Is there a scientific case for an Intelligent Designer?

[Alan McDougall]

Hey Guys,

 

I joined a long while back but did not participate.

 

I know bringing up the idea of the possibility of an intelligent designer of the universe on a science forum is not exactly a good idea.

 

Anyway I see that it could fit into the bracket of pseudoscience

 

So lets bounce off the topic ans see where it goes if anywhere

 

My case (in a totally a non irreligious way) could be the exactitude of the cosmological constants, that if even one differed minutely we would never have come into existence

 

Alan

[iNow]

Is there a scientific case for an Intelligent Designer?

No, but there is a strong scientific case for why people would think there is one, or for why so many people feel more comforted by such a conjecture.

[Paralith]

Alan, the problem is that there are lots of pretty things in the world that someone, if they wanted to, could claim that they see a god in it. Such as your cosmological constants. But the real question you should be asking is, is it necessary that an intelligent designer exist in order to explain the existence of certain (or any) natural phenomenon? The answer has always been no. Sure, maybe a supernatural being pushed this or that around a bit, but as far as our knowledge goes, never in a way that couldn't have happened on its own.

[john5746]

My case (in a totally a non irreligious way) could be the exactitude of the cosmological constants, that if even one differed minutely we would never have come into existence

 

I've never found this argument compelling at all, since in retrospect, many things have to happen for any one thing to happen. For example, if you go back and change small things in the lives of any one of your ancestors, then you may not have existed.

 

On a more general level, how do we know something is designed? Mt. Rushmore vs the Grand Canyon. A house on the beach vs the shoreline. Do we not contrast it with things that are not man-made? If we say nature itself is designed, then where is the non-designed stuff to compare? If we say nature is not designed locally, on a small scale then why must it be designed on a large scale?

[swansont]

Before you can identify intelligent design, you'll have to identify unintelligent design.

 

Drops of water are spherical. Bulk liquid water conforms to the shape of its container. Clouds sometimes look like bunnies. Are these examples of intelligent design?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

My case (in a totally a non irreligious way) could be the exactitude of the cosmological constants, that if even one differed minutely we would never have come into existence

 

Can you empirically test this to confirm that it's true?

 

———

 

Note that we are discussing the scientific case for a designer. Participants should not view this as an opportunity to derail the discussion and discuss other things.

Edited March 17, 2009 by swansont
Consecutive posts merged.

[Mokele]

My case (in a totally a non irreligious way) could be the exactitude of the cosmological constants, that if even one differed minutely we would never have come into existence

 

"…imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'"

--Douglas Adams

 

 

Part of the problem is that question is so ill-defined, usually because the putative 'designer' is so ill-defined. Consider everything humans have designed. Any random alien race could easily look at all of these things and deduce some aspect of our body form and mind from things like the shapes of doors and chairs, the reliance on visual feedback, the existence of agriculture, etc. Design says definite things about the designer and, conversely, in order to infer design, you have to have some idea of what to look for.

 

For instance, if you said "Mars was inhabited by creatures that resembled giant brittle-stars", we would know what to look for in order to distinguish designed artifacts and ruins from natural geology (such as a reliance on touch and taste, broad flat hallways, control systems that take advantage of tentacle-like arms, etc.).

 

So if you postulate design without specifying characteristics of a designer, you have no possible criteria for determining what is or isn't designed, thus you have an untestable hypothesis.

[Sisyphus]

The main point, as others have implied, is that our "requirements" are a result of the universe being the way it is, not the other way around. In a different universe, there would be something else that could only exist in a universe very similar to it, such that one might conclude the universe looks designed to accomodate it.

 

Another way to think about it is as if there were a multitude of universes, all with different constants, of which a small number can support some sort of intelligent life. The beings in those universes might marvel about how lucky they are to live in such a place, but there's no luck involved at all, since its only the comfy places that even have any inhabitants to contemplate their fortune.

[Alan McDougall]

Hey Guys

 

All great responses

 

john5746

 

 

On a more general level, how do we know something is designed? Mt. Rushmore vs the Grand Canyon. A house on the beach vs the shoreline. Do we not contrast it with things that are not man-made? If we say nature itself is designed, then where is the non-designed stuff to compare? If we say nature is not designed locally, on a small scale then why must it be designed on a large scale?

 

I realy really like yours, that is profound

 

Alan

[ennui]

"…imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'"

 

That's an awesome quote. Hadn't heard that one before.

[granpa]

Hey Guys,

 

I joined a long while back but did not participate.

 

I know bringing up the idea of the possibility of an intelligent designer of the universe on a science forum is not exactly a good idea.

 

Anyway I see that it could fit into the bracket of pseudoscience

 

So lets bounce off the topic ans see where it goes if anywhere

 

My case (in a totally a non irreligious way) could be the exactitude of the cosmological constants, that if even one differed minutely we would never have come into existence

 

Alan

 

the ideal height for a human being would be a couple of inches. at that height we could fall from any distance without hurting ourselves and if we had wings we could fly. we also wouldnt eat very much. no intelligent designer would design a universe where people are six feet tall. where merely tripping over your shoestrings can result in an extremely painful injury. a universe where even if we genetically engineered ourselves to have wings we still couldnt get off the ground because there are no muscles strong enough. would you design it that way?

