Question on Intelligent Design

[Unveiled Artist]

I read this definition "The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." From Discovery.org. It's another way of saying there is a first cause for natural life rather than it happening randomly.

If I did not know anything at all, a blank slate to any knowledge, and just a human being walking around earth, then I see this huge building with individual bricks. I have no language, no concept, and no way to properly analyze what I see and even more complex how it came to be.

If you saw this building, you'd immediately think someone built it so there must be a First Cause. Yet, life isn't caused by an origin but formed by already pre-existing things.

If someone came and built the house, they are not the first cause. They just made it into a shape we identify as a house. The bricks were already there. It was just moved to creation of one thing of illusion (house doesn't exist) to another.

1. So, one I don't understand how there is such a thing as a First Cause. Can you explain that to me by how I can see a building and conclude the building itself (the actual blocks) did not exist until I started putting it together?

2. Then two, there is Intelligence. Not only does there need to be a cause, it needs to be intelligent? Is that another word for, the cause need to be something that can make a pattern?

For example, if the bricks were spread on the floor, it's no longer what we call a house. So, people disregard it as a lump of bricks. But when it's built into a house, then they find value into it.

3. Why do you find value in intelligence (or pattern?) and not that things exist in and of itself?

A lump of bricks is just as valuable (if we, again, had no definition of reference of what that means to us humans) than the house it is made from. That, and it's an illusion to think there is such thing as a house built by nature.

4. So are you guys looking far more into a pattern that does not exist from nature's perspective?

All I said above has nothing to do with god. It is just asking how there is a first cause, what does it mean, and the definition and function of it being intelligent.

5. If there was a god or creator (Entity that creates without referred to any specific religion), that adds some more confusion to my head. If there is an entity, what is the nature of this entity?

7. If you were to describe First Cause other than it being, well, the First cause, how would you describe what it is?

Then go a bit further.

8. How in the world did you come up with the First Cause being a Who?

Take your time. I do want answers to these questions from both creationist, non-creationist, and those in between.

I don't know anything about evolution and never was into it. What I do know but would like to go to our local museum since it was there that we came from water. So, I'd like to explore that more. But again, that doesn't mean there is a first cause just a place of origin.

 

[metis]

According to researcher Leonard Susskind, he says that a majority of cosmologists are drifting in the direction that there was always matter/energy/subatomic particles in what may be a multiverse and not just a universe. IOW, "infinity" may preclude a "primary cause".

 

[Polymath257]

Well, the first question when proposing that an intelligence is operating is to figure out what can happen *without* that intelligence.

This is a *common* issue in anthropology. We come upon a site with animal bones and rocks that are chipped. Is this a site that happened naturally? or was it a site where some intelligent agent was operating? How do we distinguish the two?

And, of course, the answer is to know what naturally happens to rocks that fall and chip, or how animal bones naturally break, or even what the differences are between human action and the action of other predators and scavengers.

Perhaps the biggest problem with ID is that the range of possibilities that can happen naturally *without* intelligent intervention is not understood well enough. So, can the diversity of life be explained *without* an intelligent agent? Can the universe around us be explained *without* invoking intelligence? At what point does an intelligent agent become a *better* explanation than the simple action of natural laws?

These questions are *never* addressed by ID. Until they are, ID will go precisely nowhere scientifically.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I read this definition "The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." From Discovery.org. It's another way of saying there is a first cause for natural life rather than it happening randomly.

If I did not know anything at all, a blank slate to any knowledge, and just a human being walking around earth, then I see this huge building with individual bricks. I have no language, no concept, and no way to properly analyze what I see and even more complex how it came to be.

If you saw this building, you'd immediately think someone built it so there must be a First Cause. Yet, life isn't caused by an origin but formed by already pre-existing things.

If someone came and built the house, they are not the first cause. They just made it into a shape we identify as a house. The bricks were already there. It was just moved to creation of one thing of illusion (house doesn't exist) to another.

1. So, one I don't understand how there is such a thing as a First Cause. Can you explain that to me by how I can see a building and conclude the building itself (the actual blocks) did not exist until I started putting it together?

2. Then two, there is Intelligence. Not only does there need to be a cause, it needs to be intelligent? Is that another word for, the cause need to be something that can make a pattern?

For example, if the bricks were spread on the floor, it's no longer what we call a house. So, people disregard it as a lump of bricks. But when it's built into a house, then they find value into it.

3. Why do you find value in intelligence (or pattern?) and not that things exist in and of itself?

A lump of bricks is just as valuable (if we, again, had no definition of reference of what that means to us humans) than the house it is made from. That, and it's an illusion to think there is such thing as a house built by nature.

