There Can be no "Intelligent Design"

[bobhikes]

Your post led me to think about a question. What about the universe being designed? If it's designed by an intelligence, can the universe be random? What would be the criticism of a non-random (intelligently designed) universe that is producing life on its own because it's designed that way? Natural Evolution (through natural processes) might be exactly what the intelligent creator wanted from the beginning and we're just here arguing about what kind of creator there is and what his/her/its intentions were.

And furthermore, if the universe points to an intelligent creator because it's so ordered and intelligently designed, what about the creator him/her/itself? Would that being also be intelligent and ordered?

Put it this way:
p1) Anything that looks intelligently designed is designed by something/someone intelligent
p2) The universe looks intelligently designed
c) The universe is designed by something/someone intelligent

But then:
p1) Anything that looks intelligently designed is designed by something/someone intelligent
p2) The intelligent something/someone also looks intelligently designed
c) The intelligent designer was designed by something/someone intelligent.

My point is, we can't really draw a conclusion however much this universe looks designed or intelligent that there must be an intelligence behind it. There might be, but the reasoning (at least formulated this way) doesn't hold.

Equally you can't draw the conclusion that intelligence isn't behind it. That is really my point taking all the science into consideration there is still no way to determine if the universe was intelligently(non-man god)designed or not.

In my opinion the critics of intelligent design are against bible trumpeters but they need to look at it in a scientific manner.

 

[bobhikes]

Dembski's concept has been debunked, it seems. http://www.talkreason.org/articles/dembski_LCI.pdf

Also, I think I conflated your comments with another poster's somewhere along the line......I'll sort it out.

My mistake I grabbed the first post I do not know Dembski. I was talking about conservation of information.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox

But an any case you have provided no information to change my mind. You seem hung up on the Biblical references to intelligent design which I am not interested in. So let me agree to disagree. Have a good day.

 

[Ouroboros]

Equally you can't draw the conclusion that intelligence isn't behind it.

And I don't. I'm keeping the option agnostic. Actually, I think that the answer is that both nature and intelligence somehow are integrated or one. How? I don't know. It's just a belief.

That is really my point taking all the science into consideration there is still no way to determine if the universe was intelligently(non-man god)designed or not.

Agree.

In my opinion the critics of intelligent design are against bible trumpeters but they need to look at it in a scientific manner.

Sure. I think both sides are adamant about that there can only be either or, whereas I think that the solution might be not.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The classic example arguing for intelligent design in the universe is William Paley’s “watchmaker” analogy. If, while roaming along a beach full of sand, rocks and random, chaotic waves, any reasonable person finds and picks up a pocket watch, he or she would understand that it was very different from the rest of the natural surroundings, that it was artificial, that it had purpose and that it was DESIGNED by an intelligence.

This analogy is used to argue for Intelligent Design in the establishing of the universe, in ranges all the way from a very subtle form (arranging the laws of nature by an intelligent creator) to a very literal and explicit form (that everything, including humans, were deliberately and specifically designed in moments of special creation).

I’m sure I can find writings from experts on both sides of the fence that answer the following questions. But I’m interested in opinions among us generally:

Paley contrasts the obvious design of the watch with the obvious non-design of the natural shoreline to argue positively that the universe at large is designed. But, if we take the situation literally (and I do understand, no analogy is meant to be), then the watch was designed by a being (a human) who itself was designed by a designer – the SAME designer that designed the sand, rocks and seawater. Hence, these other features are ALSO intelligently designed.

So, in real life, in cosmic terms, it seems impossible to distinguish between the design of a watch and the natural environment. If a creator made all in a moment (or six days) of special creation, then no aspect, no particle, no force, nor feature of that cosmos is NOT intelligently designed.

On what basis, then, can one claim that the universe IS intelligently designed since no one has ever experienced any phenomenon that is not intelligently designed? Doesn’t the universe appear to us in a way that can just as easily called “UN-intelligently” designed as “intelligently designed”?

Isn’t the question of intelligent design of a universe that contains everything meaningless and illogical?

