Design: intelligent or not?

The theory of evolution by means of natural selection is held to higher standards than any other theory. The evidence in favor of common ancestry is truly mountainous, and it borders on perverse to doubt its truth (at least as perverse as doubting atomic theory). What is shocking then is that the people who reject the mountain of evidence supporting common ancestry fail to apply these high standards to the concept of intelligent design. The fact is that intelligent design fails at every aspect of trying to account for the diversity of life.

Intelligent design does not have explanatory power. It does not provide an explanation for the geological distribution of fossils, nor does it provide an explanation for the geographical distribution of living species. It does not explain vestigial organs, and it is outright violated by the vast number of examples of incredibly poor design such as the backwards wiring of the human eye, the poor design of the human spine and the poor and accident prone arrangement of the digestive tract in humans to name very few.

Intelligent design does not generate testable predictions. Thousands of predictions are derived from evolutionary theory and these predictions are tested and verified or falsified, for example Robert Triver's theory of parental investment. The only prediction I can think of which can be derived from intelligent design is that we should find irreducibly complex biological systems in nature. So far no genuine examples of irreducible complexity have been found. Perhaps you could also derive the prediction that we should find traits in organisms that are not beneficial to the organism itself but are beneficial to other organisms. So far none have been found.

However the most important point to acknowledge is that intelligent design is not a theory, and it does not even qualify as a valid hypothesis. Science uses natural explanations to explain natural phenomena. Intelligent design postulates a supernatural designer and therefor is not a theory, by definition. Even if it were true that the universe was created by an intelligent designer it would still not be a theory, and it would not be within the domain of science.

Intelligent design should be taught in schools, in religious studies classes and philosophy classes (though the philosophical argument for design is quite poor as well). It does not, however, have any place in science classrooms because it is supernatural, lacks predictive power, and lacks explanatory power.

Of course the theory of evolution by natural selection is a valid theory for a number of reasons, but I just want to mention the most important reason here: Evolution is potentially falsifiable. If one fossil were found in the wrong strata the theory would be falsified. Just one fossil rabbit in the pre-cambrian is all it takes.

Overall my point is this: if your standard of science is so high that you do not accept the theory of evolution then intelligent design is the last place that you want to look for an alternative explanation because it pales in comparison to the evidence supporting evolution and to the explanatory and predictive power of evolutionary theory.

 

seriously bro, do your self a favor and drink some ayahuasca brew.

 

I don't think you're going to find much argument here. For my part, I'll try to put some perspective on your points, though I'm in no way arguing in favour of intelligent design -- neither am I arguing in favour of evolutionary theory. I find myself quite undecided on this issue, for reasons I will try to explain here.

First of all, you're right that evolutionary theory has far more scientific validity than intelligent design; the latter, as you say, has none. The question we have to ask here is whether scientific method is sufficient to understand the nature of the universe. Can we be certain that there is no an intelligent for guiding these processes, whether evolution occurs or not? Does evolution rule out the prospect of an intelligent designer?

To respond to some of your points in brief:

Re vestigial organs: Are we absolutely certain that such organs serve no purpose? They do not simply sit lifeless in the body: they are doing something, necessary or not. If it's not necessary, that would lend credence to the argument that they are vestigial. Because they can be removed with no obvious negative effects, it would appear that their functions are unnecessary. However, considering the attention that evolutionary theory gives to the smallest possible benefit any trait could give an organism, it seems possible that these organs do provide some benefit, even if it's not necessary to survival/good health.

On another note, have the functions of these organs for our less-evolved ancestors been determined? What benefit did they used to afford, and why do they no longer do so?


Re poor design of the body: These points almost seem like nitpicking when considering the great efficiency and effectiveness of the body. Perhaps the spine could be better, or the eye could be more streamlined, or the digestive tract could be less 'accident-prone'; but really, all things considered, what can we not find some way to improve upon? Is the imperfection of the body really proof that it was not designed? We're not talking about any specific designer here, and I'm not assuming it to be perfect; but even if it were perfect, would it necessarily design us to be so? If our bodies were perfect, we would never die or get sick either.


Re behaviour beneficial to other organisms: As you may know, there actually are organisms which will endanger themselves to save others. This is most prevalent in the case of parents distracting predators to keep them away from their young. From an evolutionary standpoint this is obviously justified as passing on their DNA by protecting their offspring, which is certainly not without merit.

