Is there a scientific case for an Intelligent Designer?

[JHAQ]

Who designed the designer ?

[Severian]

But that's begging the question. This definition mandates that intelligent design exist. But within the context of some discussions, unintelligent design has already been conceded as existing.

 

And why is life existing a necessary result of intelligent design? That presupposes that life was the (or a) goal.

 

Well, it isn't just life. Maybe we would be better saying complex phenomena. For most parameter choices the universe ends up being an uninteresting noninteractive homogeneous dessert.

 

To put it another way, imagine you threw an open box of matches up in the air, and when they fell down on the table they spelled out "Hello!". You would probably wonder if there was a deeper reason for them doing that rather than simply saying that the probability of it happening was non-zero so it implies nothing.

 

I am not saying that the fine tunings we see (the matches saying "hello" in my analogy) are God, but I also don't believe they are coincidence. They are probably the result of some extra physics that we don't yet know about (in the matchbox analogy, maybe the table has grooves in it which spell out hello and the matches just fell into the grooves).

[Sisyphus]

It's more complicated, though (or maybe less, depending on your perspective), because the observer only exists to ponder the universe within those narrow parameters (if they are indeed narrow). So, really, looking at a universe and wondering what the probability is that it could support life, the probability is actually 1, since the "looking" part requires it. If, hypothetically, there are many universes within all sorts of random parameters, every being contemplating those parameters would find them remarkably well-suited to complex phenomena.

 

Analogously, each of us is the result of the combination of one of millions of sperm and an egg produced by a different person. So, in a way, your existence is extremelyunlikely. But you're not "lucky" for existing, as if you didn't exist there would be nobody here to be unlucky.

[Severian]

That is the anthropic principle, which in my opinion, is very bad science.

[swansont]

Why would you consider it to be a necessary result of intelligent design. I don't follow your logic there. That is only necessary if one is adopting the religious take on ID.

 

It's not my logic. "Unintelligent design could be a universe in which it was impossible for life to form" presupposes that life (or the possibility of life) is an intended result of intelligent design.

[JohnB]

I personally tend to disagree with the dichotomy you presented (or, at least, see room for additional options not shown in your list)

Either a designer was involved, or a designer was not involved. There are no other options.

 

The methods used by the designer or by chance are totally separate questions. (Although they may give hints as to the answer of the original question.)

It's not my logic. "Unintelligent design could be a universe in which it was impossible for life to form" presupposes that life (or the possibility of life) is an intended result of intelligent design.

It also presupposed the designer to be omnipotent. Life could be an unexpected result of the designed Universe.

 

To assume that everything is the intended result of the designers action presupposes omnipotence and omniscience. Neither of these attributes are required for the existence of a designer to be true. Again, separate questions.

 

The Universe might have been designed by a committee.

[swansont]

It also presupposed the designer to be omnipotent. Life could be an unexpected result of the designed Universe.

 

To assume that everything is the intended result of the designers action presupposes omnipotence and omniscience. Neither of these attributes are required for the existence of a designer to be true. Again, separate questions.

 

The Universe might have been designed by a committee.

 

Yes, it could be an unexpected result. But the criterion offered was no life possibility = undesigned, which begs the question. We need an objective test rather than circular logic if we are to treat this scientifically rather than philosophically.

[Daecon]

If the Universe was analogous to a computer simulation, life could be nothing more than a ghost in the machine or a "beneficial" bug in the laws of physics (and therefore chemistry).

[cameron marical]

science is a search for medels that explain how nature behaves

 

I disagree. Science is a search for models that predict how nature behaves. [/pedantic] The "God did it" model certainly explains a lot, but is not so hot on predictions. Though I suppose a scientist and layman mean different things when they say "explains".

 

Id say that science is the scientific method.

 

State a question.

Research.

Experiment.

Record results.

Conclude and explain data.

[Severian]

It's not my logic. "Unintelligent design could be a universe in which it was impossible for life to form" presupposes that life (or the possibility of life) is an intended result of intelligent design.

 

You are still missing the point. It is not the intention that is important. It is the relative probabilities of the two situations as predicted by physics alone with no outside influence which is important.