This is a very old familiar straw man argument - all you have to do is try it the other way around- it refutes naturalism by precisely the same rationale:



, if we take the situation literally (and I do understand, no analogy is meant to be), then the watch was designed by a being (a human) who itself was designed by natural processes – the SAME natural process that designed the sand, rocks and seawater. Hence, these other features are ALSO natural
So, in real life, in cosmic terms, it seems impossible to distinguish between the design of a watch and the natural environment. If a natural process made everything , then no aspect, no particle, no force, nor feature of that cosmos is NOT natural
On what basis, then, can one claim that the universe IS natural, since no one has ever experienced any phenomenon that is not natural? Doesn’t the universe appear to us in a way that can just as easily called “UN-naturally" designed as “natural”?
Isn’t the question of natural design of a universe that contains everything meaningless and illogical?

see?

 

[McBell]

This is a very old familiar straw man argument - all you have to do is try it the other way around- it refutes naturalism by precisely the same rationale:



, if we take the situation literally (and I do understand, no analogy is meant to be), then the watch was designed by a being (a human) who itself was designed by natural processes – the SAME natural process that designed the sand, rocks and seawater. Hence, these other features are ALSO natural
So, in real life, in cosmic terms, it seems impossible to distinguish between the design of a watch and the natural environment. If a natural process made everything , then no aspect, no particle, no force, nor feature of that cosmos is NOT natural
On what basis, then, can one claim that the universe IS natural, since no one has ever experienced any phenomenon that is not natural? Doesn’t the universe appear to us in a way that can just as easily called “UN-naturally" designed as “natural”?
Isn’t the question of natural design of a universe that contains everything meaningless and illogical?

see?

Sure don't.
Seems you are not up to speed on the definition of "natural" as an adjective, especiall when in front of the words "process" and "environment".

 

[Etritonakin]

This is a very old familiar straw man argument - all you have to do is try it the other way around- it refutes naturalism by precisely the same rationale:



, if we take the situation literally (and I do understand, no analogy is meant to be), then the watch was designed by a being (a human) who itself was designed by natural processes – the SAME natural process that designed the sand, rocks and seawater. Hence, these other features are ALSO natural
So, in real life, in cosmic terms, it seems impossible to distinguish between the design of a watch and the natural environment. If a natural process made everything , then no aspect, no particle, no force, nor feature of that cosmos is NOT natural
On what basis, then, can one claim that the universe IS natural, since no one has ever experienced any phenomenon that is not natural? Doesn’t the universe appear to us in a way that can just as easily called “UN-naturally" designed as “natural”?
Isn’t the question of natural design of a universe that contains everything meaningless and illogical?

see?

Perhaps design is natural.
Whether something is believed to be designed or not -it still has design. It is of a specific design.
Something designed it -whether it knew it or not.
Designer and design are one -but interactive.
One is of a design -even as one designs.
The original designer would be the designer and design of itself -becoming more intricate in design as it became a more capable designer.

Everything has design -everything was designed -the only question is whether or not the designer was -or became -self-aware.

How does "one" know "one" exists?

 

[james bond]

What's the opposite of intelligent design? Evolution.

It's origins are random, disorganized and not based on any intelligence amiright?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

What's the opposite of intelligent design? Evolution.

It's origins are random, disorganized and not based on any intelligence amiright?

Nope. There is a difference between "natural" and "random". The only way in which evolution and I.D are opposites is in the sense that I.D is put forward as a mutually exclusive alternative to evolution (ie: if intelligent design is true, evolution can't be). In reality, there's no real contradiction between evolution and general theism unless you believe in a very specific and rigid interpretation of how exactly life was formed by a God. Evolution could have been planned by an intelligence, and said plan could have taken the form of natural processes that, to us, do not appear to have intelligence or intent behind them. I have no issue with such a view.

I have an issue with people who don't understand evolution making all sorts of claims about it. Constructing strawmen, copying and pasting from biased creationist websites and (sometimes intentionally) spreading misinformation. Evolution is not "random" or "disorganized". For evolution to occur, it requires a selective process. It boggles my mind how often I have to explain this extremely basic fact, and how incredibly resistant so many minds are to it.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Perhaps design is natural.
Whether something is believed to be designed or not -it still has design. It is of a specific design.
Something designed it -whether it knew it or not.
Designer and design are one -but interactive.
One is of a design -even as one designs.
The original designer would be the designer and design of itself -becoming more intricate in design as it became a more capable designer.