4. So are you guys looking far more into a pattern that does not exist from nature's perspective?

All I said above has nothing to do with god. It is just asking how there is a first cause, what does it mean, and the definition and function of it being intelligent.

5. If there was a god or creator (Entity that creates without referred to any specific religion), that adds some more confusion to my head. If there is an entity, what is the nature of this entity?

7. If you were to describe First Cause other than it being, well, the First cause, how would you describe what it is?

Then go a bit further.

8. How in the world did you come up with the First Cause being a Who?

Take your time. I do want answers to these questions from both creationist, non-creationist, and those in between.

I don't know anything about evolution and never was into it. What I do know but would like to go to our local museum since it was there that we came from water. So, I'd like to explore that more. But again, that doesn't mean there is a first cause just a place of origin.

If you see 'HELP' written in rocks on a deserted island beach, zero evidence of anyone ever being there, do you default to the explanation that the waves washed them up that way?

Why not?

It's about power of explanation, inference to the best explanation, regardless of which answer is 'preferred'

With QM, subatomic physics, solid matter itself becomes an illusion of sorts- i.e. it's not so much about where all the 'bricks' came from- they arguably don't really exist in any solid form. The question is where the information came from, that describes the structures, math, algorithms, instructions that make this whole building function

similarly with this forum software, these images on screen have no real structure, but require a nested hierarchy of information systems to function- just like DNA, and all the chemistry, physics that supports it.

So we know for sure that creative intelligence can produce novel information systems, we are using proof of that right now. But can blind, random, naturalistic, unguided mechanisms achieve likewise? creation without creativity?

We simply don't know, it's an interesting idea. But as in the analogy, even if this were technically possible, that still does not = 'the best explanation'

 

[Unveiled Artist]

According to researcher Leonard Susskind, he says that a majority of cosmologists are drifting in the direction that there was always matter/energy/subatomic particles in what may be a multiverse and not just a universe. IOW, "infinity" may preclude a "primary cause".

That would make sense if there were always matter. It would describe why people say "god" doesnt have a beginning. If O connected the two.

Though would cause be the right word or is energy created from nothing?

 

[Jose Fly]

I read this definition "The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." From Discovery.org. It's another way of saying there is a first cause for natural life rather than it happening randomly.

Actually it's not even that. If you look at it closely you'll find it's pretty much nonsense.

"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things" What "certain features"? And by what method do we differentiate "designed" things from "undesigned"? ID creationists can't say, which means the opening statement is nothing more than a vague, meaningless assertion.

"are best explained by an intelligent cause" And what exactly is that explanation? Again, ID creationists can't say, which makes this yet another meaningless assertion.

"not an undirected process such as natural selection" This is a negative assertion, and such things are not proper in scientific theories. Also, does this mean that the "intelligence" cannot utilize selective pressures to achieve an end? We already know of several examples of intelligent beings doing so.......us. So why can't other intelligent beings?

So you see, this "theory" is nothing of the sort, and is nothing more than a series of nonspecific, empty assertions.

If I did not know anything at all, a blank slate to any knowledge, and just a human being walking around earth, then I see this huge building with individual bricks. I have no language, no concept, and no way to properly analyze what I see and even more complex how it came to be.

If you saw this building, you'd immediately think someone built it so there must be a First Cause. Yet, life isn't caused by an origin but formed by already pre-existing things.

If someone came and built the house, they are not the first cause. They just made it into a shape we identify as a house. The bricks were already there. It was just moved to creation of one thing of illusion (house doesn't exist) to another.

That's a good philosophical point, but from a practical standpoint it still has a common fallacy at its core. ID creationists can't point to anything in the natural world that they've determined to have been "designed" and explain how they made that determination, so they try and analogize to non-living things that humans have built. But because things like buildings and living cells are so fundamentally different on so many levels, that's the fallacy of false analogy.

2. Then two, there is Intelligence. Not only does there need to be a cause, it needs to be intelligent? Is that another word for, the cause need to be something that can make a pattern?

Also, if we're really going to follow this analogy (even though it's fallacious), then we must also conclude that the "designer" has opposable thumbs, has stereoscopic vision, and is bipedal.

All I said above has nothing to do with god. It is just asking how there is a first cause, what does it mean, and the definition and function of it being intelligent.

