Is there a scientific case for an Intelligent Designer?

[JohnB]

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.

I think the only problem with this analogy is that with those things it would be relatively obvious what they were designed for. In the case of the Universe, we have no idea what it was designed for, f it was designed.

 

A major problem with the idea of an Intelligent Designer is that any entity with the power, lifespan and intelligence to actually concieve and carry out such a design would be so far above us that it's actions and motives would be incomprehensible to us.

 

Somewhat equivalent to an ant trying to understand the design of a skyscraper.

 

Because of the unknowns and the unknowables, I think debate on Intelligent Design falls into the category of "Philosophy" more than any other.

[Daecon]

Why just one designer?

 

Sure a team of designers would be more logical, practical, and realistic.

[Sisyphus]

Why just one designer?

 

Sure a team of designers would be more logical, practical, and realistic.

 

I agree. The universe was obviously designed by committee.

[lucaspa]

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.

 

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

 

There are two questions in science where it is still possible to hypothesize direct action by an "intelligent designer". You have hit upon one of them:

Why is the order of the universe the way it is instead of some other order? Hypothesis: an ID (or deity) created it this way.

 

The other question is: Why does the universe exist at all?

Hypothesis: an ID (deity) created it.

 

The problem is that there are a number of alternative hypotheses to the second question. We don't have sufficient data to rule out all but one of them.

 

In order to get a "scientific case" for the ID hypothesis to the first question, you must invoke the Strong Anthropic Principle. The SAP basically says the universe must have the constants it does. But that is simply bad logic:

 

"According to the Anthropic Principle, we are entitled to infer facts about the universe and its laws from the undisputed fact that we (we anthropoi, human beings) are here to do the inferring and observing. The Anthropic Principle comes in several flavors.

In the "weak form" it is a sound, harmless, and on occasion useful application of elementary logic: if x is a necessary condition for the existence of y, and y exists, then x exists. If consciousness depends on complex physical structures, and complex physical structures depend on large molecules composed of elements heavier than hydrogen and helium, then, since we are conscious, the world must contain such elements.

"But notice that there is a loose cannon on the deck in the previous sentence: the wandering "must". I have followed the common practice in English of couching a claim of necessity in a technically incorrect way. As any student in logic class soon learns, what I really should have written is: *It must be the case that*: if consciousness depends ... then, since we are conscious, the world *contains* such elements.

 

The conclusion that can be validly drawn is only that the world *does* contain such elements, not that it *had* to contain such elements. It *has* to contain such elements *for us to exist*, we may grant, but it might not have contained such elements, and if that had been the case, we wouldn't be here to be dismayed. It's as simple as that.

Take a simpler example. Suppose John is a bachelor. Then he *must* be single, right? (That's a truth of logic.) Poor John -- he can never get married! The fallacy is obvious in this example, and it is worth keeping it in the back of your mind as a template to compare other arguments with."

Daniel Dennett, Darwin's Dangerous Ideas, pp. 165-166.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

In the case of the Universe, we have no idea what it was designed for, f it was designed.

 

The issue is usually stated that the universe seems designed for life. If any of a myriad of physical constants were just a bit different, life would be impossible. Since those constants seem arbitrary, why do they have the values they do? Thus the hypothesis of direct manufacture and choice by an ID (deity).

 

Of course, there is no mandate that the universe must have those constants (see logical argument above). If it did not, we simply wouldn't be here to wonder about it.

 

And, one of the reasons String Theory is so attractive is that most of those constants have their values determined by the properties of strings and 'branes, thus removing the problem.

 

A major problem with the idea of an Intelligent Designer is that any entity with the power, lifespan and intelligence to actually concieve and carry out such a design would be so far above us that it's actions and motives would be incomprehensible to us.

 

Irrelevant to the question of whether the universe was created or not. Of course, there is always the possibility that the ID would communicate with us and tell us what some of the actions and motivations were. Religions call this "revelation".

 

Because of the unknowns and the unknowables, I think debate on Intelligent Design falls into the category of "Philosophy" more than any other.

 

It can, but most of the unknowns and unknowables that you discuss are irrelevant to answering the 2 questions where direct actions by an IDer (deity) are hypothesized. We don't have to know exact identity or motives to answer the question. Instead, it's a matter of data. We simply don't have the data currently to answer the question.

[Mr Skeptic]

Consider the evolution of cars. Everyone agrees that cars are intelligently designed, and maybe you can grant that they "evolve" in a sense. There are several "species" of cars who's design is largely based on previous cars. If you look closely, new "species" of cars appear suddenly, without transitional cars linking one to the other. Also, improvements which show up in one car, suddenly show up in even the most distantly related of cars. Eg rear view mirrors, radios, airbags. Things can appear and disappear suddenly, rather than gradually morph, and can do so in several "species" simultaneously. The simultaneous appearance of the starter engine concurrent with the disappearance of the hand crank is also particularly impressive -- what a coincidence that the one appeared exactly when the other disappeared, and convenient as they have the same vital function. Also cars each have their unique serial number. Anyhow, if you look at this sort of pattern of "evolution" of the car, you can distinctly see that cars are intelligently designed -- they lack the sort of randomness and inheritance typical of evolution via natural selection. Do you see these sorts of patterns in life? Maybe we have a (Copyright God, 4000 BC) written in our DNA?