Everything has design -everything was designed -the only question is whether or not the designer was -or became -self-aware.

How does "one" know "one" exists?

I take your point, it's difficult to describe the layout, structure, function of a particular organ without using words like 'design' whether we believe in evolution or not..

The question I would say- is which is teh better, more likely explanation? intelligent or natural design?

which has more capacity to genuinely create? intelligent design has a unique capacity to create what 'natural design' never can- because it alone has creativity- desire, will, purpose to design- it is not bound by infinite chains of cause and effect. It does not rely on random chance to create functionality.

a child sitting in front of a pile of Lego for an hour, will out-perform a rock tumbler full of Lego working for a trillion years

 

[james bond]

Is it nature? Yes. That's intelligent design.

That said, no one group has nature. It a gift to all of us from God.

 

[Etritonakin]

I take your point, it's difficult to describe the layout, structure, function of a particular organ without using words like 'design' whether we believe in evolution or not..

The question I would say- is which is teh better, more likely explanation? intelligent or natural design?

which has more capacity to genuinely create? intelligent design has a unique capacity to create what 'natural design' never can- because it alone has creativity- desire, will, purpose to design- it is not bound by infinite chains of cause and effect. It does not rely on random chance to create functionality.

a child sitting in front of a pile of Lego for an hour, will out-perform a rock tumbler full of Lego working for a trillion years

Why is intelligence unnatural?

We know that "nature" can design now -because things such as the big bang and evolution do not now need direct self-aware intelligent design influence to continue designing.

We are able to design programs and initiate processes which continue to design things we had not even considered without continued input from us.

We (which are of "nature") can develop "artificial" intelligences to do such things -and those are far less capable than evolution -which could be said to be a sort of intelligence which is not self-aware.

What we do not presently know is whether the design programs such as the big bang and evolution required an intelligence to set them in motion -because we do not fully understand the nature of "nature".

Why would it be unnatural for an intelligence to necessarily develop before that which required an intelligence to exist?

"Intelligence" is not a simple thing -it is something which exists due to an arrangement of other -more simple -things -so it might be said that those more simple things can be more simple intelligence -or, at the most simple level, the basis of intelligence -just as on and off states in computing are not much in and of themselves, but are required for that which is built upon them.

God would be both someone and something. I do not claim to know the most simple state of God -but we are told by scripture that God has made himself less simple -even as he has created us -as we are all of the one by whom all things consist.

Joh 14:20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

Religious people might not agree with the idea of an eternal God "developing" -but as God is said to be the one by whom all things consist, he would self-develop even as he created new things.

It likely smacks too much of evolution in their minds -but intelligence, self-awareness, design and evolution all exist as parts of the same whole.

Isa 33:10 Now will I rise, saith the LORD; now will I be exalted; now will I lift up myself.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Why is intelligence unnatural?

We know that "nature" can design now -because things such as the big bang and evolution do not now need direct self-aware intelligent design influence to continue designing.

We are able to design programs and initiate processes which continue to design things we had not even considered without continued input from us.

We can develop artificial intelligences to do such things -and those are far less capable than evolution -which could be said to be a sort of intelligence which is not self-aware.

Yes we can intelligently create those things, and they are the only examples we can verify where 'automated design' can exist, and we recognize that it took ID to set them in motion right? And we can recognize the same fingerprints of ID in nature

What we do not presently know is whether the design programs such as the big bang and evolution required an intelligence to set them in motion -because we do not fully understand the nature of "nature".

No, but if we posit that 'nature' is 'natural'... are we not then saying that all the laws of nature can be ultimately accounted for by... those very same laws?!

That's a paradox unique to atheism/ naturalism that only creative intelligence can solve

Why would it be unnatural for an intelligence to necessarily develop before that which required an intelligence to exist?

Religious people might not agree with the idea of an eternal God "developing" -but as God is said to be the one by whom all things consist, he would self-develop even as he created new things.