 

Imagine you have two possible outcomes of an experiment, and you can perform the experiment only once. Your theory predicts that outcome A will happen 99.99999999999% of the time and option B will occur 0.000000000001% of the time. You do the experiment and find option B. While it is very possible that your theory is correct and you were just unlucky, you have a rather strong motivation for believing that your theory is wrong or incomplete and something else affected it.

[Sisyphus]

That is the anthropic principle, which in my opinion, is very bad science.

 

Can you expand on that?

 

You are still missing the point. It is not the intention that is important. It is the relative probabilities of the two situations as predicted by physics alone with no outside influence which is important.

 

Imagine you have two possible outcomes of an experiment, and you can perform the experiment only once. Your theory predicts that outcome A will happen 99.99999999999% of the time and option B will occur 0.000000000001% of the time. You do the experiment and find option B. While it is very possible that your theory is correct and you were just unlucky, you have a rather strong motivation for believing that your theory is wrong or incomplete and something else affected it.

 

Is that an apt analogy, though? (That's not a rhetorical question.) Any given person winning the lottery is extremely unlikely, but someone winning is all but certain, so a winner has no reason to suspect meddling.

[Severian]

Can you expand on that?

 

The anthropic principle is non-predictive, so it is a bad things for a scientist to fall back on. Since we can never make an observation in a universe in which we don't exist, we can never test if our existence is relevant to the question. So even if the anthropic principle were correct, it should not be used by science since it is essentially saying "We give up trying to find an explanation supported by evidence."

 

Is that an apt analogy, though? (That's not a rhetorical question.) Any given person winning the lottery is extremely unlikely, but someone winning is all but certain, so a winner has no reason to suspect meddling.

 

But lots of people play the lottery. If only one person bought a ticket, and that one person won, you should start a corruption investigation. If there were different regions of the universe with different laws of physics or different fundamental parameters, and only some of them were suitable for the formation of life, then you would have a valid argument. But our observations don't support that idea, so they would have to lie outwith our horizon (that is, our 'bubble' would have to be bigger than our horizon), and that then makes the theory non-predictive again (anthropic).

[Sisyphus]

Alright, that makes sense. But this thread is about a scientific support for the idea of some kind of conscious intent behind the "design" of the universe. Would you say that that is also nonpredictive, and therefore unscientific for the same reason? If not, how is it different?

[Severian]

Would you say that that is also nonpredictive, and therefore unscientific for the same reason?

 

Yes, of course. It is a cop out answer, and is useless as far as science is concerned. (Although that doesn't mean it is wrong.)

 

However, I would say that the problem I was pointing out (which is used by people to advocate intelligent design) is indeed a real problem for science. And one that will have a scientific answer.

[swansont]

But lots of people play the lottery. If only one person bought a ticket, and that one person won, you should start a corruption investigation. If there were different regions of the universe with different laws of physics or different fundamental parameters, and only some of them were suitable for the formation of life, then you would have a valid argument. But our observations don't support that idea, so they would have to lie outwith our horizon (that is, our 'bubble' would have to be bigger than our horizon), and that then makes the theory non-predictive again (anthropic).

 

We know the odds in the lottery. We know one person entering and winning is unlikely, though not impossible, as a result. How do we know that outcomes A and B have the odds you attribute to them?

[Mr Skeptic]

Imagine you have two possible outcomes of an experiment, and you can perform the experiment only once. Your theory predicts that outcome A will happen 99.99999999999% of the time and option B will occur 0.000000000001% of the time. You do the experiment and find option B. While it is very possible that your theory is correct and you were just unlucky, you have a rather strong motivation for believing that your theory is wrong or incomplete and something else affected it.

 

But what if the only outcome that you can observe is outcome B, and you don't know how many times the experiment was done?

[lucaspa]

Never play leapfrog with an invisible pink unicorn.

 

As someone involved with a science forum, you should know better.

 

 

Sorry, but I do know better. What you haven't realized is that "invisible pink unicorn" is falsified. Think about it. Color comes from the wavelengths of light reflected off an object. If something is invisible it isn't reflecting light, therefore it can't be pink.

 

Once again I'll post this:

"1. Tachyons: can we rule them out.

