Where is the Intelligence in the Design
Where is the Intelligence in the Design?
The idea that Life and Intelligent Life, in particular, is the result of am Intelligent Design was successfully challenged in many ways. My challenge is based on the assumption that any intelligent design has to be based on the efficient use of resources.
My understanding is that according to the I/D proponents our virtually infinite universe was created with the sole purpose of creating mankind, So, matter, radiation,, atomic and sub=aromic part;e. billions of galaxies and trillions of stars were somehow needed in order to create over billions of years thinking self-conscious biological constructs in an infinitesimally small number planets. One would have thought that efficient use of resources is a measure of intelligence and the question of why and intelligent designers had applied such vast resources to achieve his aim. Could it not be achieved by having just one solar system, or just one galaxy?
In this context a comparison with mankind’s achievements in creating life and intelligent could be instructive, A human-made cell or bacterium is a matter of not many years, and thinking machines are matter of a generation or two, These achievements do not equal those the Great Designer but incomparably more intelligent in terms of use of material resources and time.
So, where is Intelligence in the Design?
The idea that Life and Intelligent Life, in particular, is the result of am Intelligent Design was successfully challenged in many ways. My challenge is based on the assumption that any intelligent design has to be based on the efficient use of resources.
My understanding is that according to the I/D proponents our virtually infinite universe was created with the sole purpose of creating mankind, So, matter, radiation,, atomic and sub=aromic part;e. billions of galaxies and trillions of stars were somehow needed in order to create over billions of years thinking self-conscious biological constructs in an infinitesimally small number planets. One would have thought that efficient use of resources is a measure of intelligence and the question of why and intelligent designers had applied such vast resources to achieve his aim. Could it not be achieved by having just one solar system, or just one galaxy?
In this context a comparison with mankind’s achievements in creating life and intelligent could be instructive, A human-made cell or bacterium is a matter of not many years, and thinking machines are matter of a generation or two, These achievements do not equal those the Great Designer but incomparably more intelligent in terms of use of material resources and time.
So, where is Intelligence in the Design?
Comments (52)
It wouldn't seem to be in the seven or so great extinction events so far.
The OP isn't strictly challenging the premise of intelligence, rather, also the conclusion that the universe was made for humans. And I totally agree with the second part. The resources of the universe; the provenance of life on earth; evolution; the inter-relation between different frequencies of energy with respect to forms, forces and activities within space and time; micro and macrocosm analogical similarities; identical fundamental components; etc, etc, all hint at a more diverse application than to propagate and nurture humans on one little blue planet.
For me, it would be unintelligent to waste such resources as are present in the universe on humans alone which is why I accept the premise of variety of alien life-forms. That is partly because, from the configurations and operations of existences within our planet, I choose to conclude the fact of intelligence based on the relation between simplicity and utility in nature.
Which is easier to accept, that there is no intelligence in the design or that it is wrong to conclude that everything was made solely for humans?
Humans became way later on, and that even within 5% of the types of energy in the universe.
The latter dispute (whether the ultimate purpose of the intelligent designer were to design humans) seems largely a straw man. I say largely because I guess there might actually be some intelligent design believers who hold it, but it seems an aside to the general proposition that the complexity of the world (from the spinning of the planets to the human eyeball) arose from purpose rather than trial and error. I take ID to be an attempt to disprove evolution generally, not a developed theological position that attempts to establish a basis for why humans ought have dominion over the earth.
Sorry, but this is long, although on topic, as poetry after Dawkins:
The Intelligent Designer
I approached a semitransparent,
Theistic Embellishment, quite well lit,
Who was holding out an eyeball—a shove
Of His hand for me to take note of.
“Who might you be?” He mimed,
[i]“For I am the God of Intelligent Design,
The One who was made by the signs discerned,
When the creationists noted them all, unlearned.”[/i]
I answered, “I am Austin, Earth’s flower,
Although not ‘Powers’, but ‘Higher Powers’.”
