Intelligent Design.

[Furrowed Brow]

Ok, some have tried to prove God's existence others have tried to prove the opposite. IDers argue that life needs a designer. They usually deny they are sneaking God into science, but you can make your own mind up. The ID type arguments also struggle to gain acceptance as science within the larger scientific community. Questions of predictions and falsifiability arise. There are also points about ID being a lazy answer, and closing down enquiry. But these ID guys and girls don't like to give up easy.

So is it possible to prove that science does not need Intelligent Design argument to explain nature?

[NB I am not asking whether it is possible to prove nature does not need a designer/God. I am really thinking about our methods of enquiry and explanation.]

[jcrawford]

No definition of ID is necessary to recognize and identify the blank space which we fill with our replies to each other's posts as having been intelligently designed by the intelligent programmers who created this webite.

How do you know that the website code wasn't created by a Genetic Programming tool?

I don't, but either way the site is intelligently designed or is that only "apparent" to you?

[Cathar1950]

No definition of ID is necessary to recognize and identify the blank space which we fill with our replies to each other's posts as having been intelligently designed by the intelligent programmers who created this webite.

How do you know that the website code wasn't created by a Genetic Programming tool?

I don't, but either way the site is intelligently designed or is that only "apparent" to you?

I think we see intelligence in things because we are built that way.
Other life forms might look at things as food or not food.
But with all the intelligent design why is there some much stupid stuff?
So I think we should take a good look at the universe and point out the signs of stupidity.
Don’t tell me all you see is intelligence. It seems if you can identify intelligence then we should be able to define stupidity and it should be amply expressed.
I am going to call it “Carthar’s theory of cosmic stupidity”. Is this idea already been taken?

[micatala]

How could one tell if this large space was intelligently designed or not without the words that come before and after?

The whole screen you are looking at has been intelligently designed whether you care to recognize and acknowledge the fact or not, and may be regarded as a visual example of a specific case of intelligent design.

You are evading the question.

Take the context away. I am not asking about the computer screen or any other part of the context of where you are seeing the blank space.


Suppose I show you a picture of a blank space but do not tell you where the picture is from. How would you know whether the blank space (not the picture of it or the computer screen on which you see it) is intelligently designed or not?

No definition of ID is necessary to recognize and identify the blank space which we fill with our replies to each other's posts as having been intelligently designed by the intelligent programmers who created this webite.

Without definitions or at least a common understanding of a concept, debate is meaningless. If you are unwilling to define what you mean by ID then the rational conclusion is that you really don't know what it is, or are engaging in deliberate ambiguity or obfuscation.


If you cannot define ID or even intelligence, how can you say whether or not it exists?

[Cathar1950]

How could one tell if this large space was intelligently designed or not without the words that come before and after?

The whole screen you are looking at has been intelligently designed whether you care to recognize and acknowledge the fact or not, and may be regarded as a visual example of a specific case of intelligent design.

You are evading the question.

Take the context away. I am not asking about the computer screen or any other part of the context of where you are seeing the blank space.


Suppose I show you a picture of a blank space but do not tell you where the picture is from. How would you know whether the blank space (not the picture of it or the computer screen on which you see it) is intelligently designed or not?

No definition of ID is necessary to recognize and identify the blank space which we fill with our replies to each other's posts as having been intelligently designed by the intelligent programmers who created this webite.

Without definitions or at least a common understanding of a concept, debate is meaningless. If you are unwilling to define what you mean by ID then the rational conclusion is that you really don't know what it is, or are engaging in deliberate ambiguity or obfuscation.


If you cannot define ID or even intelligence, how can you say whether or not it exists?

I don't think you can overstate your case micatala. You need to define what you claim is there. Until you do that to everyone's satisfaction it hardly reasonable to claim there is any intelligent design.
What is design? Does it imply intelligence? Is “intelligent design” redundant in its presentation?
But we are not getting any clear concept only circles and I suspect some one is purposefully “engaging in deliberate ambiguity or obfuscation”.

[QED]

If you want to make the case for machine "knowledge" and the generation of autonomous design decisions, I have no problem with that as long as electronic computers can and do generate intelligently designed algorithmic systems.

I'm glad we can agree on the acquisition of knowledge and the generation of autonomous design decisions not being the preserve of human minds.

I would distinguish between machine "knowledge" and supernatural human knowledge about the machine.

I could transfer some knowledge to you that you couldn't distinguish from machine knowledge (i.e. some piece of knwoledge about the world acquired by and during the execution of a Genetic Algorithm) so why make such a meaningless distinction?

