take premium fuel. Some take diesel fuel. Most are rear-wheel drive, but some are all-wheel drive. Some have 4-doors. Some have 2-doors. Some have spoilers. Some have automatic 5-speed transmissions. Some have 6-speed manual transmissions. Some have 7-speed duel clutch transmissions.

You don't see these types of differences in life on Earth. There's differences indeed, but the differences all suggest a nested hierarchy of animal groupings.And when things evolve, they simply evolve a subset of whatever template they already had. Things don't get completely swap out and replaced in organisms.

 

[Skwim]

This video should give you an idea of what we might see if all life had a designer.

Cool video, but have to wonder how many creationists would be able to follow everything that was said. Not that they're necessarily dumb, but the narration was quite fast and a lot of terminology and concepts were used without explanation.


.

 

[LuisDantas]

For those who do not believe that the Universe was a product of intelligent design, what qualities of the Universe would you expect to be different if it was intelligently-designed?

It would rely somewhat less on unstable balances, leave more space and opportunity for sentient beings to learn and express themselves without so easily falling into destructive behaviors and conflicts.

The few truly viable mechanisms would have to be a bit less callous and less reliant on numbers to remain so.

Things such as anencephalous and hydrocephaly would either not exist or be considerably more difficult to happen.

 

[Skwim]

For those who do not believe that the Universe was a product of intelligent design, what qualities of the Universe would you expect to be different if it was intelligently-designed? What would have to be different about the Universe so that intelligent design would be considered the most likely explanation for these qualities? Take note that I am not talking about absolute proof, just whatever evidence would be sufficiently strong to lend weight to intelligent design.

First of all, a designer would have to be established beyond any doubt (this is a personal requirement). Then there would have to be evidence that what we see could only have been designed; implicating the designer. So far there isn't any such evidence, so there's no reason to suppose a designer is involved.

Please take note that this isn't about evolution, the Big Bang or abiogenesis per se, unless you want to work those into it somehow.

If it isn't about evolution then you're in the wrong place. This is the Evolution Vs. Creationism forum


.

 

[Twilight Hue]

For those who do not believe that the Universe was a product of intelligent design, what qualities of the Universe would you expect to be different if it was intelligently-designed? What would have to be different about the Universe so that intelligent design would be considered the most likely explanation for these qualities? Take note that I am not talking about absolute proof, just whatever evidence would be sufficiently strong to lend weight to intelligent design.

Please take note that this isn't about evolution, the Big Bang or abiogenesis per se, unless you want to work those into it somehow.

It would help for starters if said intelligence started to actually communicate instead of being a deaf mute. To be fair, I do think there's intelligent design through various natural processes such as our molecular biology, ourselves, animals, insects and the like that creates and makes an impact with one form or another. Just not the conventional supernatural sky daddy thats supposedly hanging out somewhere in the cosmos elusively peeking through the blinds.

 

[Quintessence]

Just wondering, but would you consider a universe designed by a deity to be indistinguishable from a universe that wasn't designed?

This is a very intriguing question!

It's not something I have thought about before, but it stands to reason that since we are limited to an n = 1, our species simply has no basis for comparison (thus functionally, the two are indistinguishable since we can make no contrast; this requires n ≥ 2).

 

[LuisDantas]

That still leaves us to consider whether we can guess the logical and esthetical attributes of a purposeful creation, don't you think?

It may be impossible to agree on an answer, but propose answers we will nonetheless.

 

[Jainarayan]

You don't see these types of differences in life on Earth. There's differences indeed, but the differences all suggest a nested hierarchy of animal groupings.And when things evolve, they simply evolve a subset of whatever template they already had. Things don't get completely swap out and replaced in organisms.

Yes, there are really only a couple of body plans used over and over for all the animal life we see, the main ones being tetrapods and arthropods. Plants are also just variations on a theme.

 

[Parsimony]

As an alternative way of phrasing the question: if you were a deity, and you wanted the intelligent beings in your universe to know that it was designed by an intelligence, what kind of evidence would you put in for that? Here's an example of what I might do: spell out messages in crystal-clear, grammatically-correct sentences in the sky at night with stars. Those sentences would statements about the world that humans could test for themselves (like the ratio of the proton mass to the electron mass). Every letter would look exactly the same from one sentence to another (by that, I mean that an "A" in one sentence would be composed of the exact same line lengths and angles as the "A" in all other sentences). The only place in the Universe where all of these sentences could be read undistorted would be the Solar System (if I decided Earth was the only place with life, that is). If you lived in my universe, would that be enough to convince you of my existence?