[i]“Ha. Lo, they saw inexplicable complexity in Nature,
And thus they leapt and promulgated that Nature
Must have a Grand Designer of its mechanical dance,
For how could life have come about by ‘chance’?”[/i]
I replied, “You’re right about ‘chance’s’ stance,
But wrong about ‘chance’ too, for little greatness,
If any at all, comes about by mere ‘chance’,
“Especially as some giant leap in one bound,
Up the sheer cliff-side of Mt. Improbable—
To find on its top a great complexity
Of something like the eye that You show me;
“However, it is actually an error to suppose
That ‘Chance’ is the scientific alternative
To Intelligent Design, for that’s quite negative.
“Natural Selection is the means of the design,
For it, unlike a one-shot ‘chance’, being not in kind,
Is a cumulative effect that ever winds,
And slowly and so gently climbs
Around the mountain’s other side, behind the sight,
To eventually arrive at the great height
Of complexity—from which we can then view
The beautiful sights through our eye anew.”
[i]“But the widespread Watchtower Zines
Always pronounce that the biological Designs
Were created by Me instead of by ‘chance’!
“Just look at these eyeballs—take a glance—
And the optic system hanging behind them!
How could that come about by ‘chance’, these gems?”[/i]
“You, like your followers, may listen,
But You do not hear, writing with untruth’s pen.
IDers deceive by this wrong approach,
Whether they mean to or not; I give reproach.
“‘Chance’ is not the opposite of Nature’s design;
Evolution of the Species through the graduality
Of Natural Selection is the path to complexity;
Your ploy falls as flat as an imaginary line.
“A flatworm has but an optical system’s spark
That can only sense but light and dark;
Thus it sees no image, not even a part;
“Whereas Nautilus has a ‘pinhole camera’ eye
About as good as half a human eye
That sees but very blurry shapes;
Thus these are examples of intermediate stages.
“‘Rome’ can not be built in a day by ‘chance’;
‘Chance’ is not a likely designer at all!
“Really now, could a 747 ever be
Assembled by a hurricane blowing free
Through Boeing’s warehouse of all the parts?
Now is this the sum of Your conversational art?”
[i]“No, Austin—it’s quite unlikely—’tis just to confuse,
And that’s why we always so misleadingly use
The 747 argument as the contrast to ID…
“So then, Austie, ‘chance’ and Intelligent Design
Are not the two candidate solutions we’ll find
To the riddle posed by the improbable?
It’s not like a jackpot or nothing at all?”[/i]
“‘God’, Your ID ideas persist, as repetition,
But again, ‘chance’, for one, is not a solution
To the highly improbable situated Nature,
And no sane anti-creationist, for sure,
Ever said that it was; your tale is impure.
“Intelligent Design, is neither a solution—
Because it raises a much bigger question
Than it solves, as You will soon see, in a lesson.”
“Well, I’ll be darned,” replied the Designer.
[i]“Natural selection is a good answer;
“It is a very long and summative process,
One which breaks up the problem’s mess
Of improbability into smaller pieces, less,
Each of which is only slightly improbable,
“But not prohibitively so, thus it’s reasonable,
As the product of all the little steps of which
Would be far beyond the reach of chance—it’s rich![/i]
[i]“The creationists have been looking askance,
Seeing only the end product, perchance,
Thinking of it as a single event of chance,
Never even understanding
The great power of accumulation.
“Such they didn’t know much else—their fall,
Not having any other natural ideas at all,
So they outright claimed that ID did it, as the Tree
That can magically grow the All, namely Me.”[/i]
“So ‘God’ You have now seen the light
Of the accumulative power’s might;
This is the elegance of Evolution’s ‘sight’.”
[i]“Yes but what is to become of Me, the Person,
For I only ‘exist’ through their speculation.
“In fact, the improbability of Me is so High,
And so much more so from where I lie so ‘sure’,
Compared to that of ‘simple’ Nature,
That My own origin…”[/i]
“…Is a near-infinitely Larger dilemma, Mate,
For the creationists—the problem they love to hate;
That being that You, therefore, can only be explained
By another, Higher Intelligent Designer claimed!
