So, where is Intelligence in the Design? — Jacob-B

It wouldn't seem to be in the seven or so great extinction events so far.

At its base, intelligent design is a failed argument for sure, but I don't think pointing out that there are more efficient designs does anything other than removing the omnipotence of the intelligent designer. That is, we can still allow for an intelligent designer even with your criticism, but we'd just have to admit he's pretty intelligent, but not infinitely intelligent.

The OP isn't strictly challenging the premise of intelligence, rather, also the conclusion that the universe was made for humans. And I totally agree with the second part. The resources of the universe; the provenance of life on earth; evolution; the inter-relation between different frequencies of energy with respect to forms, forces and activities within space and time; micro and macrocosm analogical similarities; identical fundamental components; etc, etc, all hint at a more diverse application than to propagate and nurture humans on one little blue planet.

For me, it would be unintelligent to waste such resources as are present in the universe on humans alone which is why I accept the premise of variety of alien life-forms. That is partly because, from the configurations and operations of existences within our planet, I choose to conclude the fact of intelligence based on the relation between simplicity and utility in nature.

Which is easier to accept, that there is no intelligence in the design or that it is wrong to conclude that everything was made solely for humans?

Which is easier to accept, that there is no intelligence in the design or that it is wrong to conclude that everything was made solely for humans? — BrianW

Humans became way later on, and that even within 5% of the types of energy in the universe.

Which is easier to accept, that there is no intelligence in the design or that it is wrong to conclude that everything was made solely for humans? — BrianW

The latter dispute (whether the ultimate purpose of the intelligent designer were to design humans) seems largely a straw man. I say largely because I guess there might actually be some intelligent design believers who hold it, but it seems an aside to the general proposition that the complexity of the world (from the spinning of the planets to the human eyeball) arose from purpose rather than trial and error. I take ID to be an attempt to disprove evolution generally, not a developed theological position that attempts to establish a basis for why humans ought have dominion over the earth.

It's a staple response to ID that had an intelligent God created the world, he would have to have been supremely incompetent and not all that bright, given the kludgy and jury-rigged nature of the universe. Wiki even has a page on it, the 'Argument from poor design', or simply 'unintelligent design'. It's true that none of this preludes the idea that God really is a bumbling idiot, and if anything, is a quite a nice thought.

human eyeball — Hanover

Sorry, but this is long, although on topic, as poetry after Dawkins:

The Intelligent Designer

I approached a semitransparent,
Theistic Embellishment, quite well lit,
Who was holding out an eyeball—a shove
Of His hand for me to take note of.

“Who might you be?” He mimed,
“For I am the God of Intelligent Design,
The One who was made by the signs discerned,
When the creationists noted them all, unlearned.”

I answered, “I am Austin, Earth’s flower,
Although not ‘Powers’, but ‘Higher Powers’.”

“Ha. Lo, they saw inexplicable complexity in Nature,
And thus they leapt and promulgated that Nature
Must have a Grand Designer of its mechanical dance,
For how could life have come about by ‘chance’?”

I replied, “You’re right about ‘chance’s’ stance,
But wrong about ‘chance’ too, for little greatness,
If any at all, comes about by mere ‘chance’,

“Especially as some giant leap in one bound,
Up the sheer cliff-side of Mt. Improbable—
To find on its top a great complexity
Of something like the eye that You show me;

“However, it is actually an error to suppose
That ‘Chance’ is the scientific alternative
To Intelligent Design, for that’s quite negative.

“Natural Selection is the means of the design,
For it, unlike a one-shot ‘chance’, being not in kind,
Is a cumulative effect that ever winds,
And slowly and so gently climbs

Around the mountain’s other side, behind the sight,
To eventually arrive at the great height
Of complexity—from which we can then view
The beautiful sights through our eye anew.”

“But the widespread Watchtower Zines
Always pronounce that the biological Designs
Were created by Me instead of by ‘chance’!

“Just look at these eyeballs—take a glance—
And the optic system hanging behind them!
How could that come about by ‘chance’, these gems?”

“You, like your followers, may listen,
But You do not hear, writing with untruth’s pen.
IDers deceive by this wrong approach,
Whether they mean to or not; I give reproach.

“‘Chance’ is not the opposite of Nature’s design;
Evolution of the Species through the graduality
Of Natural Selection is the path to complexity;
Your ploy falls as flat as an imaginary line.

“A flatworm has but an optical system’s spark
That can only sense but light and dark;
Thus it sees no image, not even a part;

“Whereas Nautilus has a ‘pinhole camera’ eye
About as good as half a human eye
That sees but very blurry shapes;
Thus these are examples of intermediate stages.

“‘Rome’ can not be built in a day by ‘chance’;
‘Chance’ is not a likely designer at all!