 

[Skwim]

As an alternative way of phrasing the question: if you were a deity, and you wanted the intelligent beings in your universe to know that it was designed by an intelligence, what kind of evidence would you put in for that? Here's an example of what I might do: spell out messages in crystal-clear, grammatically-correct sentences in the sky at night with stars. Those sentences would statements about the world that humans could test for themselves (like the ratio of the proton mass to the electron mass). Every letter would look exactly the same from one sentence to another (by that, I mean that an "A" in one sentence would be composed of the exact same line lengths and angles as the "A" in all other sentences). The only place in the Universe where all of these sentences could be read undistorted would be the Solar System (if I decided Earth was the only place with life, that is). If you lived in my universe, would that be enough to convince you of my existence?

You or your sidekick who's playing around a bit. For all we on earth know, the universe could have been created by a committee of 207,892 designers. The single designer notion is just a reflection of the monotheistic god of the Abrahamic religions. So if you, as thee designer, want anyone to believe it then you'd first have to prove you're working alone.

 

[Parsimony]

You or your sidekick who's playing around a bit. For all we on earth know, the universe could have been created by a committee of 207,892 designers. The single designer notion is just a reflection of the monotheistic god of the Abrahamic religions. So if you, as thee designer, want anyone to believe it then you'd first have to prove you're working alone.

Let's say I don't mind whether you believe in one or many designers. All I'm attempting to do is create a world where the most rational explanation is design. Would the star sentences I mentioned earlier be enough to support that? How about I also throw in that I would make prayer a two-way communication: anyone who talks to me can hear back from me (not as a spiritual feeling, but as a literal voice)? Would that be enough?

 

[Skwim]

Let's say I don't mind whether you believe in one or many designers.

Okay, new subject.

All I'm attempting to do is create a world where the most rational explanation is design. Would the star sentences I mentioned earlier be enough to support that?

Frankly, all it would imply is that some supernatural force went to the trouble of sending a message. It doesn't imply this force was the designer of the universe at all.

How about I also throw in that I would make prayer a two-way communication: anyone who talks to me can hear back from me (not as a spiritual feeling, but as a literal voice)? Would that be enough?

You still have the problem of connecting this voice with any kind of universe-designer. Maybe the voice evolved from some unknown aspect of the universe. Maybe it's nothing more than a supernatural creature from the planet Tinnitus talking to you.

 

[Parsimony]

Okay, new subject.

Frankly, all it would imply is that some supernatural force went to the trouble of sending a message. It doesn't imply this force was the designer of the universe at all.

You still have the problem of connecting this voice with any kind of universe-designer. Maybe the voice evolved from some unknown aspect of the universe. Maybe it's nothing more than a supernatural creature from the planet Tinnitus talking to you.

Then let's say I had communicated with humans for hundreds of years and everything I had ever told anyone turned out to be true. I then also happened to tell them that I was the designer of the Universe. In addition to that, I would, from time to time, manipulate different aspects of the Universe to display my power. Remember, this isn't about absolute proof. Nothing can be proven absolutely. You can't know that your friend of 20 years isn't planning to sacrifice you during a ritual, but you can use evidence of their past behavior as an indicator of how likely it is that they would do such a thing. So why can't my own centuries-long history of truthfulness combined with my displays of power over reality be used as evidence that it is more likely that I really am the designer of the Universe and not just being deceptive?

 

[Skwim]

Then let's say I had communicated with humans for hundreds of years and everything I had ever told anyone turned out to be true. I then also happened to tell them that I was the designer of the Universe. In addition to that, I would, from time to time, manipulate different aspects of the Universe to display my power. Remember, this isn't about absolute proof. Nothing can be proven absolutely. You can't know that your friend of 20 years isn't planning to sacrifice you during a ritual, but you can use evidence of their past behavior as an indicator of how likely it is that they would do such a thing. So why can't my own centuries-long history of truthfulness combined with my displays of power over reality be used as evidence that it is more likely that I really am the designer of the Universe and not just being deceptive?

Hey, there's good evidence, mediocre evidence, and poor evidence. So, sure, these centuries of truthfulness combined with your displays of power over reality might be used as evidence, but you may be nothing more than Joe Schmo, a supernatural being who can read the future and has superhuman powers. These parlor tricks still don't demonstrate you're the designer of the universe, or that the universe was even designed at all.


.