Does Intelligent Design Require a God or Super Natural Being?

[Parsimony]

I haven't established any burden of proof for godhood.

Hence why I asked the question. Would such a being not necessarily be a god to you then?

 

[Skwim]

Hence why I asked the question. Would such a being not necessarily be a god to you then?

No. Because I don't believe there's a god I let others define it however they wish.

.

 

[Valjean]

OK, here's the problem, as I see it. Dante has redefined ID to mean genetic engineering by extraterrestrials, and speculates that they could have seeded life here. Inasmuch as the engineers were intelligent and designed organisms, they were intelligent designers. By this definition Dante's correct: ID does not deal with abiogenesis or posit any supernatural agency.

However, this isn't the definition anyone else is using.
"Intelligent design" began as a rebranding of creationism. The creationist textbook Of Pandas and People changed "creationism" to "Intelligent design," in an effort to make it acceptable as a scientific text, but the book was still challenged in the "Dover Panda Trial" -- Kitzmiller v Dover, which found that ID was an alternative term for Creationism; that it was not science, but a religious argument.

ID, as used by everyone but Dante, asserts a supernatural origin of life and usually argues against evolution.

 

[SkepticThinker]

A wordpress blog with no verified quotes and no links to a source.

Here you go:
https://web.archive.org/web/2008040.../article,2394,Lying-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins


And here's another piece in wrote in 2008:
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042.../opinion/la-oe-dawkins18apr18,0,2798612.story

Whether Dawkins walked back his statement after being pressured by the science community is irrelevant. He said it and has never denied it.

So you think he "walked back his statement" as if he were pressured by the science community but "has never denied it?" If he walked back is statement then he denied it.
He denied it.

He did not say it did happen only that it could and implausible is not impossible.

He didn't say it quite in the way that is implied in the movie.
"This 'Ultimate 747' argument, as I called it in The God Delusion, may or may not persuade you. That is not my concern here. My concern here is that my science fiction thought experiment -- however implausible -- was designed to illustrate intelligent design's closest approach to being plausible. I was most emphaticaly NOT saying that I believed the thought experiment. Quite the contrary. I do not believe it (and I don't think Francis Crick believed it either). I was bending over backwards to make the best case I could for a form of intelligent design. And my clear implication was that the best case I could make was a very implausible case indeed. In other words, I was using the thought experiment as a way of demonstrating strong opposition to all theories of intelligent design."

It is no more implausible than organic life forming from inorganic materials!

That's your opinion.

 

[Dante Writer]

I disagree. This is a package deal.

I don't believe you can say one was created intelligently and the other not. They are not mutually exclusive.

Sure they are!

We clone and create genetically modified organism all the time through intelligent design.

Has nothing to do with creating the universe we live in.

 

[Sapiens]

OK but intelligent Design generally refers to how life came to be on this planet and not necessarily how the universe formed.

You can take it to that extent but then you are wandering into creationism which is not the same as Intelligent Design.

You problem is twofold:

1. Explaining the creation of the creative force or the creation of the creative force ...
2. Dealing with the issue of parsimony ... you can completely avoid the issue by, till proved otherwise, the basic outline of abiogeneis, which only leaves you without explanation for the origin of hydrogen atoms and their constituent parts.

 

[RRex]

Sure they are!

We clone and create genetically modified organism all the time through intelligent design.

Has nothing to do with creating the universe we live in.

It is you who are wandering into Creationism.

Citing human tampering with DNA as your example, you have refuted your own argument.

Scientists are creating things which do not naturally exist in the world by manipulating existing design.

 

[minorwork]

Intelligent Designer? What we know we do have are Intelligent Definers.

The speed of evolution has been a private concern for me. The speediest that I'm capable of understanding takes place in the human brain which tries out in a virtual world of ideas what is hoped to be in the world of perceptions. This can apply to organisms like phytoplankton which has seen CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing applied to improve efficiency of photosynthesis.

Given such as the "thought experiments" typically seen as Einstein's forte, the locus of evolution is in the speed of selection that can be accomplished in thought. Much more efficient and directed to human purpose independent of reproductive strategies.