“Really now, could a 747 ever be
Assembled by a hurricane blowing free
Through Boeing’s warehouse of all the parts?
Now is this the sum of Your conversational art?”

“No, Austin—it’s quite unlikely—’tis just to confuse,
And that’s why we always so misleadingly use
The 747 argument as the contrast to ID…

“So then, Austie, ‘chance’ and Intelligent Design
Are not the two candidate solutions we’ll find
To the riddle posed by the improbable?
It’s not like a jackpot or nothing at all?”

“‘God’, Your ID ideas persist, as repetition,
But again, ‘chance’, for one, is not a solution
To the highly improbable situated Nature,
And no sane anti-creationist, for sure,
Ever said that it was; your tale is impure.

“Intelligent Design, is neither a solution—
Because it raises a much bigger question
Than it solves, as You will soon see, in a lesson.”

“Well, I’ll be darned,” replied the Designer.
“Natural selection is a good answer;

“It is a very long and summative process,
One which breaks up the problem’s mess
Of improbability into smaller pieces, less,
Each of which is only slightly improbable,

“But not prohibitively so, thus it’s reasonable,
As the product of all the little steps of which
Would be far beyond the reach of chance—it’s rich!

“The creationists have been looking askance,
Seeing only the end product, perchance,
Thinking of it as a single event of chance,
Never even understanding
The great power of accumulation.

“Such they didn’t know much else—their fall,
Not having any other natural ideas at all,
So they outright claimed that ID did it, as the Tree
That can magically grow the All, namely Me.”

“So ‘God’ You have now seen the light
Of the accumulative power’s might;
This is the elegance of Evolution’s ‘sight’.”

“Yes but what is to become of Me, the Person,
For I only ‘exist’ through their speculation.

“In fact, the improbability of Me is so High,
And so much more so from where I lie so ‘sure’,
Compared to that of ‘simple’ Nature,
That My own origin…”

“…Is a near-infinitely Larger dilemma, Mate,
For the creationists—the problem they love to hate;
That being that You, therefore, can only be explained
By another, Higher Intelligent Designer claimed!

“Far from terminating the endless regress,
They’ve aggravated it with a vengeance
That is way beyond repair or redress—
As beyond could ever be yonder of! Out west!”

With that, the poor Guy faded toward oblivion,
Which remarkably was the very location
I was visiting, but hence he soon reappeared,
Although in another guise, but quite well attired.

…

I take ID to be an attempt to disprove evolution generally, not a developed theological position that attempts to establish a basis for why humans ought have dominion over the earth. — Hanover

I think it would be difficult to disprove evolution with ID arguments when the inherent premise is that evolution is an intelligent process (because it serves necessity and has utility). Also, intelligence doesn't necessarily imply a supreme being, it could be an interactive operation which is what nature is.

It's true that none of this preludes the idea that God really is a bumbling idiot, and if anything, is a quite a nice thought. — StreetlightX

If you arrived at a method for transforming a most basic primordial substance into the world we currently have, I'd think you pretty clever. Not infinitly wise, but crazy smart, and certainly not a bumbling idiot.

I call it "intelligible configuration", after all we are the ones that are here finding it to a degree intelligible, and we wouldn't be here if we weren't here.

Some extinctions of many life forms made room for other life forms to further develop e.g increase in size and range.

If we are destined to be here that is how we got here, in the view of many people.

In regard to what got translated as "dominion" some theologians see it as originally intended as kindly stewardship (as opposed to devious distortions afterwards).

To "theistic evolutionists" like John Henry Newman, ID doesn't disprove evolution. Evolution, creation, "dominion" or stewardship, are all modular concepts.

Some atheists profess nervousness at an agent termed "design-er", nonetheless I think Brian hots the nail on the head, in terms of science, in the phrase "interactive operation". This can apply not only when pantheism is envisaged but other forms of metaphysics - and of theology or non-theology - also.

Sorry, but this is long, although on topic, as poetry after Dawkins: — PoeticUniverse

I read Dawkins' book (The Blind Watchmaker), which purportedly disproved Paley's teleological argument. I found it unpersuasive as to the philosophical claim because I don't think he proved an unintelligent system. What I think he did do was offer a detailed primer on evolution for those interested, but I don't think evolution precludes a purpose driven designer. The question of ultimate origin is unanswerable, so saying that the basic building blocks of the universe have existed eternally and today's reality is the end result of the interaction of those building blocks is no more or less satisfactory than positing some heavenly creator that dropped those building blocks into reality and then let nature take its course.

I suppose, but I'm holding the Old Man to a deservedly high standard. Given all the Omnis and all. Reckon maybe a C+, as far as things go. Might just scrape on through to universe-ity, with some remedial night class or something.

