Design arguments Does bad design mean no design?

_{Denyse O'Leary

November 11, 2006

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In Of Designers and Dunces, Roddy Bullock entertaininglyly addresses the claim made by Professor Donald Wise of the University of Massachusetts that defects in the human body show that there is no design in nature.

Unwise person: IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll admit it’s art, but it’s bad art.

Wise person: But you will agree that it is the work of an artist. Yes?

Unwise person: No.

A “bad design” claim, if sustainable, might come better from a medical doctor than a geologist, but medical doctors do not appear to be among materialism/Darwinism’s fans.

Comments

Micheals7 I am not an expert, but as I understand it the laryngeal nerve does not connect to the aorta - it just goes round it. Possibly you are confused because it is a branch of the vagus nerve which does connect to the aorta (among a number of things). The branching takes place close to the brain. There are a number of articles about this on the Internet - unfortunately I don't have time to put in the links.Mark Frank_{November 13, 2006
November
11
Nov
13
13
2006
10:45 PM
10
10
45
PM
PDT}

re: the Giraffe design... I looked into this a while back regarding the nerve pathways. I believe if you do not have the current pathway, you would then need 2 seperate nerves running from the brain stem thru the body to coordinate the lowering of the head/drinking water. These two nerves would then have to coordinate signals to determine a complicated issue of blood flow, drinking and balance/height, etc. One nerve attached to both the aorta and larynx provides a solution which does not require coordinating signals. The override occurs directly in the same passageway as a result of the tilting of the neck. Whereas with two seperat nerves you would need double the information flow back into the brain stem and then a decision would have to be made which system overrides which. It seems more efficient. I could be wrong.... but, it seemed plausible.Michaels7_{November 13, 2006
November
11
Nov
13
13
2006
09:40 PM
9
09
40
PM
PDT}

Any definition of intelligent agents into existence based upon similar physical characteristics can only go so far before it runs smack into a brick wall. Actual informational content from another mind can only be understood by considering the possible causes of a pattern in question and assessing the likelihood of each cause to bring it about. The stricture that a given pattern must be producible by a particular type of corporeal entity is completely arbitrary and unnecessary.crandaddy_{November 13, 2006
November
11
Nov
13
13
2006
08:35 PM
8
08
35
PM
PDT}

I've been reading through the posts and I'm trying to understand the arguments, so can someone correct me if they think I'm misrepresenting them. It seems to me like the argument is as follows: There are many complex structures in nature. We can conceive of an intelligence that could of created life, based on the fact that we can create complex machines. The alternative is impossible/highly improbable. Therefore intelligence is the best explanation. I'm really trying to see how to reword that to avoid having to prove the negative because of all the talk of complex digital machines and the analogies to human design the answer to how did life begin is still we have no idea, and in regards to evolution it just seems to come down to how well you think the current theory is supported or not. I think the real problem is that people either see ID as 'show me the designer', which in my opinion is unnecessary, or the kind of Mount Rushmore analogy (i.e. the argument I was trying to outline above), which is insufficient for purpose (assuming the purpose is for ID to become the dominant scientific theory).Chris Hyland_{November 13, 2006
November
11
Nov
13
13
2006
05:36 PM
5
05
36
PM
PDT}

JMCD: I would counter that since human intelligence is the only intelligence we know of and humans did not exist when DNA was created, the only viable working theory is one that incorporates the agents we are aware of. For one we know that humans aren't the only intelligent agencies on this planet. JMCD: That is not to say that intelligent processes could not account for such feats, but until we can demonstrate the existence of intelligence outside of humanity we cannot attribute events that happenned prior to humanityÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s existence to intelligent processes. What, exactly, do you think are the options as to our existence? That is knowing that if nature had a beginning that natural process can't account for it because natural processes only exist in nature. And why can't we use our current understanding of what intelligent agencies are capable of coupled with our current knowledge of what nature, operating freely, is capable of, and come up with a reasonable inference? IOW if EVERYTIME we see X,Y or Z and know the cause it is ALWAYS due to some intelligent agency, why can't we therefore infer intelligent causation when we see something very X-like, Y-like or Z-like and don't know the cause? --------------------------------------------------- Note to Mike1962- Russ was quoting SuricouRaven in comment #2. And I would say SuricouRaven was being sarcastic.Joseph_{November 13, 2006
November
11
Nov
13
13
2006
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT}