Keep in mind that ID creationism is all about God. It's nothing more than Biblical creationism deliberately stripped of its overt Biblical references in order to circumvent court rulings that banned teaching creationism in science classes. The folks at the Discovery Institute (where you got the "theory" description) made this very clear in their internal "Wedge Strategy". It starts off with, "The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built." And if that's not enough, later they leave no room for doubt as to what this entire thing is really about: "Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."

So while your points and questions may not have anything to do with God, for the ID creationists, God is the whole point.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

It's just religious people trying to come up with other ways to say that their creation myth actually happened. It's nonsense to anyone who doesn't believe in creation myths formulated by ancient goat herders and farmers who understood nothing about the world or universe.

 

[Valjean]

If you see 'HELP' written in rocks on a deserted island beach, zero evidence of anyone ever being there, do you default to the explanation that the waves washed them up that way?

Why not?

It's about power of explanation, inference to the best explanation, regardless of which answer is 'preferred'

With QM, subatomic physics, solid matter itself becomes an illusion of sorts- i.e. it's not so much about where all the 'bricks' came from- they arguably don't really exist in any solid form. The question is where the information came from, that describes the structures, math, algorithms, instructions that make this whole building function

similarly with this forum software, these images on screen have no real structure, but require a nested hierarchy of information systems to function- just like DNA, and all the chemistry, physics that supports it.

So we know for sure that creative intelligence can produce novel information systems, we are using proof of that right now. But can blind, random, naturalistic, unguided mechanisms achieve likewise? creation without creativity?

We simply don't know, it's an interesting idea. But as in the analogy, even if this were technically possible, that still does not = 'the best explanation'

But we do know of natural, unguided systems that can create order from disorder. Invoking a magical, invisible deus ex machina is both unnecessary and absurd.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

If we used the common argument used about the design of the human eye, we can still hold assumptions of course that because the eye functions in a specific way, patterned "just right" (as they say) to work as needed, it can't be done at random but needed someone "intelligent" to do so.

What boggles me in my post is that life in and of itself doesn't have a pattern without the human brain naturally making patterns to live and survive. We project what we think (our assertions) to what, without our assertions, would not exist (such as the human eye) by design.

In other words, our assertions does not mean the human eye has a design.

Yet, can we agree that, to us, it is not randomly put together but to nature, it is?

Creationists assume that because we see a pattern it should be projected on nature that nature has, in itself, a pattern. It's a reflection of our intelligence not an outside one.

"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things" What "certain features"? And by what method do we differentiate "designed" things from "undesigned"?

If I went by the brain (which is easier for me to describe) when the brain works well, the neurons fire and our thoughts are put together by information we already collected from external (and what we think is internal) sources.

When someone has a seizure, those neurons are disrupted naturally. The brain did what it's supposed to do at that particular point in time and, in seizures, it goes back to how it was before. When I had a seizure (I have Epilepsy), one of the doctors explained seizures are natural. The issue is not the seizure itself but the affects it has on the brain and its unpredictability.

Likewise, with cancer, it would be the same way. Cells split naturally. The body reacts and tries to heal itself. The body is not meant to live forever, so even though we try to extend life, at the end, it is meant to go down hill.

So, that differentiates design. It's something we define not something that's defined in and of itself.

So, there wouldn't be an intelligent design because nature, in and of itself, does what it does without us. Whether it be having a seizure or developing cancer.

So you see, this "theory" is nothing of the sort, and is nothing more than a series of nonspecific, empty assertions.

I wouldn't say empty. They do have their place. Just from a human perspective not present in and of itself.

So there can't be a first cause because life/energy exists without beginning nor end. The first cause can't be intelligent because if it were, that's projecting our projection and definition of design on what is not in and of itself.

But it still begs the question on the logic of how a first cause came to be. I know it sounds empty and nonsense but that doesn't mean it can't be logical. It's perfectly logical that a child would think he has five fingers on each hand until he is taught that thumbs aren't considered fingers. (As so I was taught) That doesn't mean his guess is not logical; it just means, it's not correct.

 

[Sapiens]

But can blind, random, naturalistic, unguided mechanisms achieve likewise? creation without creativity?

I (and I'm sure most other people here) are rather sick and tired of having to correct your straw-man fallacies. Mutation supplies the raw materials and natural section provides the "guidance" why is it so hard for you to remember that?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

But we do know of natural, unguided systems that can create order from disorder. Invoking a magical, invisible deus ex machina is both unnecessary and absurd.

like?

 

[metis]

Though would cause be the right word or is energy created from nothing?

But the concept of "infinity" basically means that nothing has a "primary cause", therefore there never was "nothing".

