How could intelligent design be detected?

[DMB]

I imagine we might be able to detect some examples of intelligent design such as artifacts from an extra-terrestrial civilisation, if they were in any way analogous to stuff we might have designed.

But typically ID proponents claim the whole universe is intelligently designed. So given our sample of one universe, is there any way of finding evidence of ID? What would the fingerprints of the designer be like? Does anyone have any ideas?

[BigEvil]

If the design and manufacture of the universe is completely done prior to the beginning of the universe, I see no way to detect design.

But if universe is being continually designed or intelligently shaped/modified after the beginning then it could be possible to detect it. One could look for changes in the universe without transitional states. Take a process that normally go from A to B to C to D. You find it in one place in the universe where it goes straight from A to D without explanation. That could be a sign of intelligent design.

[RAFH]

Design is not evident, unless you are watching the maker work from a design that you also watched the designer create. Any form, any assemblage could be simply a natural result or it could be a designed result. Indeed, given a designer is likely to be a natural result itself, any creation thereof is also a natural result.

Design results from intent, not simply things coming together. The designer forms an intent of what will be. The result is simply the manifestation of of that intent.

[Pope John Pol Pot II]

Well, the problem is that the "Intelligent Design" movement cannot even quite tell you when design happened nor what is the mechanism. How can something be detected if you do not even know approximately when and where it happened, nor why or how?

For example, some Id'ers accept the Bible as the literal truth, and the Earth was created 6,000 plus years ago in one go. Other ID'ers think some sort of Creator gradually guided physics, evolution, etc over billions of years in order to culminate in an evolved human being. For some reason, neither type of ID proponent has any interest in contradicting the other type's conclusions, even though both cannot possibly be true. Some IDers definitely postulate that the Earth was created by the Christian God, while others just specify a "creator", but neither side gives a "how" beyond what amounts to "abracadabra".

So no agreement within the ID movement on where, when, how, and by what the Universe was created (though clearly they have a universal longing that the "who" is the Christian god that they grew up praying to). There cannot be an answer, or even evidence of a possible answer, if one does not yet have a defined question in mind.

[BigEvil]

Design results from intent, not simply things coming together.

Yes, I guess that is right. One would have to establish that there is a designer with intent and capability, before any evidence could be validated.

A designer could be proposed as explanation in my scenario, but until designer's existence is established, range of intent established, and range of capability established, it would just be a proposal without validation.

[RAFH]

Design results from intent, not simply things coming together.

Yes, I guess that is right. One would have to establish that there is a designer with intent and capability, before any evidence could be validated.

A designer could be proposed as explanation in my scenario, but until designer's existence is established, range of intent established, and range of capability established, it would just be a proposal without validation.

Which means the entire purpose of ID is lost. Since it's supposed to be evidence of a designer and the only way you can be sure design exists is to know the designer and understand it's intent and see that put into action, it becomes a circular argument and meaningless.

[HinduWoman]

Also an Intelligent designer must have a purpose. And it might not be the salvation of man or happiness of man at all.

[Berthold]

Experimental petri dish is an idea that has been used in science fiction.

[Pope John Pol Pot II]

Maybe open a thousand jars of peanut butter and see if intelligent design has taken place in any of the jars since they were sealed? For example, God might have turned a mashed and salted peanut into a small mammal?

Another test would be sort of like Kurt Cameron's "banana" proof. We just have to check a few thousand bananas to see if God has one sprout arms and legs and start dancing, in order to provide evidence of intelligent design.









http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t248/styrofoamdeity/ICONATOR_0eeed88023bc27e9729c2ba34d.gif


....uh oh, time to rewrite the science books.....

[Ray Moscow]

Also an Intelligent designer must have a purpose. And it might not be the salvation of man or happiness of man at all.

Apparently we are all designed to maximise the replication of our DNA.

[damitall]

There WAS a Designer, but not an Intelligent one.

It forgot where it left us. We are the equivalent of the half-eaten sandwich down the side of the sofa, or the bit of mouldy cheese in the fridge.

Now it's moved to another Universe.

[reddhedd]

Wouldn't there be fewer flaws? I thought that an argument against ID was the old chestnut about the sewage plant next door to the playground in humans...what kinda design was that? Not intelligent, IMO.

[DMB]

There WAS a Designer, but not an Intelligent one.

It forgot where it left us. We are the equivalent of the half-eaten sandwich down the side of the sofa, or the bit of mouldy cheese in the fridge.

Now it's moved to another Universe.

Lovely image.

[HinduWoman]

An infant designer? he was building mudpies and ragdolls.
then he got a shiny new toy and forgot us.

[Worldtraveller]

I'm not sure the question in the OP matters, frankly.

ID fails at first pass, based on it's own premise. The logic (not to mention evidence) knocks it out of any serious consideration without going any further.

[Mike Elphick]

Design results from intent, not simply things coming together. The designer forms an intent of what will be. The result is simply the manifestation of of that intent.
Agreed. Human designs are generally for objects that have some use. Man-made objects, like can-openers and mouse-traps, do have a purpose, therefore you need to look at the object under investigation to decide what that purpose was -- not an easy task.

Judging by the way we make things, any object is also likely to go through a phase of evolution -- even that famous pocket watch took thousands of years of discovery and invention to develop. But that would not be true of a super-knowledgeable designer, who would get things right first time every time. That's except where the object has to change with changing conditions and use. Again, for a designer with perfect foresight, that would not be an issue, but then there would be need for in-built re-design/production contingencies.