“Far from terminating the endless regress,
They’ve aggravated it with a vengeance
That is way beyond repair or redress—
As beyond could ever be yonder of! Out west!”
With that, the poor Guy faded toward oblivion,
Which remarkably was the very location
I was visiting, but hence he soon reappeared,
Although in another guise, but quite well attired.
…
I think it would be difficult to disprove evolution with ID arguments when the inherent premise is that evolution is an intelligent process (because it serves necessity and has utility). Also, intelligence doesn't necessarily imply a supreme being, it could be an interactive operation which is what nature is.
If you arrived at a method for transforming a most basic primordial substance into the world we currently have, I'd think you pretty clever. Not infinitly wise, but crazy smart, and certainly not a bumbling idiot.
Some extinctions of many life forms made room for other life forms to further develop e.g increase in size and range.
If we are destined to be here that is how we got here, in the view of many people.
In regard to what got translated as "dominion" some theologians see it as originally intended as kindly stewardship (as opposed to devious distortions afterwards).
To "theistic evolutionists" like John Henry Newman, ID doesn't disprove evolution. Evolution, creation, "dominion" or stewardship, are all modular concepts.
Some atheists profess nervousness at an agent termed "design-er", nonetheless I think Brian hots the nail on the head, in terms of science, in the phrase "interactive operation". This can apply not only when pantheism is envisaged but other forms of metaphysics - and of theology or non-theology - also.
I read Dawkins' book (The Blind Watchmaker), which purportedly disproved Paley's teleological argument. I found it unpersuasive as to the philosophical claim because I don't think he proved an unintelligent system. What I think he did do was offer a detailed primer on evolution for those interested, but I don't think evolution precludes a purpose driven designer. The question of ultimate origin is unanswerable, so saying that the basic building blocks of the universe have existed eternally and today's reality is the end result of the interaction of those building blocks is no more or less satisfactory than positing some heavenly creator that dropped those building blocks into reality and then let nature take its course.
Right, and the inverse is true, which is that clear evidence of evolution does not disprove ID.Quoting BrianW
ID isn't a specifically defined ideology, and many theists have used it to try to support Creationism and the like. But, if we take ID simply as a restatement of Paley's teleological argument for the existence of God, then we're not required to conclude that evidence of intelligence design requires a supreme being, but only that it requires an intelligence designer. I would agree that simpler systems can yield more complex systems as well, meaning the designed being could be more intelligent than its designer. For example, it is not hypothetically impossible that humans may one day create robots superior in every way to humans, which would mean that we could create our own God worthy of worship.
Actually, all I had in mind in starting the debate is to imply that that the world as it is does not point to having an element of 'Design' as defined in terms of engineering or art. No reflection about the design capabilities of (non-existant in my view) God. I suppose one might view Evolution with its purposefulness as emerging intelligence. It is created through the entopic flow but does eventually self-destructive. It cannot exist in a Heat Death universe.
If intelligent design operates the universe (or reality), then it is absolute (or, at the least, superior to human intelligence). We (humans) are very limited in application of intelligence. Therefore,
IOW it seemed assumed that God wanted to create humans only in the most parsimonious way possible, for him, and had no other goals or motives that make the way in unfolded a good or the best one.
Isn't that the anthropic argument used by physicists? That the universe is fine-tuned for life? It comes up in multiverse theory. Point being that it's not only the theologists invoking theological arguments these days.
That is similar to the 'cosmic anthropic principle'. It was not originally proposed by theologians but by physicists who noticed that there are a small set of constants that appear to be required for matter to have been formed by stellar explosions - specifically Fred Hoyle's discovery of carbon resonance. The original paper which named the principle was by a physicist, Brandon Carter.