I think it would be difficult to disprove evolution with ID arguments when the inherent premise is that evolution is an intelligent process (because it serves necessity and has utility). — BrianW

Right, and the inverse is true, which is that clear evidence of evolution does not disprove ID.

Also, intelligence doesn't necessarily imply a supreme being, it could be an interactive operation which is what nature is. — BrianW

ID isn't a specifically defined ideology, and many theists have used it to try to support Creationism and the like. But, if we take ID simply as a restatement of Paley's teleological argument for the existence of God, then we're not required to conclude that evidence of intelligence design requires a supreme being, but only that it requires an intelligence designer. I would agree that simpler systems can yield more complex systems as well, meaning the designed being could be more intelligent than its designer. For example, it is not hypothetically impossible that humans may one day create robots superior in every way to humans, which would mean that we could create our own God worthy of worship.

Actually, all I had in mind in starting the debate is to imply that that the world as it is does not point to having an element of 'Design' as defined in terms of engineering or art. No reflection about the design capabilities of (non-existant in my view) God. I suppose one might view Evolution with its purposefulness as emerging intelligence. It is created through the entopic flow but does eventually self-destructive. It cannot exist in a Heat Death universe.

Why is design equated (to some degree) with effect. Every mention of Intelligent Design is accompanied by the hint of an Intelligent Designer. It's like design is synonymous with effect and thus we attempt to discover its cause (causative agent). I think the biggest difficulty hindering the conception of fundamental abstract principles in operation in the universe (or reality) is that we keep projecting our humanity (and its limitations) onto everything.

If intelligent design operates the universe (or reality), then it is absolute (or, at the least, superior to human intelligence). We (humans) are very limited in application of intelligence. Therefore,

[1.] The intelligence operating in and through us is a portion but not the whole of intelligence. It (the absolute or superior intelligence) cannot be fully manifest, at least, to us.

[2.] We cannot expect to fully define/characterise the absolute (or something superior) using our own limitations.

I think there are some assumptions in the OP here. Such as: it was the only purpose, efficiency was necessary or wanted, there cannot be reasons for having an infinite or extremely large universe around this origin point, a variety of creations haven't been tried, perhaps for motives we don't know and perhaps others.

IOW it seemed assumed that God wanted to create humans only in the most parsimonious way possible, for him, and had no other goals or motives that make the way in unfolded a good or the best one.

My understanding is that according to the I/D proponents our virtually infinite universe was created with the sole purpose of creating mankind, — Jacob-B

Isn't that the anthropic argument used by physicists? That the universe is fine-tuned for life? It comes up in multiverse theory. Point being that it's not only the theologists invoking theological arguments these days.

My understanding is that according to the I/D proponents our virtually infinite universe was created with the sole purpose of creating mankind, — Jacob-B

That is similar to the 'cosmic anthropic principle'. It was not originally proposed by theologians but by physicists who noticed that there are a small set of constants that appear to be required for matter to have been formed by stellar explosions - specifically Fred Hoyle's discovery of carbon resonance. The original paper which named the principle was by a physicist, Brandon Carter.

Subsequently the idea was seized on by theologically-inclined philosophers to argue for a 'grand design'. And in my view, their argument is just as solid as the argument often deployed by atheists, that the universe is 'only one of an infinite number of unknown multiverses'. This is just as unfalsifiable as anything proposed by theology, and its main rationale is that it avoids the implications of the apparent 'fine-tuning' of the Universe by appealing to something which can never be known - which I think is just as disingenuous as the ID argument.

One philosophical point to consider is this: science does not explain the order of the universe. It discovers the order, and hopefully the underlying principles, but even in theory it doesn't explain why those principles or laws are as they are. It's one of the confusions of the age that science can or ought to be able to explain the totality of the natural order.

Where cosmological theory is at right now, is the 'big bang' theory, which seems suspiciously like 'creation from nothing' - so much so, that Pope Pius used to say that it was 'consistent with Catholic doctrine', until Georges LeMaitre, who wrote the original paper on it, persauded the Pope's science adviser to persuade His Holiness not to use scientific arguments in support of the faith.

Incidentally, it is worth contemplating which scientific icon of the 20th century wrote this:

I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God.

In some ancient Gnostic texts it is asserted that God, the creator God of the Torah, is an ignorant, deluded deity called Yaldabaoth, who thinks he is the one supreme God and demands to be worshiped as such, despite the flawed nature of his creation.

