Theory of Intelligent Design

One thing I contemplate is what it would be like to be in the "shoes" of an AI life form I've created in a digital universe. Let's assume they're self aware and have the intellectual capacity to ponder their existence. Would an ID theory benefit them and further their knowledge more than a natural explanation of the universe I created for them? As long as I don't change rules on them they'd be better served trying to figure them out than trying to figure me out.

 

No one has demonstrated any "design" intelligent or otherwise. What has been claimed is "Intelligent Design" and "Intelligent Design" by its very nature requires an entity to perform the act.

If we found a "pile of machinery on Mars" we would analyze the equipment to determine:
Its purpose;
It's functionality;
The nature of the beings who used it; and
The reason it is on Mars.

This is no different that we would do with tools discovered at any archeological dig.

We DO NOT "observe intelligent phenomena in our everyday world." We observe things built by man and things evolve in nature. There is a word for what you're describing. It is "Anthropomorphize."

 

It makes perfect sense, if ID was really just creationism in disguise as some other scientific theory, they would be doing a great job. ID makes a testable case that is independent of religion, people just cry "creationism" for one of two reasons:
1. They want to find any way to discredit ID because they dislike it.
2. ID hypothesizing and "intelligent designer" sounds like what many religions claim and therefore they think ID has to be creationism.

The arguments for Intelligent Design being creationism are easy to refute, because they are mistaken.

 

They are both within the field of conjecture, period, end of story. They have been impossible to test. Why? Because regardless of the math you speak of, we cannot test them. So, fanciful conjecture, because you can do nothing with them. Neither can either be used to advance technology, or create new. Why do you continue to argue this? Campbell's claims, his thinking his Big ToE, is far beyond these two things, and is nothing but conjecture, of an intelligent physicist, no more than that, using his knowledge of QM. The same can be said for several other physicists. Including a brilliant man I met several times, David Bohm. I went to some of his seminars. David would have had no problem, as you do with Campbell. I think that is rather telling, of your own attitude. Closed minds are stupid minds sir, no matter how many letters has after one's name. Bohm once told me there is a reason many of the breaks and discoveries in not just physics but science has come from younger minds is because their minds have yet been conditioned by academia, and are still wide open, but in an intelligent openness. As we age he said, we get conditioned, and our minds close. He then said the most successful science demands an open mind, not a closed one. And yet your position, as well as much of academia, is that of a closed mind. Bohm ran into this in his later years, and the biologist Sheldrake, who I will assume you would call WOO, has said the same thing. I bring up these two men, in diverse fields, only because while I never really knew Rupert, I did sit in on a couple discussions long ago, when he was still very young. He is the funniest character, and brilliant, and has been waging his own war against your mindset for decades. Hey, I agree with Campbell, Bohm, and Sheldrake. I think I am in great company, as opposed to a current character, Lawrence Krauss. A staunch philosophical materialist to the core. As you are. But which I am not.

 

Ad Hominem fallacy, discrediting what is being said because of what the author may be affiliated with.

They are the predictions of design as we know by examination of intelligent phenomena.

Okay? I know that, so what is your point?

So, I finally get someone to admit ID makes testable predictions, now it is just the features that would demonstrate design that are in question.
They provide evidence for design since they represent patterns known to be put out by intelligent phenomena (intelligent actors) in contact with matter, which means we can derive predictions from what we know intelligence does, and apply it to specific features of systems we examine (like biological systems). We know intelligent phenomena has pattern recognition features that can combine many intricate parts to serve a specific purpose, to convey from a specific arrangement of parts. We call this CSI (complex-specified information), and can be tested in systems by reverse engineering structures and examining the contribution of each of the parts to the whole system to determine whether each part serves some necessary function to keep up the system (this is a prediction of design, since intelligent actors put parts together that convey a specific sequence, without adding many random superfluous parts). Intelligent phenomena also results in rapid fusion of information since the general cognitive features necessary to put up the parts of a system to convey a function are present in intelligence. Predictions can vary by system and it is also worth noting that just because a part of a system has design as the best explanation doesn't mean the entire system is explained by intelligence. For example, if the genetic code/DNA meets the predictions of design, it doesn't mean that the biological system the DNA is contained in is entirely designed, much of it may be better explained by other natural processes that brought up the systems many parts.