 

the only way a human brain could fit into a body a few inches tall is if molecules could act as neurons. that clearly isnt possible according to the laws of physics as we currently understand them.

[brain-in-a-vat]

Hi Granpa, I think you are the one who pointed me to Science Forums, the Original (from a post at SciForums). Little did we know that my first thread would be such a bust .

 

But anyway, seeing your post, I thought I too would offer my response to the question about Intelligent Design.

 

Before I answer, here are some questions that come to mind when I consider the concept of God:

 

If God wanted our worship wouldn't we see God personally, as in a voice from a burning bush or vivid visions, etc? Things that we individually would find to be irrefutable evidence of God. I don't see those things personally nor do most for the most part and so having human worship either isn't the main thing to God, or God is more of a personal concept than an active "take charge" director of lives.

 

If God wanted us to make a personal choice to have faith without any coercion wouldn't it be unseemly for there to be any kind of irrefutable proof at all? After all, who wouldn't believe if they got the message from a burning bush that appeared in their living room? The only way people can choose freely is if there is no irrefutable evidence of God.

 

If there is no irrefutable evidence of God, there is no irrefutable evidence of Intelligent Design is there? So the possibility of an Intelligent Designer is moot if there is no evidence other than the perceived beauty and mystery of nature.

 

Pantheism views Nature as God but applies no human-like characteristics, i.e. the Pantheist God can be viewed as the natural universe as a whole without any need for design or even any explanation of creation. It is OK with Pantheist's if the universe came from nothing or if it has always existed, God is the universe and all that might turn out to mean.

 

Atheism is a little more standoffish and says there is no evidence of God and atheists prefer to reject any concept that acknowledges a God.

 

So now my point. Intelligent Design requires an act of intentional design effort which would have preceeded an act of creation. Intelligent design therefore requires an intelligent God to pre-exist the creation of the universe and somehow then be separate. The existence of the universe to an advocate of ID is the proof that God exists. Two problems with ID are, "where did God come from if not eternal, and if eternal, then what to heck was going on for the eternity before creation"? I am not personally able to envision "no space or time", i.e. "nothingness", but that is a personal flaw .

 

A universe that has always existed at least leaves the possibility of a Pantheist God without such dilemas that a "creator" presents. And if there was an "intention" as implied by ID that the universe host intelligent life forms (perhaps as the purpose of it all), then that "intention" would have had to always have existed too in order to avoid the need for a creation and the dilema of "before creation ... what was there, or where did God come from?"

 

In conclusion, I don't see any scientific case for Intelligent Design.

Edited March 19, 2009 by brain-in-a-vat

[granpa]

here is an old thread of mine on the concept of existence without space

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=37206

[swansont]

the ideal height for a human being would be a couple of inches. at that height we could fall from any distance without hurting ourselves and if we had wings we could fly. we also wouldnt eat very much. no intelligent designer would design a universe where people are six feet tall. where merely tripping over your shoestrings can result in an extremely painful injury. a universe where even if we genetically engineered ourselves to have wings we still couldnt get off the ground because there are no muscles strong enough. would you design it that way?

 

the only way a human brain could fit into a body a few inches tall is if molecules could act as neurons. that clearly isnt possible according to the laws of physics as we currently understand them.

 

Argument from incredulity is inherently flawed, and it doesn't matter whether you use it to argue for ID or against it. And "I wouldn't have designed it that way" is basically argument from incredulity.

[Ophiolite]

No one has yet commented on Nick Bostrom's intriguing 2003 paper, "Are You Living In a Computer Simulation", published in Philosophical Quarterly.

 

Here is the abstract:

 

A technologically mature “posthuman” civilization would have enormous computing power. Based on this empirical fact, the simulation argument shows that at least one of the following propositions is true: (1) The fraction of human-level civilizations that reach a posthuman stage is very close to zero; (2) The fraction of posthuman civilizations that are interested in running ancestor-simulations is very close to zero; (3) The fraction of all people with our kind of experiences that are living in a simulation is very close to one.

If (1) is true, then we will almost certainly go extinct before reaching posthumanity. If (2) is true, then there must be a strong convergence among the courses of advanced civilizations so that virtually none contains any relatively wealthy individuals who desire to run ancestor-simulations and are free to do so. If (3) is true, then we almost certainly live in a simulation. In the dark forest of our current ignorance, it seems sensible to apportion one’s credence roughly evenly between (1), (2), and (3).

Unless we are now living in a simulation, our descendants will almost certainly never run an ancestor-simulation

 

Source: http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html

 

This concept admits of intelligent design without invoking a god. (I am routinely perplexed by the tendency of atheists and agnostics to assume that any intelligent designer is equivalent to a God, generally of the conventional, Abrahamic disposition. Very channeled thinking. Not good.)