[iNow]

Cars cannot reproduce themselves.

[Airbrush]

I think the term "ID" or "intelligent design" is vague enough that people can argue about it without having the exact same meaning in mind. Which means they are just arguing past each other. To me ID simply means the aggregate of all physical laws and forces and the chemical properties of matter that allow life to evolve.

 

It is a neat coincidence that the Earth has such a large moon that is massive enough to stabilize the Earth's axis of rotation, without which intelligent life could probably not exist on Earth.

[cameron marical]

why would life be impossible with different constants? ya, i know that some would prohibit life but others wouldnt prevent all life from happening. maybe a bit different from ours, but still life.

 

also, as for why our constants are perfect for life, i can think of a couple explanations/thoughts wich dont need an id:

 

we got lucky

 

we came into being to fit our constants so it seems like their perfect for us, but really were perfect for them. this is the most realistic and scientific method i can think of, its much like mokeles previous statement with the puddle.

 

maybe theirs not any other "universes" with seperate constants other than our own, and this is the only one with the only constants wich have their own reasons for being what they are our science just hasnt discovered them yet. i like this one too.And it can fit into the 2nd one.

[JohnB]

The issue is usually stated that the universe seems designed for life.

Why? That's my point. Why would the designer do it? I doubt that we would understand the answer.

Irrelevant to the question of whether the universe was created or not.

Not neccessarily, if looking for data either way, it would be helpful to know what you are looking at.

 

Looking at the surface of the pond doesn't tell you much about the bottom. If there was a designer, it is reasonable to assume that the proof is in the fine structure of the bottom, not the ripples on the surface.

[mooeypoo]

Looking at the surface of the pond doesn't tell you much about the bottom. If there was a designer, it is reasonable to assume that the proof is in the fine structure of the bottom, not the ripples on the surface.

That may be, but there ARE conclusions you can safely reach without looking at the bottom, too.

 

For example, if your pond is smoking hot and bubbling, stinking of sulfur and yellowish, you could safely conclude it wasn't designed for growing salmon. Or, at least, that if it was, the designer was very bad at what he's doing.

[Sisyphus]

if you assume there is a designer, then looking at the product can potentially tell you things about the designer and what it was designed for. But if you want to know whether it was designed, you're out of luck. Without knowing anything about the hypothetical designer and the designer's motives and intentions, the proposition that something was done with conscious intent is completely unfalsifiable. Maybe I like bubbling sulfur ponds, etc.

 

Nor is it verifiable, really. When talking about human designers, who we understand quite well and have loads of experience with both human designed and undesigned objects, there are some telltale signs, like "Made in China" printed on the bottom. Even with the seemingly obvious we need to be careful, though, as there are many things which seem "obviously" designed by intelligence but later turn out not to be.

 

And that's just in the realm of everday experience, with beings the same as us. When positing a "universe designer," the question becomes rather absurd. Utterly unfalsifiable, and we are many degrees removed from having any idea what to look for for verification.

[Sayonara]

Everything in the universe which we know to be designed was designed by man. So if we are to look at any given feature of nature and arbitrarily conclude that it was designed, it would make more sense to hypothesise that a human designed it rather than some unknown, unseen supernatural entity.

[J.C.MacSwell]

I agree. The universe was obviously designed by committee.

 

Which begs the question:

 

Is there an intelligent case for a Scientific Designer?

[Ophiolite]

I reject Intelligent Design out of hand. It is nothing more than a creationist ploy. I am more sympathetic towards intelligent design, in lower case.

 

This could be of two kinds: intelligent design of the universe as a whole; intelligent design of life.

 

The evidence for the first, already mentioned by an earlier poster, are the particular values of some of the fundamental constants. I would prefer not to discuss these here.

 

I am interested in what might constitute evidence ofr the second category. A number of posters on this thread appear to have ruled out the possibility of evidence for this. That seems rather precipitate. Even as a pure intellectual exercise might it not be interesting to consider possibilities?

[Mr Skeptic]

Everything in the universe which we know to be designed was designed by man. So if we are to look at any given feature of nature and arbitrarily conclude that it was designed, it would make more sense to hypothesise that a human designed it rather than some unknown, unseen supernatural entity.

 

This could be of two kinds: intelligent design of the universe as a whole; intelligent design of life.