 

Yep I do, that is part of science, daring to make a different explanation that you think may work better.

Doesn't mean that DNA and genetic code is the only thing best explained by an intelligent cause. Apples lack any features that are best explained by an intelligent cause, so no, I don't focus on that.

I didn't bring any "Gods" up in this thread, but I guess that is an ambiguous term that is not well-defined.

No, it isn't. There are many predictions by ID and we observe intelligent phenomena, ones that provide many implications for many systems we examine today. Plus, it is entirely stupid to claim this as if you can choose what is and isn't worthy of being science. You don't like this hypothesis? Fine, but don't pretend as if it can't be warranted in any way and leave it to the scientific method.

I did, and I told you that by reverse engineering systems like the genetic code/DNA, we can examine the CSI of the structure to determine whether it is best explained by design (since only intelligent phenomena is capable of consistently forming high CSI structures), we also know that intelligent ordered structures contain only parts that contribute to the function of the whole system, so a form of usefulness of all parts is predicted, it also predicts irreducibly complex structures (which is related to what I just said). This will depend on what exactly you are examining, but the same features apply (since they are universal among intelligent phenomena). The genetic code contains a high CSI structure that contributes to many functions of the whole system (microfunctions) and the "so-called junk DNA" predicted by Darwinian evolution turns out to be useful by regulating/controlling the creation of proteins, which is predicted by intelligent design. Intelligent Design serves to explain these systems as an alternative to Darwinian Evolution (which is largely a well substantiated theory, with some problematic explanations).

It has been demonstrated that it does exist and can exist.

 

Yes, I gave a few name of scientists who you would, or simply could not give the time of day. But these are not the only ones. Another one is currently at some Ivy League school, but his name escapes this very old mind of mine. I could of course find the names of all of these men, with google, but really sir, it would not make any difference, right? You are set in your beliefs, and the same goes for me. Plus, you are a philosophical materialist where I am not. So the division here is worse than any political division, and most people are not even aware they are philosophical materialists. I addressed you closed mind comment in the post above this one.

In so far as your comments on early mysticism, I know nothing of that. I only learned of mysticism when reading about the Founders of QM, QP. More than one were driven into mysticism, due to QM. And this continues to this very day, but generally they only speak of it once they retire and their careers are no longer at risk. Yes, that is how bad it is. By mysticism of course, we must be specific, for it is not involving the gods of the Abrahamic traditions, but something much more sophisticated. Not a god created in man's image. But something beyond the ability of the human brain to conceive. Something outside of time, space, matter, which Campbell roughly compares with a computer, but that would not do it justice, or so he says. I am certainly open to that for Campbell can lay out his ideas very well. I do not close my own mind off to these ideas. Yet if the universe is a virtual reality manifesting at the quantum level of reality, there may be ways to test it. Getting funding for such things would be impossible, and if I were a billionaire, funding would be no problem. As I would fund Sheldrake and Dean Radin. For whether it is Campbell, Radin, or Sheldrake, their thinking is actually complimentary, even as they are in different fields.

 

That is part of the intelligent design hypothesis, to demonstrate design.

Indeed it does, but determining design is independent of knowing the identity of the actor, and is outside of the intelligent design. So asking for an explanation of my explanation is superfluous in this context.

But we would know it is designed before we ever figured out the identity of the designer and where it came from.

Exactly.

Yes, we do, isn't the device you are using to post your messages on this board the result of intelligent design? Who put the pieces together? Who was the mechanic born to?
It is entirely nonsensical to ask for an explanation to the explanation I am giving to a specific system.
We see intelligent phenomena all over the place.

Better word, intelligence, we know that our human identity does not have a monopoly on the possible entities that could display cognitive features.

 

Wrongo.

The math shows the possibility. Several hundred years ago Newton postulated his gravity theories. The, now laws, could not be tested for over 100 years because the technology did not exist to demonstrate what the math showed.