At least we can safely assume that any intelligent designs we perceive may be the product of either human or machine intelligence. Besides human and machine intelligence though, there may be some other forms of life (insects) which are capable of intelligently designing their own habitats for living.

OK, so now we're talking about a number of different systems that can all lead to a perception of intelligent design in us when we examine their design products.

We can apply the same doubt to our own form of independent intelligence.

You can doubt our human intelligence if you care to but where does that leave us other than with some intelligent machines which may or may not be capable of perceiving the intelligent designs of some insects? If we cannot detect ID in nature beyond ourselves, I seriously doubt that a machine could.

When, in the course of running a Genetic Algorithm, the algorithm discovers for itself some facet of nature potentially unknown to its human designers I think you, jcrawford, ought to pause for a moment and consider the real implications for your understanding of the nature and principles of intelligence.

Since you previously cast doubt on human intelligence I am beginning to wonder if it is not true in some cases.

In case it's not clear enough for you yet, I would argue that the Algorithm could be said to have a mind of is own at this point. We might find ourselves marvelling at the design products of such an algorithm without the faintest idea of how they were achieved.

Personally I am far more interested in the intelligent design of human brains than in mathematical, mechanical or metaphysical algorithms.[/quote]

[jcrawford]

Don’t tell me all you see is intelligence. It seems if you can identify intelligence then we should be able to define stupidity and it should be amply expressed.

Without defining "stupid design" though, would it be possible to observe, recognize and acknowledge a stupid design?

I am going to call it “Carthar’s theory of cosmic stupidity”. Is this idea already been taken?

Ideas are not patentable or copyrightable but an intelligently designed theory of cosmic stupidity would be even if it wasn't falsifiable.

[jcrawford]

You are evading the question.

Take the context away. I am not asking about the computer screen or any other part of the context of where you are seeing the blank space.

Suppose I show you a picture of a blank space but do not tell you where the picture is from. How would you know whether the blank space (not the picture of it or the computer screen on which you see it) is intelligently designed or not?

For the sake of your argument I wouldn't have to observe a blank space in order to recognize and acknowledge all of the other intelligently designed objects in the world.

Without definitions or at least a common understanding of a concept, debate is meaningless. If you are unwilling to define what you mean by ID then the rational conclusion is that you really don't know what it is, or are engaging in deliberate ambiguity or obfuscation.

If you cannot define ID or even intelligence, how can you say whether or not it exists?

The human capacity for intelligence, rationality and design is a self-evident metaphysical presupposition on our part and a foregone conclusion by scientists. The only thing left to be determined and established is whether some object under observation is or has been rationally and intelligently designed or not.

The why, how or whodunnit is another question and is up to rational and intelligent human beings to speculate or to theorize upon.

[jcrawford]

I don't think you can overstate your case micatala. You need to define what you claim is there. Until you do that to everyone's satisfaction it hardly reasonable to claim there is any intelligent design.
What is design? Does it imply intelligence? Is “intelligent design” redundant in its presentation?
But we are not getting any clear concept only circles and I suspect some one is purposefully “engaging in deliberate ambiguity or obfuscation”.

QED has already established the fact that genetic algorithms are capable of generating intelligent designs, and without defining any of the terms involved.

Whether these intelligent designs are real or just "apparent" is anthor question.

Surely you do not deny the existence of intelligence and design in the the world, even if you refuse to put two and two together and intelligently design anything yourself.

[Cathar1950]

I don't think you can overstate your case micatala. You need to define what you claim is there. Until you do that to everyone's satisfaction it hardly reasonable to claim there is any intelligent design.
What is design? Does it imply intelligence? Is “intelligent design” redundant in its presentation?
But we are not getting any clear concept only circles and I suspect some one is purposefully “engaging in deliberate ambiguity or obfuscation”.

QED has already established the fact that genetic algorithms are capable of generating intelligent designs, and without defining any of the terms involved.

Whether these intelligent designs are real or just "apparent" is anthor question.

Surely you do not deny the existence of intelligence and design in the the world, even if you refuse to put two and two together and intelligently design anything yourself.

This is just anothe example of avoiding the questions.
I am not denying intellegence and design. Beavers build dams. They do so with intellegence and design. It is also vwery natural for them.
How am I refusing to put two and two together? Another nonsense statement from you.

[jcrawford]

I am not denying intellegence and design. Beavers build dams. They do so with intellegence and design. It is also vwery natural for them.
How am I refusing to put two and two together? Another nonsense statement from you.

Combine the intelligence of beavers and bees who respectively build dams and bee's nests (also honeycombs) with their respective ability to erect structured designs for their habitats and you get two separate cases of intelligent design.

In other words, intelligence plus design = intelligent design.