Subsequently the idea was seized on by theologically-inclined philosophers to argue for a 'grand design'. And in my view, their argument is just as solid as the argument often deployed by atheists, that the universe is 'only one of an infinite number of unknown multiverses'. This is just as unfalsifiable as anything proposed by theology, and its main rationale is that it avoids the implications of the apparent 'fine-tuning' of the Universe by appealing to something which can never be known - which I think is just as disingenuous as the ID argument.
One philosophical point to consider is this: science does not explain the order of the universe. It discovers the order, and hopefully the underlying principles, but even in theory it doesn't explain why those principles or laws are as they are. It's one of the confusions of the age that science can or ought to be able to explain the totality of the natural order.
Where cosmological theory is at right now, is the 'big bang' theory, which seems suspiciously like 'creation from nothing' - so much so, that Pope Pius used to say that it was 'consistent with Catholic doctrine', until Georges LeMaitre, who wrote the original paper on it, persauded the Pope's science adviser to persuade His Holiness not to use scientific arguments in support of the faith.
Incidentally, it is worth contemplating which scientific icon of the 20th century wrote this:
I don't find the intelligent design argument to be "at least as powerful" at all, on account of its sheer implausibility. I can't see anything implausible about the idea that our universe" is only one of an infinite number of unknown universes" particularly considering that there is apparently an elegant mathematics that underpins it. I do think it must be acknowledged that it is not strictly speaking an empirical theory, because it would seem to be impossible in principle to test it.
Also for once I agree with @Wayfarer: multiverse theories are as much a failure of thought as all of theology. They're attempts to put off and displace cosmic questions, not answer them. An cosmogonic IOU note passed off as currency.
For me, the idea that we were designed for some indemonstrable purpose, and that the whole of the rest of creation is a kind of "supporting cast" which is subservient to that, and consequently of far less value, is a far more harmful view, especially when people go about claiming that they know what that indemonstrable purpose is.
Maybe God/The Universe wanted to get up late one morning, stroll down to the mall and enjoy a lemon gelato. 'To execute, first, create exploding star....'
Edit: What are you smoking, man?
I don't know. Should we stop the argument at "design" so that we don't have to quarrel about the "intelligent"?
Perhaps we misread the intent of the designer. I mean if you think a gun is a pillow then that seems rather poor workmanship but if you want to kill someone there is nothing more efficient.
We assume the universe was created for us. This is quite arrogant don't you think because the design argument is applicable to the virus, the bacteria and all life as well. May be "We aren't the creatures the universe was designed for" said the stegosaurus.
What was the prime objective of the design anyway?
Efficiency?
Beauty?
Boredom?
A prison?
If the last one (prison) is the option then I'd say the design is almost perfect.
I will raise a counter argument of syntactic, formalist nature, by juggling with definitions.
You see, according to the Dunning-Kruger research into ineptitude, the test subjects thought that they knew, but in fact they didn't. So, if that behaviour is a good definition for stupidity, then "knowing when you do not know" should be a suitable definition for the term "intelligence".
According to the offshoots of second-temple Judaism, God has a copy of the Tablet of Wisdom, i.e. the Preserved Tablet, i.e. the Book of Decrees ("al-Lauh al-Mahfuz"), which obviously contains the Theory of Everything (ToE), because it allows God to flawlessly predict the future and the entire trajectory of the universe.
Hence, the divine attribute: All-Knowing.
Someone who is all-knowing obviously does not need to know when he does not know, because that situation does not even occur. Therefore, an attribute such as All-Intelligent does not make sense. Unlike ourselves, God does not need "intelligence". The term is simply inapplicable.
With intelligence defined as the ability to handle one's limitations, does it make sense to be better at that than someone who does not even have these limitations?
A lot of interesting points and comments.
Something just popped into my. If you analyze the universe from a mathematical or a scientific perspective then it's a veritable masterpiece.
The entire universe began with a single event, the Big Bang and at that stage, before it expanded and became more complex, a few physical constants were fixed at just the right value so that the amazing universe we see could evolve.
Simplicity. Check
Efficiency. Check
Beauty. Check
We've all seen how artists create great works with just a pencil and paper. They never fail to amaze.