String theory and "multiverse" theories have been around a few decades. The math is there and being refined every day. The theories may be right or wrong but we won't know that until we develop the technology to test them.

"Intelligent Design" has been around since "in the beginning." An in those thousands of years not a single proof mathematical or otherwise has been produced. Not even a workable process for this "design" has been put forth.

Disease is a fine example casting doubt on "Intelligent Design." How does "Intelligent Design" account for cancers, diabetes, MS, and a wealth of other genetic diseases? I could accept errors in "Design" if the "Designer" corrected the errors but, these diseases have been around since the dawn of humanity will continue until we find out, using math and science, how to prevent and cure them.

 

As perhaps a final and conclusive thought on this OP, IMO, the idea of a god as laid out in the Abrahamic religions is absurd to my own mind. I can only give Tom Campbell, as he lays out in My Big ToE any credibility. That the universe is similar to virtual reality, created by information from outside the universe. So, it could be called ID, for the creator is intelligent. And it would be some kind of intelligent consciousness, an infinity of information, of potentialities. Yes, pure unabashed conjecture. Yet this could also explain how life was first created, and WHY life came with a drive to survive, to adapt, and so on. For my mind will never buy into the materialism of mere chance giving the rise of a self replicating molecule, that in dumb material universe somehow someway led to an unbelievable complexity. Chance, randomness? Cannot accept that just to claim materialism is in fact, a fact.

 

Okay...that dies because I counter with, "intelligent design" is not the best possible explanation.

Okay. But choosing DNA and the genetic code rather than apples, for instance, "makes no never mind" as we used to say. NEITHER...has intelligent design as the best possible explanation....except as a gratuitous assertion. Which dies, because I counter with, "intelligent design" is not the best possible explanation.

You may not have brought up the word "god"...but what would be the intelligent designer if not a god? (Be careful you guys on the other side from Zero.)

It doesn't matter whether I or anyone else likes it. What matters is that you have asserted that "intelligent design" is the best explanation for it.

The burden of establishing that assertion falls on you.

And if it doesn't...I simply counter with, "No it doesn't."

Mairzy doats and dozy doats and liddle lamzy divey
A kiddley divey too, wooden shoe


Lemme know when you are going to come up with something from nature that you can show to be...not just assert...show to be best explained by intelligent design.

Then we can do business.

If any example really existed...you would have already furnished it.

But, I am an optimist...and I am gonna give you a bit longer to find something that fits the bill...even though I realize there ain't any.

Go to it.

 

No, anthropomorphize is the proper word. "Personification" with a similar definition is also a good word. "Intelligent Design" is nothing more than assigning human traits to non-human things.

 

Explain why.

I disproved that already.

Again, outside of the realm of the intelligent design hypothesis. "God" is an ambiguous term that needs to be defined, I don't think there is one except for some high hierarchical status given to something (whether imaginary or real).

And many say it can't possibly be, they somehow think intelligent design is impossible to demonstrate.

Sure, but it can work as a null hypothesis too.

The problem with that is this:
"The earth is round"
"No, it isn't."
It can be used for anything you want, now that is gratuitous in itself, unless there is a sufficient reason to deny it.

I just did, I didn't go through every part of the genetic code, pointing out each sequence and its contribution to the system, but I don't need to to demonstrate design as the best explanation. This is another problem, something can bring up many forms of evidence and it is easy to call it just an "assertion", so that is purely gratuitous in itself unless there is a reason to deny it as such.

You refuse to read my posts concerning design, I guess there is nothing I can do otherwise.

 

If you stand and throw a ball at a wall eventually, the ball will pass through the wall without actually touching the wall. This can be shown mathematically. We don't have the capability to align the atoms of the ball or wall but, eventually, we will possess the capability to prove this construct. Despite that, the math is unarguable. And yet...

The very notion goes against what you would call "common sense."

So, your "Intelligent Design" forced some atoms together to form molecules then forced the molecules together to form the basics of life...

Is there any reason, besides your desire to believe, that 14 billion years of random events could not have created the basics of life?