 

Could it be that we and our universe were intelligently designed by transhumans? Think how powerful humanity could become in the far future, colonizing entire galaxies. It is largely agreed that the universe will end, but perhaps humanity will become powerful enough to if not prevent the death of the universe, ensure that in the future a universe similar to ours would form, and possibly even seed life into it. Of course, I think this theory would rub Intelligent Design proponents the wrong way

[lucaspa]

Why? That's my point. Why would the designer do it? I doubt that we would understand the answer.

 

So that life would evolve such that it would be able to communicate with the designer! That's one hypothesis for "why" that is easily arrived at.

 

I think what you are trying to do is use an unanswered question on the next level to deny a possible answer on the level above it. Let me explain: every time you answer a question, 3 or 4 new questions pop up out of the answer. You don't have answers to those new questions, but you can't use that fact to deny the answer you already have. For instance, 25 years ago Marshall Urist found that demineralized bone matrix would cause the formation of bone outside of existing bones. He then showed that the responsible agent was a protein. Which protein? What cells did it react with? How did the protein react with the cells? All these questions popped up out of the answer and we didn't know the answer to any of them. BUT, we couldn't deny that a protein caused extraskeletal bone formation.

 

In this situation, we have the question: what's the origin of the universe? Possible answer: an ID (deity) created it by means that we don't understand. New questions: what is that ID like? Why would the ID have created a universe? What's the origin of the ID? None of those have any relevance to the possible answer. IF we ever show that the universe was created by an ID (deity), then we will have to tackle those questions. But it appears that you are using the presence of those future questions to deny the possible answer. You can't do that.

 

Not neccessarily, if looking for data either way, it would be helpful to know what you are looking at.

 

It's irrelevant that the ID would be very advanced if the question is whether the universe was created (manufactured) by an ID (see above).

 

If there was a designer, it is reasonable to assume that the proof is in the fine structure of the bottom, not the ripples on the surface.

 

Not necessarily. The way we conclude manufacture by an intelligent entity (which is really what ID is all about) is to look to see if there is any natural process that could produce the entity. If there is, then we can't conclude manufacture.

 

In terms of the two questions about the universe itself, we don't have that "natural" process. Therefore the possibility of direct manufacture via Big Bang can't be eliminated. After the universe gets here, then we do have "natural" processes to produce the entities within the universe. As Hawking put it:

 

"Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Is the unified theory so compelling that it brings about its own existence? Or does it need a creator, and, if so, does he have anyother effect on the universe?"

Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, pg 174.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Could it be that we and our universe were intelligently designed by transhumans?

 

The universe, possibly. Ourselves? No. We are the product of natural selection as the designer. Life arose by chemistry, not by manufacture.

 

However, it's possible that some intelligent entity (H. sapiens in the far future) could devise a technology that would bring a universe into existence. In that sense the universe as a whole would be manufactured.

Edited April 17, 2009 by lucaspa
Consecutive posts merged.

[iNow]

Who/What designed the designer?

 

ID doesn't answer the question of origin, it displaces it.

[Mr Skeptic]

Remember iNow that the same applies to the First Cause whether it was intelligent or not. And of course that that question has been answered repeatedly and conclusively.

[iNow]

Remember iNow that the same applies to the First Cause whether it was intelligent or not. And of course that that question has been answered repeatedly and conclusively.

 

I'm not tracking your numinous mumbo jumbo. What are you talking about?

[Mr Skeptic]

OK. What caused the Big Bang? What caused the thing that caused the Big Bang? What caused the thing that caused the thing that caused the Big Bang?

[iNow]

Ah... Well, you're mistaken to assume that it had a cause at all, and also that the BB was a beginning at all. Either way, the only correct answer is, "We don't yet know," not "God did it."

[Mr Skeptic]

So the Big Bang doesn't need a cause but an Intelligent Designer does? Why the double standard?

[granpa]

or the question itself is meaningless.

[Sayonara]

Does anybody else find the notion of the First Cause inherently self-contradictory?

[iNow]

So the Big Bang doesn't need a cause but an Intelligent Designer does? Why the double standard?

 

I thought it was abundantly clear that I said the only correct answer is simply, "We don't yet know."

 

Wait a minute... That's precisely what my quote in post #46 indicates. Fancy that.

 

 

When I ask "who designed the designer," it's simply to show just how fallacious the logic is of those who support ID. It's not like positing that "god did it" is at all helpful to our understanding of reality... THAT's the point.

 

Also, to address your "Big Bang cause" question, much research right now is happening on that topic, and it seems that it may have been just a rebound from an earlier collapse. Either way, I'm not asserting that this is what happened, only that it's being researched, so you can quit with your specious claims of double standards, and look in the mirror for a moment at your own broken logic structures.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Does anybody else find the notion of the First Cause inherently self-contradictory?

 

Yes, I certainly do.

Edited April 18, 2009 by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.