What's ironic is that many theists insist that there had to be a god as a primary cause because nothing can cause itself, but then they contradict themselves by saying that this deity had no cause. Plus, how could they possibly know that this deity had no cause? Were they there when god was uncaused?

I don't know what started out universe/multiverse, and I realize and am willing to accept the fact that I don't know and couldn't know.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

But the concept of "infinity" basically means that nothing has a "primary cause", therefore there never was "nothing".

What's ironic is that many theists insist that there had to be a god as a primary cause because nothing can cause itself, but then they contradict themselves by saying that this deity had no cause. Plus, how could they possibly know that this deity had no cause? Were they there when god was uncaused?

I don't know what started out universe/multiverse, and I realize and am willing to accept the fact that I don't know and couldn't know.

I actually never really thought of it in the spiritual sense. I figure I cant know what I cant experience and/or observe regardless if its a spiritual experience or someone wackin' me up side my head. Thats usually what I get is "but you havent wondered Why we are here?" And its almost a peer preasure to think in terms of origin rather than present.

I agree, that is a contradiction. Remember, though, god is he only exception to the rules because he created the rules in which someone he cant break. I dont know. Jigsaw puzzle.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I (and I'm sure most other people here) are rather sick and tired of having to correct your straw-man fallacies. Mutation supplies the raw materials and natural section provides the "guidance" why is it so hard for you to remember that?

Well ID science looks at accounting for the very origins of the information systems in the cell, as well as how they operate thereafter. Evolution doesn't account for the origins as I often here evolutionists concede.
So I understand your confusion there, but on the selection process:

remember that natural selection of a significantly superior design goes entirely without saying, intelligent design does not dispute this, that's why there are still Ford Mustangs and not Ford Pintos- I don't really know anybody who disputes this so that's the 900 Lb straw man in the room

The real question is how these superior designs first arise, in order to be selected. We know unambiguously that creative intelligence can do this.

But the ToE posits pure, blind chance to supply the superior designs, that's where things get rather problematic

 

[Quintessence]

"1. So, one I don't understand how there is such a thing as a First Cause. Can you explain that to me by how I can see a building and conclude the building itself (the actual blocks) did not exist until I started putting it together?"

One might speculate that this has to do with human cognitive processes - in particular the human ability to recognize patterns and to seek out causality. When we witness something in our environment, we assume it had to have some sort of cause or origin. We seem to love origin stories, mythologically, and tell them all the time across cultures and generations. Knowing how things came to be can frame the meaning and context of the present.

There are other angles one might take with this, but this is the simplest to articulate for me at present.

"2. Then two, there is Intelligence. Not only does there need to be a cause, it needs to be intelligent? Is that another word for, the cause need to be something that can make a pattern?"

Truly, I am uncertain. I'm not a fan of the word "intelligence;" it is as muddy as a farm yard pig pen after a torrential rain storm. It ranks up there with "spiritual" on my list of fluffy, non-substantive words that I tend to eschew from my vocabulary entirely.

"3. Why do you find value in intelligence (or pattern?) and not that things exist in and of itself?"

I'm not sure I would see these as opposed to one another or mutually exclusive. But I also don't seem to frame things this way, so... again, I dunno.

"4. So are you guys looking far more into a pattern that does not exist from nature's perspective?"

This is interesting. What is "nature's perspective?" How do you know these patterns do not exist from said perspective? I'm not sure I would follow the assumption you make here that these patterns do not exist from this alleged "nature's perspective.". Humans and other animals capable of pattern recognition (because this is not exclusive to us) are all part of nature, yes? Thus, it seems that patterns very much exist from "nature's perspective." That said, I'm not sure the phrase "nature's perspective" makes much sense to me. It's talking about hundreds of trillions of points of view as if they're singular and unified... which is just weird to me. I might say there is no "nature's perspective" at all, perhaps.

Don't have time for the rest right now. May have the time to come back to it.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

But we do know of natural, unguided systems that can create order from disorder. Invoking a magical, invisible deus ex machina is both unnecessary and absurd.

Thats the thing. Whats wrong with disorder? What is the difference in and of itself between disorder and order that in terms one is more valuable than the other from natures view?

 

[Valjean]

like?

Chemistry, physics, natural selection....

Well ID science looks at accounting for the very origins of the information systems in the cell, as well as how they operate thereafter. Evolution doesn't account for the origins as I often here evolutionists concede.
So I understand your confusion there, but on the selection process:

How is ID science? It's a priori, it's not evidence based, it's not testable, it's not falsifiable, it's not peer reviewed, it doesn't employ scientific method at all.

