Jump to content
PrimalMinister

Could intelligent design be legitimate?

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

The only way of establishing if something was designed, is to have evidence of that design process

We have evidence of the design process of laptops, laptops were designed by us.

 

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

What differentiates the things above it from below it? The materials they are made of? Their function? Their size?

I am not so interested that, I guess that is the job of intelligent design proponents (which is what I am asking). Its just that I have looked at intelligent design and it seems to all boil down to this point, where is the line. But its often presented as something different from people disparaging intelligent design, I just wonder whether they have honestly looked at it. There is clearly a line, its just undefined, but isn't it legitimate to ask where that line is?

Creativity is a strange creature in science, its there but not really acknowledged.

Like in evolutionary theory, creativity is the mutations, random, but at the same time creative. Evolution via natural selection cannot be the whole answer. Natural selection is a passive attribute of the universe, not an active one, its not creative, its the mutations that are creative.

These natural process people talk about are all passive attributes of the universe, that is how science defines them. All of them. Modern science is not about creativity, none of it, its all about passive attributes of the universe. To borrow a concept from a different culture, scientific models are inherently Yin like (from the Yin and Yang of the Tao), they do not describe creative processes, they can't, by design they are not creative.

Creativity exists in the universe, we are creative, we are evidence the universe supports creativity. But is the universe as creative as we are? Not according to our models which model only the passive attributes of the universe.

But creativity creeps in, its just not really discussed. But its there.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

Why is it silly to ask where the line is?

It isn't. Unless you ask questions, how will you ever discover anything?

Intelligent Design proponents have been looking for a line from the beginning and they always find one, whether it is in the awe inspiring beauty of the universe, or the complexity of the eye.

Unfortunately for them, when examined with a critical eye, the line always fails the test. No 'line' ever proposed by ID proponents has stood up to scientific scrutiny.

The reason you get somewhat hostile reactions here is because the ID proponents generally start with the solution (God exists) and then piece together some bits of data to make the solution appear true, glossing over the weak spots as they go.

9 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

We have evidence of the design process of laptops, laptops were designed by us.

 

Correct, there is evidence that laptops were designed. That is a line showing human intelligence, not supernatural intelligence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Strange said:

I guess so. If you could work out a way of finding evidence for a designer (although, if there is, it is not particularly intelligent).

And "it looks designed" is not evidence.

 

And in a great deal of cases, things in nature don't "look designed".

Compare the human brain to the aforementioned lap-top.  

With the lap-top, everything in it has a purpose aimed towards the proper operation of the device.  It doesn't have buttons or switches that were needed for earlier computers and no longer have any function now, for example.

The human brain however, is a series of more complex structures built on top of earlier more primitive brain structures.  There is no indication that its final form arose from any design process.   It would be like designing the lap top by starting with a ENIAC base structure, and tacking a IBM 360 architecture on top on that, then adding a 6502, then a 16 bit microprocessor...   No sane designer would go about it that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Janus said:

The human brain however, is a series of more complex structures built on top of earlier more primitive brain structures.  There is no indication that its final form arose from any design process.   It would be like designing the lap top by starting with a ENIAC base structure, and tacking a IBM 360 architecture on top on that, then adding a 6502, then a 16 bit microprocessor...   No sane designer would go about it that way.

And the old audio out cord is wrapped around all the equipment that's been added since, so it's waaaay longer than it needs to be. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Janus said:

And in a great deal of cases, things in nature don't "look designed".

For starters, I don't see myself as a supporter of ID, and I am a proud atheist, - but that is not entirely true.

There are two examples in nature that looks designed: The golden ratio and the "branching" pattern.

The branching pattern is seen in places like: Lightning, tree roots and tops, rivers and blood vessels. I do know that nature "chooses" the easiest and most effective path, so it isn't a sign of ID, but it looks like it. Just like the golden ratio.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

So if intelligent design is effectivily 'where is the line' why is it not science?

The premise of a "line" has been rejected. It seems to be a real hangup in your reasoning process. What is it about human intelligence that you find linear?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PrimalMinister said:

We have evidence of the design process of laptops, laptops were designed by us.

Exactly. 

We don't have evidence of design of other things (things not designed by us).

1 hour ago, PrimalMinister said:

I am not so interested that, I guess that is the job of intelligent design proponents

Then you should probably find a non-science forum where they hang out and ask them. There doesn't seem much point asking on a science forum what the basis of some aspect of religious literalism is.

1 hour ago, PrimalMinister said:

Its just that I have looked at intelligent design and it seems to all boil down to this point, where is the line.

As far as I know it boils down to "the bible says so" and "it looks designed". Neither of which are very good arguments.

1 hour ago, PrimalMinister said:

There is clearly a line, its just undefined, but isn't it legitimate to ask where that line is?

It isn't clear that there is a line. As even you (who invented it) cannot say what this line is, I see no reason to accept that it exists.

 

57 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

So if intelligent design is effectivily 'where is the line' why is it not science?

Define this line, and then maybe you could start a scientific discussion about whether there is evidence that it exists or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PrimalMinister said:

 Evolution via natural selection cannot be the whole answer. Natural selection is a passive attribute of the universe, not an active one, its not creative, its the mutations that are creative.

And since mutations are a part of evolution, how can you justify this claim?

 

1 hour ago, PrimalMinister said:

These natural process people talk about are all passive attributes of the universe, that is how science defines them. All of them. Modern science is not about creativity, none of it, its all about passive attributes of the universe. To borrow a concept from a different culture, scientific models are inherently Yin like (from the Yin and Yang of the Tao), they do not describe creative processes, they can't, by design they are not creative.

Bollocks. Science doesn’t explain how a star is created? How atoms are created? How antimatter is created?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PrimalMinister said:

So if intelligent design is effectivily 'where is the line' why is it not science?

 

Please define what you mean by natural and designed, how do you tell the difference? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

My question is, could intelligent design be legitimate if it actually did some science? For example, a laptop has the signiture of intelligent design, no one would say that a laptop is the product of natural forces, it quite clearly has an intelligent agent(s) behind it.

Surely it is legitimate to ask where the line between natural forces and intelligence is?

I do not see a line or how to define the parameters for such a line. Some thoughts about this, illustrated by a constructed scenario:
Let's say humans are able to create artificial intelligence. Not software/hardware currently labeled AI but something that by our standards would be labeled as "intelligent".
Next, put this intelligence in a context where the intelligence does not know that it was created by humans. Now if the intelligence, since it is intelligent, manages to come up with a scientific method to investigate and find evidence that it (the intelligence) was created by a designer (the human), how would that count? Is that a scientific approach at investigating intelligent design? The intelligence, created by humans, is just a consequence of human evolution and natural processes. Where does natural end and not natural begin? The existence of human and it's creations do not seem very significant when looking at the universe as a whole. How does our definition of intelligence matter in the greater scale of things, such as how universe came into existence?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

Like in evolutionary theory, creativity is the mutations, random, but at the same time creative. Evolution via natural selection cannot be the whole answer. Natural selection is a passive attribute of the universe, not an active one, its not creative, its the mutations that are creative.

Can you define what you mean by "active" and "passive"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.