God must be a mathematician! Math begins with as few axioms and rules as required to construct an object of mathematical interest.
[quote=Darwin]There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.[/quote]
It's actually quite amazing!
Don't tell me that you wouldn't be amazed if a programmer created AI with just 3 lines of code.
Horrible only to the extent required by symmetry which is mathematical.
What's so difficult to understand here?
Ok. Thanks.
:up:
But what is your motivation in assuring us that the universe isn't so amazing, but is instead a veritable junk pile of odds and ends strewn about over the millennia? It seems you wish to be the counterbalance to the wide eyed child who gazes in awe at the starlit sky.
What's not symmetrical?
Under any scenario there will be no satisfactory explanation for the origin of it all, meaning explaining the first cause is likely impossible and not a fully coherent question. That would be the case whether the universe were complex or not.
God hasn't added to the misery of the universe though, as it seems the theists are preaching a more joyful existence than their opposites, certainly in this thread at least.
There's nothing inherently good about joy. It can be abused - and can be made abusive - like most anything else. Joy even accents evil; maybe the only thing worse than acts of evil are acts of evil with a pleasant, happy smile.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not passing value judgements here. Mao's quip is applicable as ever: “There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent.”
So, it took the ultra-fine balancing of fifty or so constants and ratios to create life on one planet in an insignificant solar system in an unremarkable galaxy. Any outcome that relied on such complex balancing is unstable by definition and would not bode well for the future of Life.
There's a book I haven't had the time to read: Just six numbers by astronomer Martin Rees.
THE MEADOWS OF HEAVEN
We as the highest consciousness ever known
And of the most versatile form that’s been shown
Reside as consequent beings in this Earthly realm,
Possibly the most fortuitous creatures
That the universe has ever wrought.
In fact,
We are this universe come to life—
Necessarily from a long line
Of ‘fortunate accidents’.
It had to be this way, for any universe
In which we could emerge
Would have to be appropriate for us
Or we wouldn’t be here to discuss it.
Looking back
We already know ahead of time
That we will discover
The many ‘happenings’
That made us possible.
All this we know and expect
Because we are here.
Perhaps in some other ‘wheres’,
Junkyard universes litter the omniscape,
For they flunked, failed, and miscarried—
A quadrillion trillion universes broken down
For every one that worked to any extent at all.
In some of these forlorn universes
Perhaps the material was inert
And so it just sat there, doing nothing, forever.
In others, maybe gravity was insufficient
Or had no natural place to collect particles
And so it thinned out endlessly,
Spreading coldly toward infinity.
In yet others again,
Even those in the same ballpark as ours,
Perhaps the portions weren’t quite right.
Although they may have formed a few elements,
They went no further than that for a zillion years.
It would also be that all the possibilities-probabilities
That are of so many imbalances must ever trace back
To the near balance of matter and antimatter,
This start no longer seen as improbable.
In our universe the dark chest of wonders
Of Possibility and Probability opened up
In just the just right way:
Naked quarks spewed forth,
Among other things,
And boiled and brewed
In one of the steamiest broths
Ever cooked up.
They somehow simmered and combined
Into the ordinary matter
Of protons and neutrons.
Then quite independently,
By some unknown means,
Dark matter-energy arose as well,
In just the right mix, and, luckily too
Some very long filaments,
Called cosmic strings,
Formed and survived long enough
To be useful as collection agents,
Which were merely imperfections,
As in an unevenly freezing pond—
A kind of a cooling flaw.
None of these happenings were connected,
Except by Potential’s destiny,
So, ‘fortunately’,
The cosmic strings attracted,
By their gravity,
Both dark and ordinary matter,
Which in turn
Attracted even more of the same.
These pearls of embryonic galaxies arose
And were strung along these cosmic necklaces,
As can still be noted today.