Evolution doesn't account for the origins for the same reason aeronautical engineering doesn't -- it's not part of the discipline.

remember that natural selection of a significantly superior design goes entirely without saying, intelligent design does not dispute this, that's why there are still Ford Mustangs and not Ford Pintos- I don't really know anybody who disputes this so that's the 900 Lb straw man in the room

I don't get your point. Clarify?

The real question is how these superior designs first arise, in order to be selected. We know unambiguously that creative intelligence can do this.

We know nothing of the sort. Where are you coming up with this? You can't even establish the existence of this creative designer.
How superior designs arise is obvious -- variation. Haven't you ever seen a litter of puppies? Don't they vary in color, body type, coat length, &c? In a given environment some of these traits could be beneficial, some not. Why is this hard to understand?

But the ToE posits pure, blind chance to supply the superior designs, that's where things get rather problematic

So what do you think creates the variation in puppies -- divine intervention?

Thats the thing. Whats wrong with disorder? What is the difference in and of itself between disorder and order that in terms one is more valuable than the other from natures view?

Who's saying there's anything wrong with disorder? The world's full of disorder. No-one's making any value judgements about it. Some things are orderly, some not. That's just the way it is.

 

[Jose Fly]

Well ID science looks at accounting for the very origins of the information systems in the cell,

I know Guy doesn't respond to questions, but if any other ID creationist would care to give this one a try.....

Exactly how does ID creationism "account for the very origins of the information systems in the cell"? What mechanism do they propose is responsible? When did the event(s) occur? Where did the event(s) occur (e.g., on earth, in space, some other planet)?

I've seen ID creationists make assertions along the lines of "ID provides a superior explanation for ____________", but whenever I've asked just what that explanation is, they can't say. Somehow I doubt this time around will be any different.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Chemistry, physics, natural selection....

all supported by predetermined universal constants, math, algorithms I'm afraid.

How is ID science? It's a priori, it's not evidence based, it's not testable, it's not falsifiable, it's not peer reviewed, it doesn't employ scientific method at all.

quite the opposite

Unlike Darwinsim, ID science actually accepts the empirical scientific evidence- that the gaps in the fossil record are real, not simply artifacts of an incomplete record as predicted 150 years ago, and some denominations of evolutionists are beginning to accept this also. It has no need for artistic impressions of imaginary creatures

It also proposes a proven mechanism for the origination of novel digital information systems required to operate life; creative intelligence. It does not have to imagine some unknown spontaneous mechanism doing likewise- we don't even know if this is possible far less the most probable

Evolution doesn't account for the origins for the same reason aeronautical engineering doesn't -- it's not part of the discipline.
I don't get your point. Clarify?

That's another advantage of ID, it offers an explanation for both

We know nothing of the sort. Where are you coming up with this? You can't even establish the existence of this creative designer.

hint: you are using proof of it right now (unless you think this software also spontaneously wrote itself for no particular reason)

How superior designs arise is obvious -- variation. Haven't you ever seen a litter of puppies? Don't they vary in color, body type, coat length, &c? In a given environment some of these traits could be beneficial, some not. Why is this hard to understand?

I've seen lots, they were all puppies, none had wings

So what do you think creates the variation in puppies -- divine intervention?

again, this software supports variation in text color, size, style, just like dogs come with a capacity for similar variation, otherwise they'd all be clones- it's a pretty logical thing to include in any design

But in either case you cannot write the digital code that supports a capacity for variation- by using the very variation that code supports- : insurmountable paradox

 

[McBell]

Well ID science looks at accounting for the very origins of the information systems in the cell, as well as how they operate thereafter.

What a load of crap.
ID does no such thing.
"GodDidIt" is not an answer for anyone being honest with themselves.

Evolution doesn't account for the origins as I often here evolutionists concede.

So you really should stop making that same mistake over and over.
Makes you look weak minded.

So I understand your confusion there, but on the selection process:

remember that natural selection of a significantly superior design goes entirely without saying, intelligent design does not dispute this, that's why there are still Ford Mustangs and not Ford Pintos- I don't really know anybody who disputes this so that's the 900 Lb straw man in the room

The real question is how these superior designs first arise, in order to be selected. We know unambiguously that creative intelligence can do this.

But the ToE posits pure, blind chance to supply the superior designs, that's where things get rather problematic

again you make the same mistakes over and over.
Your continued use of "superior" reveals you do not learn from past mistakes.

Extremely difficult to take you seriously when you are so overly proud of displaying your ignorance.