To digress for a minute, this leads into the question of the preservation of scientific doctrine. You must realize that there is, of course, a lot invested by a tremendous amount of people in the scientific status quo. It is certainly not hard to imagine certain evidence being ignored, and certainly reinterpreted, to fit the running theory. That's not to say that there's not a lot of good evidence for evolution; but as you said, a single piece of evidence could bring down the house. I don't think it's unreasonable to imagine that something like that might be ignored or reinterpreted, when the alternative would be throwing out years of work and starting from scratch again. Something to consider.

 

SkinnyHorse, I have already taken ayahuasca. It was one of the most influential experiences of my life, but I don't see what that has to do with this.

Zorba, you make some good points. Allow me to clarify some of my points. I agree that evolutionary theory does not rule out an intelligent designer, but I do believe that the intelligent designer is outside the scope of science.

In regard to the poor aspects of design I do not think that it is nitpicking because I think we see evidence of poor design at every level of every organism. They are not poorly designed in terms of function, obviously they work. They are poorly designed from an engineering stand point. The human spine was not intended to be in an upright position, but it was exapted for that use. Organisms are designed in the way we would expect selection to design them, not a conscious intelligent engineer. An engineer can go back to the drawing board and start from scratch so for example jet engines are designed independently of prop engines. Biological organisms however appear to have reached their current forms by successive shaping of the parts that were already there, so we end up with structures that work, but which no engineer would design. Selection cannot go back to the drawing board so organisms are, quite literally, messy inside. A simple example is that an engineer would not run the urinary tract through the prostate which is prone to swell, or wire the eyes backwards so we have blind spots. Also the drainage holes for the sinuses in humans are located at the top of the sinuses. What engineer would do that? Of course it makes sense if we have non-bipedal ancestors. Also I described the human digestive tract as "accident prone" because in non-bipedal primates the guts hang down neatly from the spine and ribs whereas in humans they cannot hang down and therefor they pile up, sometimes twisting resulting potentially in death. The fact that that system works well in chimps, and that we have the same system even though it doesn't work well in us leads me to believe we share a common ancestor with chimps. From the standpoint of immutability I see no alternative explanation.

As for vestigial organs even if they have some use how did they get there if not from common ancestry? But really, what use could limb buds have in dolphin embryos, or yolk sacks and genes for yolk production in human embryos? Or the human tail bone for that matter. Why would humans have tail bones if they did not share common ancestry with animals with tails?

Yes we do see altruistic actions in nature, but what we do not see is an organism possessing a trait which benefits another individual but does not in some way benefit itself in terms of inclusive fitness.

As for your last point I just do not think that it is true that evidence is being ignored or distorted. Many if not most scientists seek to understand the world, and so they go with what works. They do research and they proceed based on the results. So far the results support evolution by natural selection and common ancestry. Also there are so many instances in which evolution could be falsified that the fact that it has not been falsified really makes it hard to deny. One fossil out of place would destroy the entire theory. You would think creationists would be scouring the earth looking for those rabbits in the pre-cambrian.

 

sorry bro. before i typed that i was typing a lengthy response and realized i was getting kinda tired so i just ereased all and left it at ayahuasca. haha... i just woke up and im trying to remember what i was typing. it wasnt about ayahuasca and was relative to the topic. need some coffee i guess. :coffee:

 

The only thing I agree with you on here is Emanresu is that it's outside the scope of science. I think trying to make analogies between Jet engines and living organisms falls short . You are taking a 'human view' on the situation. One can argue the successive shaping of parts that are already there is in part of it's design and kind of it's own 'back to the drawing board mechanism' so therefore it's not that different than the jet analogy anyways. The intelligent designer may not have the luxury to start over or something along those lines, You just perceive it differently because it doesn't fit into your human view of the way things work.

Whether you believe in intelligent design or not I think most of us would agree if intelligent design does exist it doesn't think like a human or at least thinks beyond humans can, therefore it's idea of perfect engineering is considerably different than ours. Furthermore considering the fact it would have created thousands upon thousands of organisms among planets/stars/galaxies I do agree with Zorba that the fact the eye is inside out and the like is nitpicking. I think because it truly is hard to prove and a rather abstract idea it should not be taught in schools.

 

On a philosophical enough of a level, absolutely nothing can be proved or disproved. People who believe in intelligent design, and the agnostics, will always be able to fall back on the more philosophical thought, as we can never see outside of the scope of humanity, and that always leaves a certain amount of uncertainty no matter what argument you make.

There is no reason to attacking spiritual thought, as it is not rational thought. Pick away at the rational arguments (such as the idea that atheists should be asked to disprove the existence of a creator) if you want to get anywhere, 'cause frankly, with the strategy you're taking you have zero chance unless God comes up and says he's not real.