What we have are Intelligible Definers at work looking to a supernatural fantasy to enable a justification for ruling over others without limit.

 

[Etritonakin]

I find it ironic that there is so much ridicule of the idea of species being directly created even as we near being able to directly create new and unique species from scratch.

Evolution obviously happens -but direct creation is obviously possible.
Direct creation of an evolving species is possible.

The idea that the first life on Earth (as well as Earth) was directly created about 6,000 years ago is obviously untrue -but that is not actually what the bible says.

What is written in Genesis -especially when compared to other scriptures -is an account of a renewal after some sort of extinction event (which required that even the relative positions/motion of heavenly bodies be adjusted -or corrected).

While not stated, Genesis does allow for both evolution and direct creation.

 

[gnostic]

Did you not bother to read the original post with the statement by Dawkin's?

Actually, you don't understand what Dawkins was saying, that he brought a possible scenario that aliens could possibly seeded this planet, with life.

I must stress the word "possible", don't necessarily mean "probable", and it certainly don't mean "actual".

Second, Dawkins presented scenario of advanced alien civilisation is what-if, but it would - judging from your replies to others - you seemed to believe that it actually happen.

Well, let's make clear to you as unambiguous as possible, since have to knack for either taking Dawkins out of context or deliberately (and most likely dishonestly) twisting his words:

WHAT DAWKINS STATED IN YOUR OP IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC THEORY, AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCES THAT SUPPORT DAWKINS' WHAT-IF SCENARIO!

I don't think he mean anyone to take this so seriously as you obviously have.

Third. Evolution is not and have never been about how life started on earth. Evolution is about HOW life change in certain circumstances, like

1. change in environment that encourage one parent to seek another with the best traits that suit the changes in climate, terrains or availability (or scarcity) of food (hence Natural Selection),
2. or changes happening through less control or less predictability (like Mutation)
3. or changes that occur due to a new population being introduced to the existing population, producing new breeds(Gene Flow).

Life have to already exist in order for there be any "evolving".

So when you attempt to compare either creationism or intelligent design with evolution, then you are barking up the wrong tree, Dante.

And I will repeat what I said earlier, evolution is not about the first life form on earth. If you really want to discuss or debate about how first life form, then you should do some reading and research on ABIOGENESIS, not evolution.

That you can't seem to distinguish between evolution and abiogenesis, only demonstrate that you don't know as much as you think you do.

Fourth, Intelligent Design as given and advocated by those from Discovery Institute (DI), is nothing more than (Christian) creationism in disguise. Whether you call this all-powerful being "God", "Creator" or "Designer", they all mean the same thing, a supernatural being from the bible, except they are trying their hardest, not to mention God or bible.

The Discovery Institute's version of ID have nothing to do with advanced alien civilisation, as have been revealed in their no longer "secret" manifesto that hide their agenda - the Wedge Document.

The Wedge Document is available on-line, so read it.

The Wedge Document revealed their dishonesty of attempting to make creationism acceptable in science classrooms through courts, PR and propaganda, NOT THROUGH SCIENCE.

The Intelligent Design is as much pseudoscience as creationism.

And lastly, this whole advanced alien civilisation seeding life on earth, is nothing more than pseudoscience. It lack credibility, and more importantly, there are no evidences to support this scenario.

And you don't have any more credibility than those people thought and believe aliens were the ones who created the great pyramids of Giza, or those hill figures, as signposts.

All I see you doing, is taking Dawkins saying out of context.

 

[Etritonakin]

One of the reasons I believe evolutionists and creationists get into heated battles is because religions and specifically the Christian religion has made intelligent design synonymous with a belief in a God or Super Natural Being and that completely ignores the other forms that Intelligent design could take.

I would first point out Dawkin's statements as evidence:

BEN STEIN: What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?

DAWKINS: Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.

Intelligent Design therefore does not replace the evolution theory and it does not require a God or Super Natural Being and is a logical theory that life on earth was seeded intentionally or accidentally from another planet.