Subsequently the idea was seized on by theologically-inclined philosophers to argue for a 'grand design'. And in my view, their argument is at least as powerful as the argument often deployed by atheists, that the universe is 'only one of an infinite number of unknown multiverses'. That is just as unfalsifiable as anything proposed by theology, and its main rationale is that it avoids the apparent 'fine-tuning' issue - which I think is just as disingenuous as any ID argument. — Wayfarer

I don't find the intelligent design argument to be "at least as powerful" at all, on account of its sheer implausibility. I can't see anything implausible about the idea that our universe" is only one of an infinite number of unknown universes" particularly considering that there is apparently an elegant mathematics that underpins it. I do think it must be acknowledged that it is not strictly speaking an empirical theory, because it would seem to be impossible in principle to test it.

My favourite God. An impertinent little shit.

Also for once I agree with @Wayfarer: multiverse theories are as much a failure of thought as all of theology. They're attempts to put off and displace cosmic questions, not answer them. An cosmogonic IOU note passed off as currency.

I agree with you insofar as string and multiverse and other untestable theories don't seem to be useful for understanding our universe insofar as anything they could predict would be consistent with anything and everything. On the other hand the fact that they come with elegant mathematics, and that they are not totally absurd, speculatively speaking, leads me to think there is no harm in them.

For me, the idea that we were designed for some indemonstrable purpose, and that the whole of the rest of creation is a kind of "supporting cast" which is subservient to that, and consequently of far less value, is a far more harmful view, especially when people go about claiming that they know what that indemonstrable purpose is.

True. Theology goes up against the wall first, when the revolution comes. Multiverse theorists get a slightly nicer wall.

:grin:

, the idea that we were designed for some indemonstrable purpose, and that the whole of the rest of creation is a kind of "supporting cast" which is subservient to that, and consequently of far less value, is a far more harmful view, especially when people go about claiming that they know what that indemonstrable purpose is. — Janus

Maybe God/The Universe wanted to get up late one morning, stroll down to the mall and enjoy a lemon gelato. 'To execute, first, create exploding star....'

OK...?

Edit: What are you smoking, man?

So, where is Intelligence in the Design? — Jacob-B

I don't know. Should we stop the argument at "design" so that we don't have to quarrel about the "intelligent"?

Perhaps we misread the intent of the designer. I mean if you think a gun is a pillow then that seems rather poor workmanship but if you want to kill someone there is nothing more efficient.

We assume the universe was created for us. This is quite arrogant don't you think because the design argument is applicable to the virus, the bacteria and all life as well. May be "We aren't the creatures the universe was designed for" said the stegosaurus.

What was the prime objective of the design anyway?

Efficiency?

Beauty?

Boredom?

A prison?

If the last one (prison) is the option then I'd say the design is almost perfect.

These achievements do not equal those the Great Designer but incomparably more intelligent in terms of use of material resources and time. So, where is Intelligence in the Design? — Jacob-B

I will raise a counter argument of syntactic, formalist nature, by juggling with definitions.

You see, according to the Dunning-Kruger research into ineptitude, the test subjects thought that they knew, but in fact they didn't. So, if that behaviour is a good definition for stupidity, then "knowing when you do not know" should be a suitable definition for the term "intelligence".

According to the offshoots of second-temple Judaism, God has a copy of the Tablet of Wisdom, i.e. the Preserved Tablet, i.e. the Book of Decrees ("al-Lauh al-Mahfuz"), which obviously contains the Theory of Everything (ToE), because it allows God to flawlessly predict the future and the entire trajectory of the universe.

Hence, the divine attribute: All-Knowing.

Someone who is all-knowing obviously does not need to know when he does not know, because that situation does not even occur. Therefore, an attribute such as All-Intelligent does not make sense. Unlike ourselves, God does not need "intelligence". The term is simply inapplicable.

With intelligence defined as the ability to handle one's limitations, does it make sense to be better at that than someone who does not even have these limitations?

A lot of interesting points and comments.

Something just popped into my. If you analyze the universe from a mathematical or a scientific perspective then it's a veritable masterpiece.

The entire universe began with a single event, the Big Bang and at that stage, before it expanded and became more complex, a few physical constants were fixed at just the right value so that the amazing universe we see could evolve.

Simplicity. Check
Efficiency. Check
Beauty. Check

We've all seen how artists create great works with just a pencil and paper. They never fail to amaze.


God must be a mathematician! Math begins with as few axioms and rules as required to construct an object of mathematical interest.

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved. — Darwin

It's actually quite amazing!

Eh, the universe is largely horrible. Vast expanses of nothingness, where most everything will kill you, and not even with intent but out of sheer indifference. Most animals live on the edge of death and human animals are now far into the process of killing off the biodiversity of the Earth, with ever more inventive and effective means. When, that is, they are not killing each other, or simply sucking dry some parts of the Earth to furnish others. Nature is mostly waste, indifference, and catastrophe. What order there is is mostly just a temporary harnessing of chaos, destined to be undone in the long run. It takes a great deal of self-blinding to see 'simplicity, efficiency, and beauty' as diffuse throughout the cosmos.