 

The special theory of relativity has been tested to unprecedented accuracy, and appears unassailable. Yet tachyons are a problem. Though they are allowed by the theory, they bring with them all sorts of unpalatable properties. Physicists would like to rule them out once and for all, but lack a convincing nonexistence proof. Until they construct one, we cannot be sure that a tachyon won't suddenly be discovered.

 

3. Time travel: just a fanstasy?

 

The investigation of exotic spacetimes that seem to permit travel into the past will remain an active field of research. So far, the loophole in the known laws of physics that permits time travel is very small indeed. Realistic time-travel scenarios are not known at the time of writing. But as with tachyons, in the absence of a no-go proof, the possibility has to stay on the agenda. So long as it does, paradoxes will haunt us.'' Paul Davies, About Time, 1994.

 

Think about tachyons for a moment. Invisible (because they travel faster than light, they cannot interact with our retinas), undetected and undectable by any conceivable instrument, no effect on the universe that we have ever observed, and a pain in the butt. What's our scientific attitude toward tachyons? Do we treat them as you apparently want to treat IPU, that is, say they don't exist? Or do we consider them a possibility until we can falsify them?

 

A major problem with dismissing things without being able to falsify them is the same problem that several people have ascribed to ID: stopping science. If you dismiss possibilities prematurely, you bring science to a halt as surely as stopping the search for a material cause.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

The anthropic principle is non-predictive, so it is a bad things for a scientist to fall back on.

 

The Strong Anthropic Principle is an error in logic. The AP itself is a very useful tool for testing theories. So, let's look at the SAP and the AP:

 

SAP: "If our existence depends on the fine tuning of the universal constants, and we exist, then, since we exist, those constants must be fine tuned. "

 

AP: "It must be the case that: if life depends on the fact that the physical constants are fine-tuned, then, since life exists, those constants have those values."

 

Notice the difference. The AP becomes very useful in the intial testing of new cosmological and quantum gravity theories: if the mathematics give a universe where life can't exist, then the theory is wrong. In historical fact, the AP was used to test and reject the initial versions of String Theory and No Boundary.

 

The problem with the SAP is that word "must". The SAP has the logical necessity couched in erroneous language. The universe is not required to have the constants it does. If it had different constants, we simply would not be here to observe it. So the SAP is bad logic.

 

The problem is that science does not like to accept the "won the lottery" answer when there was only one ticket sold and it happened to match the number drawn by random. So the search for explanations why the universe has this set of parameters out of an infinite possible set of parameters.

 

Thus we have multiverse and bubble universe and quantum splitting universe. All of these generate an infinite number of universes. Now it becomes virtual certainty that one of the universes will have these parameters just by chance and, of course, we happen to be in that universe.

 

Another approach is to find an underlying theory where the apparently arbitrary parameters are not arbitrary but determined outcomes of the deeper theory. This is one reason why String Theory has been so attractive: many of the arbitrary fine-tuned parameters are determined by the properties of strings and 'branes.

 

And then, of course, is the hypothesis that the universe was created by an intelligent agent who chose the parameters so that the universe would have life.

 

Lots of theories and insufficient data to choose among them.

 

However, what I see in several of the posts is an attempt to make "predictions" or "observational consequences" a criteria to be a scientific theory. By this is meant a prediction other than what we currently observe. IOW, a new Demarcation Criteria is being proposed to separate science from non-science. I submit that this criteria isn't going to work any better than any of the previous proposed criteria. Many theories that we consider scientific do not predict data different from what we already observe. A prime example of that is Hartle-Hawking-Turok's No Boundary. The concepts and parameters of imaginary time are chosen precisely to produce the universe we see. Initially, Hartle-Hawking seemed to predict a universe that would expand and then collapse. When it was found that the universe would expand forever, Turok helped modify No Boundary so that it applied to an ever-expanding universe. The analogical shape was no longer a sphere but a hyperbaloid. No one has suggested or would countenance throwing No Boundary out of science. So the criteria fails. What's more, you have ideas that no one would ever consider to be science that do predict data we haven't seen yet. An extreme example would be Millenialism, which predicts that Yahweh will end the universe and predicts exactly how that will happen. No one would include Millenialism within science.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Either a designer was involved, or a designer was not involved. There are no other options.