This would explain how evolution could happen at a faster rate and why we do not find the smooth progression in our fossil records as it may be hidden in our DNA to evolve when a condition is present.

Just my thoughts and your opinions are welcome no matter how bizarre!

Design requires intelligence -and intelligence requires design. Increasingly complex intelligence requires increasingly complex design. Intelligence and design are essentially the same thing -or parts of the same thing -one cannot exist without the other. Intelligence and design increase in complexity together.

What we see as intelligence is an arrangement of more simple processes -which are themselves an arrangement of basic interactions.
Those basic interactions are simple data which present themselves -are present, but can be arranged to represent other things if a complex arrangement exists to do so.
What we see as non-intelligence is of the same "stuff" -basic interactions , but which are not arranged in the same manner. It is still data -but not processed similarly (not part of a complex process).

Any arrangement is indicative of that which preceded it -and that which preceded it must have been capable of producing it.
Certain arrangements must precede other arrangements. Certain things require a certain amount of intelligence -or data-processing ability (complex interaction arrangement ability made possible by simpler interaction arrangement).

Everything HAS design -is of a specific arrangement (designation) -down to the most basic interaction. The most simple data is also the most simple design.

Technically, if there is a most basic interaction, there is also a most basic self-awareness -though not the sort of complex self-awareness which requires a complex self.
For example...our bodies are aware of themselves (though they are not aware of that fact) -even more so than "we" are aware of our bodies. We know we exist -we know our basic form -but we do not inherently know much else.
If we could look into a sort of mirror (image of state -record of previous states) which reflected every last detail and process -and our minds could process the data -we would have complete self-awareness. Still... all of that is based on the most simple interactions. Without interaction of some sort, there is no awareness -and the most basic interaction is the most basic self.

We are aware OF interactions -and we are aware BY interactions.
It may seem ridiculous to say that if a hammer hits a nail, the hammer and nail are aware of each other at that point -but the basis of our self-awareness is even more simple.

We may believe a rock to be non-living, but is it any more dead than our hair or nails?
Are we deducing that there was no original intelligent designer because we can only see its toenail?

An intelligent designer (designator) need not be self-aware -at least at a certain point -it needs only to be aware (able to sense by interaction) and able to process/designate according to parameters -but certain complex designs must be preceded by complex self-awareness.

Certain designs indicate certain levels of complex self-awareness -though a complex self-awareness is also capable of designs which do not indicate it.

If we think of "everything" as one -one self -one self-same thing -and God as the one by whom all things consist -then God would be an arrangement of that self capable of arranging what followed. Does what now exists indicate the existence of a complex self-awareness?

The problem humans have is that we make deductions from within an environment which is already of a specific arrangement. We do not actually know what it is arranged from -we do not understand the most basic interactions. We see our selves as part of an environment -but separate from it in certain ways. We know that we owe our existence -at least in part -to our environment -but we wonder whether our environment owes its existence to a self.

We may deduce that the universe did not require a creator -but it did -simply because it was created. It was not -and then it was. The only question is whether it knew -at that point -what it was doing. We are able to say that the universe was its own creator -so why could that not be true of the original "self" -and how would an original self differ from other selves?

One indication of self-awareness is the creation of an environment -or things in the environment -for the self -which indicate the nature of the self and knowledge of the nature of the self by the self... but can it be said that the very existence of "the" environment is indicative of an overall self-aware self? It is certainly indication of complex intelligence and data processing -but at what point must there be what level of self-awareness?

Is the following true? Just thought it -haven't had time to think about it

"Another indication of self-awareness is the creation of an environment -or things in an environment -for other self-aware selves of which the original self is aware."

Does the nature of the universe indicate the existence of a self-aware self which knew we would exist?


WILL CONTINUE IN ANOTHER POST LATER -still not really finished -but have to go do stuff
(I am wondering whether a complex non-self-aware intelligent designer (designator) must have been preceded by -designed by -a complex self-aware intelligent designer able to set the parameters by intent.