Russ: "But Christianity is quite clear: God is perfect. God couldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t make mistakes, or design humans badly. Thus, God couldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t have designed humans, for they are full of mistakes. If God designed humans, I wouldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t need my glasses." Christianity also says that this present world system has been corrupted, and will eventually be restored to a state that even you would probably consider perfect. Why is it corrupted? Because of certain interference and failed tests on the part of certain players in a colossal drama that is not immediately visible, and would make Star Wars look like kiddies playing in a sand box. Now, maybe all this is a fairy tale and maybe it isn't. But something tells me you haven't spent 15 minutes really getting to know what "Christianity says."mike1962_{November 13, 2006
November
11
Nov
13
13
2006
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT}

jmcd: I will venture to read your argument as "Since we know of no intelligent processes existing prior to DNA, we cannot use intelligence as a causal explanation to explain DNA" Is that a fair reading? If so, you are still mistaken, for a simple reason. How would we know if such an intelligence existed? Only through artifacts. (The same way we detect ANY intelligence.) An intelligence can only be detected through its effects. So, if we find effects that bear the marks of intelligence prior to humans, that would forcefully "demonstrate the existence of intelligence outside of humanity." Biology presents such evidence.Atom_{November 13, 2006
November
11
Nov
13
13
2006
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT}

jmcd: Perhaps I missed your point then. Could you elaborate on why we need to posit HUMAN intelligence in any ID theory? As for the pithy saying, you have Dr. Davison to thank for that one. It is an inside joke among UD readers who enjoy Dr. Davison's humor. (No offense meant, hence the winky smile)Atom_{November 13, 2006
November
11
Nov
13
13
2006
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT}

"It seems to me that those who argue bad design go to such extreme lengths to nit pick..." Agreed. All the classic examples (the giraffe's nerve, the "upside-down" retina...) remind me of a high-maintenance passenger on a 747: As he moves at several hundred mph and 30,000 ft in pressurized comfort--with multiple interfacing systems working together to make it all possible--allowing him to arrive at his destination on the other side of the world in ~12 hours, he whines, "The bathroom's too far away! A 'competent' designer wouldn't have put me out like this..."SteveB_{November 13, 2006
November
11
Nov
13
13
2006
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT}

and Dave I am not sure what I was denying in mycomment. Atom I do not see how you could could possibly describe my comment as you did if you had given it even a cursory reading. I apologive, but I am failing to come up with a pithy comeback for the mistakenly condescending and corny "Got that? Write it down. ; ) "jmcd_{November 13, 2006
November
11
Nov
13
13
2006
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT}

The point that I didn't spell out was that both arguments are similarly empty in that they rely on discounting what we cannot demonstrate and have absolutely nothing to do with evidience. The format is a hollow shell of an argument and can just as easily go in either direction.jmcd_{November 13, 2006
November
11
Nov
13
13
2006
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT}

Dave Scott:
Ã¢â‚¬Å“Bad design equals no designÃ¢â‚¬Â is a theological argument, not a scientific one. It assigns attributes (specifically perfection) to a hypothetical designer where there is no scientific or logical basis to assign those attributes.
Exactly, Dave! It is nothing more than the "God wouldn't have done it that way argument." I recall the late Stephen Gould in his book The Panda's Thumb (not to be confused with a notorious web-site by the same name) writing that "odd arrangements and funny solutions are not the stuff of a wise creator..." What's missing in all this, of course, is any scientific evidence that confirms or falsifies any hypothesis about what God did/could or didn't/couldn't do. For further explication of this idea, I recommend Darwin's God by Cornelius G. Hunter.DonaldM_{November 13, 2006
November
11
Nov
13
13
2006
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT}

Anyone who says that bad design means no design has never owned the 4-cylinder model of the AMC Gremlin car.
The name 'Gremlin' should have been your first clue...DonaldM_{November 13, 2006
November
11
Nov
13
13
2006
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT}