 

The methods used by the designer or by chance are totally separate questions. (Although they may give hints as to the answer of the original question.)

 

That is not all the options. The methods used become a new option. You limit the options by saying "designer" or "chance".

1. You can have non-chance but not a designer.

2. You can also have a designer that works by the processes discovered by science.

 

To assume that everything is the intended result of the designers action presupposes omnipotence and omniscience.

 

In this case, the hypothesis does not include everything. For instance, a modified ape would not be intended, but life would be. What has been noticed is that several of the physical parameters of the universe need to be very precise if the universe is to produce life. Change those parameters by 1 part in a billion (some less, some quite a bit more) and life could not have happened in the universe. It appears that the those parameters are arbitrary. That is, they are independent of any other physical process or equation.

 

So the question arises: why does the universe have these parameters. As I noted above, there have been several hypotheses proposed as possible answers:

1. There are a VAST number of universes (perhaps infinite) each with different parameters. Therefore it is certain that one of them will have the parameters in this one.

2. The parameters are not arbitrary. Instead, they are determined by more basic properties of the univeres, i.e. the properties of strings.

3. An intelligent entity chose the parameters when it created the universe.

[JohnB]

That is not all the options. The methods used become a new option. You limit the options by saying "designer" or "chance".

1. You can have non-chance but not a designer.

2. You can also have a designer that works by the processes discovered by science.

Incorrect I'm afraid.

 

Your option 1 means a designer was not involved and option 2 means that a designer was involved. At the base level' date=' there are no other options, it's really a Yes/No deal.

 

That's what I meant when I said that the [i']methods used [/i]were a different question.

[Severian]

SAP: "If our existence depends on the fine tuning of the universal constants, and we exist, then, since we exist, those constants must be fine tuned. "

 

AP: "It must be the case that: if life depends on the fact that the physical constants are fine-tuned, then, since life exists, those constants have those values."

 

That is not quite the definition used in my field (though it may be in yours - I don't know).

 

Your description "AP" is indeed used, and provides constraints on models. This is done pretty much routinely, though I stress that it is a rather weak constraint and is often ignored. (The Standard Model itself would fail this test.)

 

Your "SAP" is almost the anthropic principle as used in String Theory, but instead they would say "those constants must be fine tuned in any universe we exist in". This gets around your logical error, and in fact, if the landscape view of string theory vacua were correct, then you would expect other regions of the universe with non-tuned constants where life didn't exist.

[lucaspa]

Who designed the designer ?

 

Irrelevant right now. We don't know if there is an intelligent agent as designer. If and when we find that there is one, then is the time to ask that question.

 

Think of it this way: when scientists were trying to determine if the entity called Big Bang actually existed/happened, asking "what caused the Big Bang?' was irrelevant. We didn't know (and still don't) but that has no effect on whether Big Bang exists or not.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

That is not quite the definition used in my field (though it may be in yours - I don't know).

 

Which is not the definition? The SAP or the AP? And what definition is used "in your field"? AP is, if anything, in the field of physics.

 

though I stress that it is a rather weak constraint and is often ignored. (The Standard Model itself would fail this test.)

 

I don't see how it could be ignored. The universe is data. If the proposed hypothesis does not produce the universe that exists, then it can't be right. Falsified by existing data.

 

How exactly does the Standard Model fail the AP? From what I have read, the constants are arbitrary in the Standard Model. IOW, there is nothing in the Standard Model to dictate what the constants are.

 

Your "SAP" is almost the anthropic principle as used in String Theory, but instead they would say "those constants must be fine tuned in any universe we exist in". This gets around your logical error,

 

This is an alternatively logically correct way to phrase the AP. Notice that the SAP says the universe itself MUST have the constants. That is, there is no other choice but that the universe has the constants. This version is correct in that, for us to exist, the constants must be what they are. This changes the "must" from the universe itself to our existence, which is correct.

[Severian]

Which is not the definition? The SAP or the AP? And what definition is used "in your field"? AP is, if anything, in the field of physics.

 

I was meaning that the "SAP" was altered in the way I described. The "AP" as you called it is not even considered an anthopic principle at all in physics. It is just confroting data with theory.