[Airbrush]

The term intelligent design has meaning to me metaphorically as the aggregate of all physical laws and the properties and forces of nature, how they interact, how chemistry works, and how life evolves to become self-aware. To me the word God means this also. To add "er" at the end of intelligent design seems excessive because it sounds anthropocentric and thus unnecessary. It seems to me that existance has a "program" but I don't know about a "programmer".

[Mokele]

and how life evolves to become self-aware

 

Except that it doesn't any more that life evolves to have more legs (making millipedes the image of God). Self-awareness is an isolated occurance, an accidental side-effect of increased intelligence to deal with complex social systems, and if you look at the fossil record, you'll see no trend at all towards 'self-awareness' nor any other 'goal' of evolution.

[Airbrush]

You are correct. I don't mean there is a trend towards self-awareness, just that it is a possible outcome of evolution, or seeminly the pinacle of the evolution of life on Earth, humans. Intelligent design may be a misnomer like "Big Bang", an imperfect way to label what happened on Earth.

[ydoaPs]

No one has yet commented on Nick Bostrom's intriguing 2003 paper, "Are You Living In a Computer Simulation", published in Philosophical Quarterly.

 

Here is the abstract:

 

A technologically mature “posthuman” civilization would have enormous computing power. Based on this empirical fact, the simulation argument shows that at least one of the following propositions is true: (1) The fraction of human-level civilizations that reach a posthuman stage is very close to zero; (2) The fraction of posthuman civilizations that are interested in running ancestor-simulations is very close to zero; (3) The fraction of all people with our kind of experiences that are living in a simulation is very close to one.

If (1) is true, then we will almost certainly go extinct before reaching posthumanity. If (2) is true, then there must be a strong convergence among the courses of advanced civilizations so that virtually none contains any relatively wealthy individuals who desire to run ancestor-simulations and are free to do so. If (3) is true, then we almost certainly live in a simulation. In the dark forest of our current ignorance, it seems sensible to apportion one’s credence roughly evenly between (1), (2), and (3).

Unless we are now living in a simulation, our descendants will almost certainly never run an ancestor-simulation

 

Source: http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html

 

This concept admits of intelligent design without invoking a god. (I am routinely perplexed by the tendency of atheists and agnostics to assume that any intelligent designer is equivalent to a God, generally of the conventional, Abrahamic disposition. Very channeled thinking. Not good.)

 

Where did those designers come from? Were they designed?

[Sisyphus]

You are correct. I don't mean there is a trend towards self-awareness, just that it is a possible outcome of evolution, or seeminly the pinacle of the evolution of life on Earth, humans. Intelligent design may be a misnomer like "Big Bang", an imperfect way to label what happened on Earth.

 

Pinnacle? Says who?

[Ophiolite]

Where did those designers come from? Were they designed?

No idea. Maybe it's turtles all the way down.

(On this thread I'm a reporter, not a commentator.)

[Kaeroll]

If I'm going to live in a computer simulation, I at least want kung fu downloaded into my brain Matrix-style. Spent far too long learning it the hard way and getting nowhere...

 

On-topic... short answer "no", long answer "no and read a biology textbook"?

[granpa]

the ideal height for a human being would be a couple of inches. at that height we could fall from any distance without hurting ourselves and if we had wings we could fly. we also wouldnt eat very much. no intelligent designer would design a universe where people are six feet tall. where merely tripping over your shoestrings can result in an extremely painful injury. a universe where even if we genetically engineered ourselves to have wings we still couldnt get off the ground because there are no muscles strong enough. would you design it that way?

 

the only way a human brain could fit into a body a few inches tall is if molecules could act as neurons. that clearly isnt possible according to the laws of physics as we currently understand them.

and if it were somehow possible then we would expect to see large numbers of living things that are considerably smaller than what is currently considered to be the smallest possible living thing.

[stereologist]

Intelligent design proposes a number of arguments. One of these is the concept of Irreducible complexity. The claim appears to be that there are systems that have a minimal complexity below which nothing works and therefore must have been a starting point.

 

At first hand this seems like a good point of discussion or research. Do these systems exist?

 

Another argument made by ID is specified complexity.

 

The main objection to these points appears to be arguing from ignorance.

 

I tend to agree. Just because science today does not understand some issue does not mean that it won't in the future. To me, ID is I don't know so it must be supernatural in origin. The ability of people to understand their world through the scientific method is in my opinion rather impressive. What is just as interesting is the determination that some things cannot be known or determined.

 

This understanding of limitations has not entered the biological arena yet. This is where ID is directed. ID adherents avoid other sciences. This limited application of the notion of ID interests me. Why isn't ID used to make statements about mathematics?

[allien]

Everthing depends on rules except miracles. So scientific proof is difficult.

 

But mathematic, specially statistic (probabilty and possibility) could give an idea about this.

 

Lets say, If you hit television with hand phone with many times, could you get notebook pc at the end.

[iNow]

Televisions and phones don't reproduce themselves. The analogy fails because that which you're trying to describe builds on what came before, and is not purely random, but instead cumulative.