 

Intelligent design

Is the underpinning code of my view of reality.

Firstly the laws that govern our universe. Those laws are what allows anything to be.. yet they came from.. 'random event' LOL. How stupid do the random people think am.
Oh sure planks constant and gravity just happen to work well together... nice
The speed of light cant be overtopped oh right well thats a natural thing .. time dilation is the ramdom peoples second breakfast as merry would say.
Thermodynamics works inorders of reduction while newtons child is rock solid and cant be altered.
Oh it all just happened that way...!!!

Ist time no bad takes
The 'random people' say all the massive complexity that leads to rational consciousness happen through a series of random events. IST TIME..[there can be no retake or 2nd time]
And the laws that allow these events just happened to be in place when this universe was enacted.

The razor of occam means.. 'given a situation' the path with the fewest variables is most likely to be the truth.
That path is a universe where laws were defined by. a direction.

Occam

 

The term awareness can be functionally applied to any system of organization.
Every article of its' vicinity unerringly performs its' task. Water seeks its' lowest level.

 

Yes and no.
mass moves to mass
Systemic law means things occur in sequence. Water is.. it has mass it falls down gradient of gravitic curve.
Water is not aware that it must do so. Water does not seek. It has no task.. task is for reason.
It;s properties define.

 

Loose the homo centric conjugation of the word symbols, they are metaphorical.
Creation is a law without opposite, everything shares a singular intent and that is to be, from the density of a stone to the wall of a cell to the sense of gratitude.

 

I feel I must clarify what i mean by "poor design." I suppose my use of the word "poor" was a little careless. What I mean to say is that many of the aspects of the engineering of biological entities resemble the sort of thing we would expect to be shaped by a blind, non goal oriented process like natural selection. Organisms do not appear to have been designed by something with consciousness and foresight. For example the literally backwards wiring of the human eye results in blind spots in both visual fields. That alone could be concocted by a designer, for whatever reason the designer may have wanted humans to have blind spots. However you may notice that you aren't aware of your blind spots, no part of your visual field appears to be missing. The key is that the brain makes up for the blind spot in various ways. If the designer wanted humans to have complete visual fields then why did the designer accomplish this by making retinas with blind spots which were then made up for in the brain? The answer cannot be that the visual system must be that way, because not all organisms have eyes constructed in this way.

Consider also the arrangement of the digestive system in humans. The design specs of the human digestive system are the design specs that work best for non-bipedal primates. Why would the designer take a part that works well in one organism and use it in another organism even though it does not work as well in that organism?

Of course there are the more obvious cases like animals with webbed feet that do not swim, sea animals with the lungs and spines of land animals, hind limb buds in the embryos of aquatic animals with no hind limbs, yolk sacks in human embryos, animals with wings that do not fly, animals with eyes that live in caves, and the human tail bone. From the standpoint of common ancestry every one of these observations makes sense, but if organisms are immutable aboriginal creations then we must simply shrug and say "the designer wanted dolphin embryos to have limb buds, and it wanted humans to have back problems, stomach problems, the greatest infant mortality among primates, and the greatest risk of choking among primates. If the designer is supposed to be above and beyond human intellect then why does the acuity of the eye pale in comparison to that of cameras, and why did the creator run a vital collapsible tube through an organ prone to swelling (the prostate).?

Biological entities are beautiful, magnificent, and incredibly complex, but the design specs we observe really seem to make more sense when viewed through the lens of common ancestry and blind natural selection rather than through the idea of a conscious goal oriented designer.

 

I agree that, depending how you look at it, they do make more sense that way. There is a fair amount of evidence for evolution which I can't disprove. Nor am I trying to. I certainly consider it a viable possibility, but I don't feel there's enough evidence to make a definitive judgement. The best guess based on what evidence we have it that yes, evolution did occur. However, this does not rule out the possibility of an intelligent designer of the universe itself.

 

I can certainly concede the point that arguments in favor of evolution do not rule out the possibility of a designer for the universe itself. For instance there could have been a being that created and set into motion all of the laws that govern the workings of the universe, which gave rise over time to the stars and planets, and life which then diversified through the evolutionary mechanisms created by the designer.

My main purpose in this thread was to highlight what seems to me to be an inconsistency in the ways in which people evaluate evolution and intelligent design as competing ideas. It seems that many people are willing to be extremely critical of evolution but are unwilling to submit intelligent design to the same critical analysis.