It likely smacks too much of evolution in their minds -but intelligence, self-awareness, design and evolution all exist as parts of the same whole.

Isa 33:10 Now will I rise, saith the LORD; now will I be exalted; now will I lift up myself.

I think maybe we agree, that God lifted himself, I don't think he is without cause- he provided his own, and he transcends our timeline of cause/effect as we understand it- necessarily so, since time itself was one of his creations- he is not bound by the laws of his own creation..

But I don't see this as evolution as taught- I don't think he was spontaneously created through millions of lucky accidental mutations!

 

[Etritonakin]

Yes we can intelligently create those things, and they are the only examples we can verify where 'automated design' can exist, and we recognize that it took ID to set them in motion right? And we can recognize the same fingerprints of ID in nature




No, but if we posit that 'nature' is 'natural'... are we not then saying that all the laws of nature can be ultimately accounted for by... those very same laws?!

That's a paradox unique to atheism/ naturalism that only creative intelligence can solve




I think maybe we agree, that God lifted himself, I don't think he is without cause- he provided his own, and he transcends our timeline of cause/effect as we understand it- necessarily so, since time itself was one of his creations- he is not bound by the laws of his own creation..

But I don't see this as evolution as taught- I don't think he was spontaneously created through millions of lucky accidental mutations!

I have not heard it expressed by those who teach evolution, but it is logical that even though it is now something which involves millions of mutations, its basis is the most simple beginning possible.

The same would be true for an initiating intelligence -everything beginning with the most simple thing. Almighty God being the most simple thing -now there's a paradox -but even God says he is the beginning and the end.

Part of natural law says that certain things cannot happen unless preceded by a self-aware, intelligent creator (such as man) -but we may find that "nature" is a self-aware creator which necessarily became self-aware and creative before becoming all that it now is.
"I AM" would technically mean something different as "I AM" increased in complexity -but would always be true.

(again -not saying any of this is the case -just considering the matter)

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I have not heard it expressed by those who teach evolution, but it is logical that even though it is now something which involves millions of mutations, its basis is the most simple beginning possible.

The same would be true for an initiating intelligence -everything beginning with the most simple thing. Almighty God being the most simple thing -now there's a paradox -but even God says he is the beginning and the end..

That gets to an interesting question of what simplicity is.

I guess we can compare the Big Bang, the singularity to a program- one that has been highly compressed into a self extracting archive of information yes? So it's results appear more complex than it's beginning, yet were all pre-described in compressed form.

So the information is compact but not simple- just as a random pile of a thousand rocks on a beach in one sense is more complex, than a few dozen that spell 'HELP' , but we know which is designed because of the greater complexity resulting in it's function


So yes it seems we are stuck with an apparent paradox either way, yet here we are, -- that self extracting archive was programmed to produce it's own consciousness to ponder itself with!, I can't believe that was an accident!

 

[Etritonakin]

That gets to an interesting question of what simplicity is.

I guess we can compare the Big Bang, the singularity to a program- one that has been highly compressed into a self extracting archive of information yes? So it's results appear more complex than it's beginning, yet were all pre-described in compressed form.

So the information is compact but not simple- just as a random pile of a thousand rocks on a beach in one sense is more complex, than a few dozen that spell 'HELP' , but we know which is designed because of the greater complexity resulting in it's function


So yes it seems we are stuck with an apparent paradox either way, yet here we are, -- that self extracting archive was programmed to produce it's own consciousness to ponder itself with!, I can't believe that was an accident!

If everything has a beginning, then there must be a beginning of everything. What's so bad a bout a paradox, anyway?

Perhaps the answer to the "Why?" of everything -working backward from effect to cause, effect to cause, effect to cause -boils down, at the most simple level, to "It just is" (or "I AM") -and what's wrong with that?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

If everything has a beginning, then there must be a beginning of everything. What's so bad a bout a paradox, anyway?

Perhaps the answer to the "Why?" of everything -working backward from effect to cause, effect to cause, effect to cause -boils down, at the most simple level, to "It just is" (or "I AM") -and what's wrong with that?