 

I don't see how it could be ignored. The universe is data. If the proposed hypothesis does not produce the universe that exists, then it can't be right. Falsified by existing data.

 

How exactly does the Standard Model fail the AP? From what I have read, the constants are arbitrary in the Standard Model. IOW, there is nothing in the Standard Model to dictate what the constants are.

 

Cosmological data is open to interpretation. It uses models to deduce things about fundamental physics. If you disagree with the models you can disagree with the data's application. Also it is hard to know what the consequences for fundamental theories are - maybe data which appears to rule out a fundamental model can be accomodated by a trivial change.

 

The classic example is the baryon asymmetry of the universe. The Standard Model doesn't have enough CP violation in it to explain why there is more matter than antimatter. If matter and antimatter were created in equal amount in the big bang, and asymmetry since has to be caused by this CP violation (and the other Sakharov conditions).

 

But one could argue, maybe there has always been more matter than antimatter and we don't need CP violation at all (in other words, maybe the big bang model is wrong).

 

Alternatively, a trivial extension of the SM would include neutrino masses, and a sterile right-handed neutrino in order to give the neutrinos a small mass via the see-saw mechanism. If so, then there could be CP violation in the neutrino sector which could provide enough CP violation to solve the problem.

[john5746]

Irrelevant right now. We don't know if there is an intelligent agent as designer. If and when we find that there is one, then is the time to ask that question.

 

If someone posits the need for a designer because of complexity or first cause, then this question is relevant, because it reveals the tail chasing that they are engaged in.

 

 

So the question arises: why does the universe have these parameters. As I noted above, there have been several hypotheses proposed as possible answers:

1. There are a VAST number of universes (perhaps infinite) each with different parameters. Therefore it is certain that one of them will have the parameters in this one.

2. The parameters are not arbitrary. Instead, they are determined by more basic properties of the universe, i.e. the properties of strings.

3. An intelligent entity chose the parameters when it created the universe.

 

 

The parameters could be arbitrary just as our earth might be arbitrary - then life adjusted to it, not the other way around. Per Stenger, adjusting several constants, instead of just one at a time - can produce universes that might have life. Our imaginations are also limited as to what type of life can be created. Also, why is life special? Because we think it is? Every possible universe would be fine tuned - if no intelligent entity arises to ask the question, then it was fine tuned to be clean of this viral, messy life?

[swansont]

Sorry, but I do know better. What you haven't realized is that "invisible pink unicorn" is falsified. Think about it. Color comes from the wavelengths of light reflected off an object. If something is invisible it isn't reflecting light, therefore it can't be pink.

 

An object can have a color because it emits light, rather than reflecting it. What color is a neon light?

[Sisyphus]

Maybe it's invisible to us because it has the power to hypnotically convince us it isn't there. Or it's very, very small. Or it's protected by an SEP field. Or "pink" was meant metaphorically, to mean it's homosexual or something. Or it's power is such that it needs to conform to mutual exclusivity of contrary properties (unicorns are, after all, magic, and I'm not so arrogant as to assume I know how everything works). I'm far from ready to throw in the towel on this one, thanks.

[Daecon]

Exactly right! Science disproves entities. What we can't disprove remains on the table as a possibility. We can't "dismiss its existence". You and I can make a personal decision to believe it doesn't exist, but we can't, speaking for science, dismiss its existence.

 

Never play leapfrog with an invisible pink unicorn.

 

As someone involved with a science forum, you should know better.

 

Sorry, but I do know better. What you haven't realized is that "invisible pink unicorn" is falsified. Think about it. Color comes from the wavelengths of light reflected off an object. If something is invisible it isn't reflecting light, therefore it can't be pink.

 

Is a semantic argument the best you can come up with?

 

Reasoning away the colour of the Invisible Pink Unicorn does nothing to disprove the existence of the Unicorn itself as an entity.

 

What if this "Intelligent Designer" was actually a pink Unicorn? We'd still not be able to see it, so it would still be invisible.

 

The only reason I chose the Invisible Pink Unicorn over the Flying Spaghetti Monster was because of the leapfrog pun, but my point still stands; we can't disprove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, so by your logic, it "remains on the table as a possibility".

Edited May 13, 2009 by Transdecimal