 

No, intelligence is not a human monopolized trait, humans happen to have intelligence, not the other way around. We know cognition exists (able to exist by certain arrangements of processes), and we know they derive specific features of their own (CSI).

 

No.

You have done nothing of the sort.

Are you saying there can be intelligent design...without intelligence and without design???

C'mon.

There also are people who assert that there is at least one god...and there are people who assert there are none.

Both groups bear a burden of establishing their assertions.

As do you.

If you make an assertion...the burden of proof falls on you for that assertion.

That is my point. Thank you for concurring.

Your assertion is self-serving and gratuitous.

Nice try. No cigar.

Stop now. You are too intelligent to try to sell this kind of crap.

 

*Sigh*
I guess I will quote myself again for you to read:

 

Zero...you are playing a game.

Part of the game you are playing...is to pretend you are not playing a game.

It's not going to work.

In fact, it is not even going to come close to working.

Present any one thing in this universe that you can show is BEST explained by intelligent design...than by anything else.

Zero...IT CANNOT BE DONE.

You are intelligent enough to realize this...so put new rules into the game you playing.

My apologies to R. D. Laing.

 

Ok, now I know that you are not taking this into thought, just denial no matter what I bring.

No matter how many times you yell that out, it won't make it anymore true, and won't remove what I demonstrated to you.

 

Baloney. If ID was really just about explaining certain features as designed, then why don't people like Elon Musk, who believe we live in a giant virtual world, aren't supporters? Showing proof of Intelligent Design would be right up their alley since it would show proof that the universe is a computer simulation. Even Neil deGrasse Tyson says that it is possible that the universe is a computer simulation, but does he promote that as a replacement theory to evolution? Heck no, because the computer simulation theory cannot be disproved so it is not a valid theory. What about the alien seeding/manipulation theory? Same thing. Evolution is still the ONLY theory that explains the diversity of life on Earth.

 

Yep. We could all be AI's who came into existence Last Thursday. No one can prove that that isn't our reality.

 

Did you bother to read what I posted? Even just the parts I highlighted? How much more refutation do you need.

• Creationists had a book that used the word 'Creation' over one hundred times.
• Creationism got thrown into the trash bin by SCOTUS.
• Proponents of "intelligent design" took the book - changed all instances of the word "Creation" and replaced it with "Intelligent Design"

Excerpts from the Judges ruling (my emphases)
https://web.archive.org/web/2005122...md.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf

The judge was "astonished" at the blatant attempted deceptiveness of the IDers.

You don't get it because you choose to ignore the simple truth OR you just don't understand English.

Creationism requires a Creator. Intelligent Design requires an Intelligent Designer.
Creator, Designer, Potato, Potahto, Tomato, Tomahto!

 

I did not attack Luskin's character or personal attributes. I pointed out his obvious bias. If someone is an executive for Burger King and says a Whopper is better than a Big Mac, I have the obligation to take his place of employment into consideration.

If I assert I don't believe him because he is fat, then that would be an example of an ad hom attack.

You need to understand the meaning of phrases before attempting to use them. I shouldn't have to educate you.

No. As I already showed you, they are predictions that are equally applicable to ToE and ID. As such, they do nothing to further your argument.[/QUOTE]

 

As I previously stated...

• Read this book, you will find enlightenment.
• I read the book. I am not enlightened.
• Read this other book, you will find enlightenment.
• I read the other book. I am not enlightened.
• Read that book, you will find enlightenment.
• I read that book. I am not enlightened.

Then another comes along and says "Wow! You really must read this book, you will find enlightenment".
I don't bother to read the book. I must be close minded.

Maybe that's the problem. I wonder if, when the next great woo comes along, how long it will take you to jump on that bus.

 

.....and I could go into detail about how mule deer and white tail have completely different survival traits while the offspring of the two seldom survive long because their gaits are confused. Again, all this is about natural selection, not evolution. Using your same argument, God is evident to me every day. When I look at the stars and when I see a new baby. It's all about faith. I put my faith in God. It seems you put your faith in evolution.