So it was
That some almost incidental irregularities,
Frozen out as cosmic anchors,
Were latched onto by matter, both light and dark,
The proportionate portions of which were favorable,
The dark matter dwarfing our ordinary matter
For some reason of a happy ‘circumstance’.
‘Fortuitously’, as well,
Anti-matter, if there ever was any,
Did not fully cancel out the uncle-matter.
The universe could not foresee any of this
In and of itself’s fundamental substance(s),
For if it could have
Then we’d only have the larger problem
Of how the foreseer could have been foreseen,
Ad infinitum…
So it could have been like the ‘trying out’
Of all possibilities in superposition…
A brute force happening
Of every path gone down.
We know much of the rest of the story
Of how the stars and their supernovae
Created the light and heavy elements
Which combined into molecules,
Which ‘auspiciously’
Became able to replicate themselves, as DNA,
And progress to make cells, tissues, and life.
And then there was the luck of oxygen,
A mere waste product of photosynthesis
By bacteria, and later, plants,
That could fill the lungs
As well as build an ozone layer of protection
From the harmful rays of outer space.
Luck on top of luck, good fortune,
And then prosperity…
‘Stumbled along’ the right path.
Of course all this took many billions of years—
And it is of course this long ‘yardstick’
That baffles the mind and sticks in the throat,
But demonstrates the long time lag needed
To produce even the tiniest of advances.
It bears all the hallmarks
Of ‘randomness’ at work,
Although probable
If Potential had it all ‘worked out’.
Dinosaurs roamed the Earth
For over two hundred million years—
Imagine the length of that time.
They were supreme and invincible—
The kings of all the Earth ‘forever’,
On land, sea, and even in the air—
Heading towards forevermore and beyond,
But…
Dame Fortune once again intervened
When the asteroids or some such catastrophe
Finished off the dinosaurs,
As well as 90% of the existing species.
This ‘random’ event left a vacuum
In which newer species could thrive.
Proto-man gave way to near-man
And thence to us, eventually,
When two ‘monkey’ chromosomes fused together,
Making ‘us’ incompatible with the chimps,
And so our ancestors then
Truly descended from the trees!
‘You’ were once a lucky shrew, darting all about,
But then attached to a favorable evolutionary line…
Every single one of your forbears on both sides
Being attractive enough to locate a loving mate,
And they fortunately had the good health to celebrate!
We came to need no specialized niches,
Since we could adapt to any terrain,
Having brains that could learn much more
After birth than instinct could bestow before.
Our higher consciousness
Was the crowning glory—
We had won the human race—
The be all and end all; the grand prize
Of the universal lottery.
So there is nothing more,
Aside from our own progress
To be and learn.
This is it!
That’s all there is.
DNA remembers every step of our evolution—
And you can see this in ‘fast’ motion
When embryos form simply in the liquid womb,
Replicate, and then grow cells
That diversify into a human being
After going through some nonhuman stages.
Thus four billion years compresses into
The nine months of pregnancy.
So then hail and good fortune,
Fine fellows and ladies,
And welcome all of you
To the Meadows of Heaven—
The highest point of all being,
Although we are surely
Still in our infancy.
The path “chosen” by Potential ends here,
With our consciousness.
There were many pockets of universes,
And it is was this very one
That could sing our verses.
The further design
And the role of mankind
Is now in our hands.
We were borne here upon the shoulders
Of so many who have long since come and gone,
All of them advancing the cause,
Over eons of wiles—so here we are.
Hail and good fortune, fine fellows and ladies;
Welcome, all of you, to the Meadows of Heaven;
We are the luckiest sons and daughters of being—
Mediums in a rare universe well done.
Celebrate; live; be,
For everyone dies,
But not everyone lives.
Now thou art in Heaven…
It's in the vertebral column. No, wait, that's a design flaw.
Nor in the eye, for which design we'd flunk our engineering course.
It must be in the teeth, then. Surely there's intelligence there. Why else would we name wisdom teeth so? What problems could they possibly cause?
And incidentally, there cosmic constants and ratios, most of which are part of the so-called 'fine-tuning