Evolution is an aware designator -which produces arrangements by the parameters set by its own arrangement and in response to interaction with the external.
Before that was the "big bang" -which was also an aware designator which designated according to certain parameters.
We know that the elements and forces -now that they exist as an arrangement -are subject to the influence of self-aware intelligent designers, because we are now of such an arrangement and have done so.
Evolution -by its set parameters AND outside influence (which we do not fully understand and which we know can include influence by self-aware intelligent designers) -is capable of producing self-aware intelligent designers.
We know that a self-aware intelligent designer can now initiate evolution by causing a specific arrangement by a specific process.)

 

[Etritonakin]

So... How might the original self exist or travel to exist?

I have no clue -but do think about it.

Such would be the one thing which could become everything.

We see from the field of computing that simple on and off states can represent a reality -and essentially represent anything -any sort of reality. We call it virtual reality -but it is an extension of actual reality, and would be quite real to a self within that reality. A self within that reality would also be a representation which was the result of an arrangement of simple on and off states. That self would perceive representations which appeared to be various things.
Similarly, the things we perceive as objects, for example, are representations which are made up of other things -which are made up of other things.

An original self which was the beginning of all things might begin with simple interaction -even some sort of on and off state which could somehow compound and become arranged. It would not -perhaps -necessarily begin in a state of being able to say "I AM" as we understand it now. Even our stating "I am" means different things as we change state -and was true before we were able to state it as we are now able.

Some believe our own self-awareness is the product of random events happening in a certain order -but what is certain is that it is the product of things happening in a certain order.

If our self-awareness was the product of random events -we still can see that we could create another self-awareness with intent.

However, that which happened before an original self was capable of complex intent would not truly be random -but inevitable.
Similarly... That which resulted in our self-awareness (if not intended by an original) would not be truly random -but inevitable. We can think of things being different if they happened differently -but they did not. They could not have because they did not.
Only if our self-awareness was by the intent of another could it possibly have been otherwise (but even when choice is possible, certain choices are inevitable -and there are no good reasons to not make certain choices.)

it seems to me that an original must have self-arranged -design and intelligence increasing in tandem -before the existence of our environment and ourselves was possible.... And I will try to explain it better later...
The religious might see that as saying that God had a beginning -but I see it as saying that God was the beginning -as God has stated -though I do not know the truth of the matter for certain.

 

[Etritonakin]

It is the ordering of the environment which preceded physical (element-based) life in the universe which leads me to think that an original complex self-awareness existed to order it.
It may appear to us that a complex environment must precede and produce a complex self-awareness such as ourselves -because we cannot see beyond the Big Bang -but I am thinking that an original self-awareness would necessarily have ordered any sort of environment after it ordered itself to a certain level of capability, became aware that nothing was external to itself thus far (by reversing the "mirror" which allowed for self-awareness), and then arranged an environment.
That environment would include any sort of "body" or interface necessary to interact with the more-external environment as it was arranged.
That environment would be of the same stuff as the self-awareness -would essentially be part of the original self -but would become separate -bordered -by arrangement.
It may seem strange to think of our bodies as an environment -but they are the immediate environment of our mind, and "the" environment is more external.
Our bodies become ordered before we knowingly inhabit them -but the original would have brought its own body and environment into existence by ordering them.

Perhaps a self must have first existed to create an environment of or for itself -as the self would be the processor, and the environment that which is processed.
Then processing ability could be moved to the environment.

We would be similar to the original -but in somewhat reverse order to the original. That which caused us is a sort of mold from which we are cast -similar, but opposite.

We tend to think of God as creating more stuff -but perhaps God is "one" -and infinite creation is actually a matter of infinite subdivision.
An original might possibly reproduce itself by direct self-replicating subdivision -which would produce an equal -but order requires that authority not be equally divided.
Perhaps that is (or is similar to) the nature of God and the Word.

 

[Faronator]

Exactly and neither are proven so neither should be taught as fact. Yet schools do often portray Darwin's evolution theory as a fact.

My 10th grade Biology teacher most definitely presented it as fact and while I do think evolution is unarguable - the THEORY of evolution is not fact.