Not all man-made things are useful in the gadget sense -- there's art, music and entertainment, which do not appear to have any use, apart from creating altered states of consciousness. Humans can be nasty creatures 'enjoying' cock-fighting and fox-hunting etc., so you can't be sure if any plan or design has devious intentions. Not knowing the foibles of the designer makes the task of identifying this type of design intent impossible.

Converting a design into an object, at least for us humans, means using plans, jigs and tools, so it might be useful to search for these as well as for other indicators of design.

Whilst looking for design, one might as well look for the designer -- but one designer or several? If the latter, you might see competition between designers with similar or identical products having different constructs. Then again, designs can get out of hand, or they can land up with the 'wrong' type of designer who could change the original intent.

These are just some of the difficulties. Irreducible complexity is a good idea, if such combinations really can be shown to have arisen though multiple simultaneous 'creations', but otherwise I can't see much else that would assist in deciding whether something had originated through purposeful design of the ID type.

[RBH]

Also an Intelligent designer must have a purpose. And it might not be the salvation of man or happiness of man at all.Which is why I much prefer the term "Intentional Design" to "Intelligent Design" for the current ID movement in the U.S. They don't give a damn, really, about 'intelligent,' but they desperately want to be intended. And HW is correct: Judging from the distribution of life on earth, the goal of the exercise was bacteria, and we metazoons are merely unwanted by-products. :D

[Febble]

Also an Intelligent designer must have a purpose. And it might not be the salvation of man or happiness of man at all.Which is why I much prefer the term "Intentional Design" to "Intelligent Design" for the current ID movement in the U.S. They don't give a damn, really, about 'intelligent,' but they desperately want to be intended. And HW is correct: Judging from the distribution of life on earth, the goal of the exercise was bacteria, and we metazoons are merely unwanted by-products. :D


"Intentional Design" is good. Shame that Dembski explicitly ruled it out of the domain of scientific enquiry (wrongly, of course) :)

[RAFH]

Wouldn't there be fewer flaws? I thought that an argument against ID was the old chestnut about the sewage plant next door to the playground in humans...what kinda design was that? Not intelligent, IMO.

Depends on how you define play. And what constitutes playthings and playgrounds.

But yes, the whole issue of flaws is a big one. Why create life that is subject to disease, death, damage? Look at our teeth, they are really poor designs, the material is highly susceptible to acids which form from the very items the teeth are supposed to grind up. And they have loads of nooks and crannies to catch and hold such materials until they do generate such acids. Worst of all, there's no repair mechanism. It gets damaged, it fails and tends to result in serious repercussions. Ditto with damage from use, teeth are often and generally used as a weapon, one that has significant potential for breakage or other damage, again with the serious repercussions. Ever try to eat with a goodly amount of your teeth rotted away? How about trying to eat with them broken off? Loss of teeth is essentially a death sentence.

But not so for sharks, they just loose them and grow new ones, in multiple rows. Which brings back the whole issue of why any designer would perpetuate a bad design. Once one has found a good design, why not simply transfer it over? But that doesn't happen except perhaps on the most basic level with some of the most basic lineages. Is this designer so limited in it's abilities?

Which gets back to Epicurus' question. Which I feel is the real big one for any believist. They posit an all-powerful creator, yet one whose power seems to be limited. In fact, the omniscient creator can't even create, it knows the future and the only way it can know the future is for the future to be fixed. In which case, it's just acting out a script.

Which brings up another point, the xian god is an atheist, has to be. As the ultimate being which is omnipotent and omniscient, it can not believe in a higher power. That's atheism pure and simple. So they have imagined themselves into worshiping an atheist. I find the irony gratifying. Now if I can only get them to switch allegiance, I could have a pretty sweet deal.

[Steviepinhead]

RAFH:
Now if I can only get them to switch allegiance, I could have a pretty sweet deal.
Except that, dang, sweets are pretty hard on the teeth, too!

Really, eating is highly overrated.

Drinking is the way to go!

Though don't strain your tea through a lump of sugar held between the teeth, the way the Brits of a few centuries back did. That turned out to be a good way to first blacken, and then lose, the dentary.

[RAFH]

RAFH:
Now if I can only get them to switch allegiance, I could have a pretty sweet deal.
Except that, dang, sweets are pretty hard on the teeth, too!

Really, eating is highly overrated.

Drinking is the way to go!

Though don't strain your tea through a lump of sugar held between the teeth, the way the Brits of a few centuries back did. That turned out to be a good way to first blacken, and then lose, the dentary.

I'm nearly there Stevie, maybe another month and I'll have that monkey off my back.

Of course, it depends on lot on the eating, what's being eaten and how.

[Berthold]

Really, eating is highly overrated.
Why? It's a pleasurable thing one does three times a day on average.

And, consider how you will rate it in case of shortage. ;)

Drinking is the way to go!
The question is, where? :evil:

(Been there :wave:)

[Jobar]

My bones proclaim a story of incompetent design.
My back still hurts, my sinus clogs, my teeth just won’t align.
If I had drawn the blueprint, I would cer-tain-ly resign.
Incompetent Design!

video (http://seedmagazine.com/media/video/IDsong.wmv)

[Monad]

That's the thing - if there is any evidence of "design" at all it points to the possibility that the "designer/s":

were multiple

were often incompetent and made many mistakes

did not plan ahead much (and were in fact unaware of the future which rules out being "outside of time")

were often whimsical and cruel - treating their designs as playthings

extensively reused materials

and seemed to put most of their efforts into creating the appearance of evolution and long history

certainly no gods

[Zygote]

Don't forget beetles.

Geneticist and evolutionary biologist J.B.S. Haldane was asked what he could infer about God from his studies of God's creation. Haldane answered "An inordinate fondness for beetles."