 

Let me preface this by saying that I agree with you on the point that people are very critical of evolution and unwilling to inspect intelligent design with that same amount of scrutiny and criticalness.

That being said, I don't know if you read my earlier post or not but you are still stuck on a 'human perspective' of design. For what you wrote to stand true you have to assume this designer is able to see like a human in the first place. The idea of a 'blind spot' or the way the eye is wired just may not have calculated into the designers .....design.

If I did believe in intelligent design, I could argue the geometrical shape and the way the organism functions is plenty of evidence for consciousness and foresight. An even number of hands and legs. A brain that is split into 2 halves serving particular useful functions each. Even smaller things like the perfect placement of the lines on the top and bottom of your knuckles.

Possibly what you are pointing out is a human desire to be flawless and has nothing to do with a designer. If intelligent design exists we have done pretty well for a good 200,000+ years now.

 

What sort of designer would put hind limb buds in dolphin embryos, or yolk sacks in human embryos?

Also, if there is a designer then who designed the designer?

The idea of a designer as a concept to explain the facts of biology seems worthless to me. There simply aren't any useful predictions to derive from the concept of design. Saying that organisms are the way they are because a designer made them that way does not explain at all why organisms are the way that they are.

 

You assume natural selection is blind
I see it as a law that achieves what? consciousness.
I live with a bio text on my right arm.. biology is so complex, so
powerfull. It is an apriori thing in itself.As the dude in jurassic park said.. life will find a way.
It always does.
twice life has been all but wiped on this planet yet here we are.

Occam

 

What sort of creatures would kill it's own species?
What sort of person would put their baby in a trash dumpster?

There are numerous unanswerable questions in the world and universe. Like I said before I agree with you that intelligent design should not be taught alongside science, but if there were such a thing, i don't think it has to 'abide' by human rules or logic. We are one species among thousands, on one planet among a few, circling a medium sized star among thousands, in a galaxy surrounding by many others. I personally believe it's out of our league of comprehension until we make a giant leap either into space, a different dimension, or through time somehow.

The 'if there is a designer who designed the designer' question can be applied to science and the big bang theory as well. Even if we can track the beginnings of the universe to a small single point, well how did that point get there?

 

That leap into space we must do.. must.
Or we are dead as a species

One day a simple human will be able to do just that.. then he will be the designer. He makes the laws. And waits for The laws to process via time to an end... consciousness. In a reality wihout a beginning or end. One would seek to create new realities tucked into the all. I would.
The designer seeks one thing.
Someone to talk to.

Occam

 

No biological entities, or aspects of biological entities, have ever been observed that could not have possibly arisen through evolutionary mechanisms. As of yet there are no genuine cases of irreducibly complex systems or of organisms possessing traits that are detrimental to the organism in terms of inclusive fitness.

On the other hand there are plenty of observations that, while not excluding the possibility of a designer, make the idea seem very improbable. Personally I think one of the best arguments for evolution and against design is the presence of limb buds in dolphin embryos and yolk sacks in human embryos. You would have to postulate a very strange designer to account for facts like that, and it seems to me that the only people who would desire to do so would be people who accepted the idea of a designer before they studied the biological facts in depth. It also seems to me that the only rational reason for designing a dolphin with hind limb buds would be to trick people into thinking that dolphins arose from divergence from an ancestor that possessed hind legs.

Also I think to postulate a designer to account for bio-diversity is a complete failure to account for the facts. Postulating a designer does nothing. It does not make the origin of species any less mysterious, it does not provide a rationale for physical facts (like the limb buds in dolphins or faunal succession in the fossil record) and no useful hypotheses can be derived from the concept. In my opinion to postulate a designer is the same as shrugging one's shoulders and saying "I have no idea how these facts came to be."

If the rationale behind postulating a designer is that the complexity of the world demands a complex designer, then what argument can possibly be put forth to argue that the complexity of the designer does not demand a complex designer and so on ad infinitum? If it is reasonable for a design advocate to postulate a complex designer which requires no designer itself, then it must be just as reasonable for me to postulate that the complex world arose without a designer.

The theory of evolution by natural selection accounts for faunal succession in the fossil record, the divergence of lineages within the record, vestigial organs, seemingly unusual design (like vital collapsible tubes running through organs prone to swelling), and it accounts for the presence of limb buds in dolphins and yolk sacks in humans.

I must return to the same point: Why would a designer put hind limb buds in dolphins and yolk sacks in humans? (and not just yolk sacks, we also possess partially degraded genes for yolk production.)