Nothing is wrong with that, if we could know it were true, but we don't know. If it's not true, and there is a purpose, 'it just is' would be missing the entire point of our being here.

My money is on 'why' being the answer to everything, without purpose nothing would exist, that purpose is the only way to truly create anything.

And I think there is a hypothetical solution to all apparent paradoxes if we do not rule this out..

What if a chicken were to lay an egg, which was utterly identical to the one it came from, and at the exact same time and place- is it a copy? or the original? Or can it be both at the same time?

 

[Deeje]

Nobody has said we understand all the details of abiogenesis. But we are getting closer to an understanding. We have a number of pieces of the puzzle. But it is okay to say we do 't know and keep looking. It is not okay to fill in the holes in our knowledge with "god did it".

I believe that it is better to fill in the hole with something that leaves no gaps, rather than fill it with something so full of holes that it wouldn't keep out a freight train.

Can you answer this one with proof from evolution?.....beginning at the most basic level of life....

The basic unit of living things is the cell, and the basic material that makes up a cell is protein. Evolutionists acknowledge that the probability of the right atoms and molecules falling into place to form just one simple protein molecule is about 1 in 10113, or 1 followed by 113 zeros. In other words, it could take 10113 chances for the event to occur once. But any event that has one chance in 1050 is dismissed by mathematicians as never happening.

4 However, far more than one simple protein molecule is needed for life to occur. For a cell to maintain its functions, some 2,000 different proteins are needed. What, then, is the probability of all of these happening at random? It is estimated that it is 1 in 1040,000, or 1 followed by 40,000 zeros! Are you willing to rest your faith on such an outrageously remote probability?

How do you explain this?

 

[Sapiens]

I believe that it is better to fill in the hole with something that leaves no gaps, rather than fill it with something so full of holes that it wouldn't keep out a freight train.

Can you answer this one with proof from evolution?.....beginning at the most basic level of life....

The basic unit of living things is the cell, and the basic material that makes up a cell is protein. Evolutionists acknowledge that the probability of the right atoms and molecules falling into place to form just one simple protein molecule is about 1 in 10113, or 1 followed by 113 zeros. In other words, it could take 10113 chances for the event to occur once. But any event that has one chance in 1050 is dismissed by mathematicians as never happening.

4 However, far more than one simple protein molecule is needed for life to occur. For a cell to maintain its functions, some 2,000 different proteins are needed. What, then, is the probability of all of these happening at random? It is estimated that it is 1 in 1040,000, or 1 followed by 40,000 zeros! Are you willing to rest your faith on such an outrageously remote probability?

How do you explain this?

There is no need to "explain this" your figures are way, way off and are based on errant assumptions as demonstrated by Dawkins' WEASEL simulation.

 

[Deeje]

There is no need to "explain this" your figures are way, way off and are based on errant assumptions as demonstrated by Dawkins' WEASEL simulation.

Characteristics of God denial...

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I believe that it is better to fill in the hole with something that leaves no gaps, rather than fill it with something so full of holes that it wouldn't keep out a freight train.

Can you answer this one with proof from evolution?.....beginning at the most basic level of life....

The basic unit of living things is the cell, and the basic material that makes up a cell is protein. Evolutionists acknowledge that the probability of the right atoms and molecules falling into place to form just one simple protein molecule is about 1 in 10113, or 1 followed by 113 zeros. In other words, it could take 10113 chances for the event to occur once. But any event that has one chance in 1050 is dismissed by mathematicians as never happening.

4 However, far more than one simple protein molecule is needed for life to occur. For a cell to maintain its functions, some 2,000 different proteins are needed. What, then, is the probability of all of these happening at random? It is estimated that it is 1 in 1040,000, or 1 followed by 40,000 zeros! Are you willing to rest your faith on such an outrageously remote probability?

How do you explain this?

Overcoming these sort of odds, which are ever increasing the more we learn, has pretty much dwindled down to multiverses- an infinite probability machine, creating every possible thing imaginable, including this universe (but not God)- or some unknown alien intelligence, as long as it's not God. OR we have no idea, but we are certain it's not God