Jmcd, you seem to simply be whittiling down the breadth of the causal class. For example, we can whittle it down one step further: "We have only seen human x, human y and human z create complex machinery. Therefore, we can only have a theory which included one of them." Conversely, we can generalize our causal class: "Human intelligence is an example of intelligence in general. Since human intelligence has been demonstrated capable of producing complex machinery, intelligence itself has been proven capable." (This is not to say all tokens of class "intelligence" are capable, but merely that the causal class itself has some elements which are indeed capable. So the class itself is proven capable of producing the effect at hand) If human x is capable of producing effect A, then human intelligence is capable of producing effect A, then intelligence is capable of producing effect A. Got that? Write it down. ; )Atom_{November 13, 2006
November
11
Nov
13
13
2006
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT}

jmcd Your counter-argument does absolutely nothing to change the fact that intelligent agency is the only thing in the universe positively known to be capable of creating complex machinery. Denial is more than just a river in Egypt.DaveScot_{November 13, 2006
November
11
Nov
13
13
2006
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT}

Dave Scott said: "There is no instance in nature where machines of these sorts are known to be produced by any unintelligent process. Of course that doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t mean that only intelligent processes are capable of such feats but it does mean that until an unintelligent mechanism is positively demonstrated as being capable the proven means via intelligence is the only working theory. " I would counter that since human intelligence is the only intelligence we know of and humans did not exist when DNA was created, the only viable working theory is one that incorporates the agents we are aware of. That is not to say that intelligent processes could not account for such feats, but until we can demonstrate the existence of intelligence outside of humanity we cannot attribute events that happenned prior to humanity's existence to intelligent processes.jmcd_{November 13, 2006
November
11
Nov
13
13
2006
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank: I am not sure what you mean. I guess it is something like: Ã¢â‚¬Å“We donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t always observe the designer so therefore we sometimes deduce design by studying the object and nothing else.Ã¢â‚¬Â Close but not quite. Sometimes we may have other objects in the area we found the first. Then we can combine those to try to form an opinion. Ya see Mark if we knew the designer, the designer's motives and the implementation process, we wouldn't have/ need a design inference, design would be a given. SETI is a prime example of not knowing the designer nor the motives, yet scientists believe they can determine a designed signal from undesigned noise. Fire investigators deduce a motive only AFTER arson has been determined. The same goes for a dead body- only AFTER a homicide has been determined can one hope to find a motive. Stonehenge- only by studying it could we come up with possible methods of construction as well as possible motives. And by studying the Nasca plain we can deduce there was once people/ designing agencies there. We don't have to know that beforehand. Nor do we have to know "why" before we can infer design. Archaeologists disagree on how the Easter Island figures were moved- rolled on logs or "walked" like someone "walking" and upright heavy structure like a free-standing closet (like the kind you buy and assemble). Does this mean we can't say the figures are designed because we are unsure of the processes involved? No.Joseph_{November 13, 2006
November
11
Nov
13
13
2006
04:38 AM
4
04
38
AM
PDT}

Only one question on the supporters of the "bad design is not design" argument. Are you thinking that also W. OS is not intelligently designed? After all: 1. it is very far from optimal; 2. it does sometimes crash; 3. its code shows strong evidence for local non optimal design choices, inherited from previous versions; 4. etc... So, are you really thinking that this bad design argument is minimally sound?kairos_{November 13, 2006
November
11
Nov
13
13
2006
01:43 AM
1
01
43
AM
PDT}

Good point Dave, and this should be quite sufficient to reject the objection of the need for knowing the designer and his purposes. However, I think it is possible to easily reject even more:
Can you show me an example where you deduce design simply because of some intrinsic property of the outcome?
Consider an ordered arrangement of perfectly rounded shaped stones. Stones are arranged on the ground in a five-level hierarchical figure which does not look like any geometrical or biological shape. In this case the ordered arrangement of parts would be perfectly sufficinet to infer design without any knowledhe of the designer, his purposes, his attitudes to draw figures, etc.kairos_{November 13, 2006
November
11
Nov
13
13
2006
01:35 AM
1
01
35
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank "we also take into account the objects and shapes which they resemble" True enough. If you know anything about modern factory automation you'd recognize that DNA and ribosomes resemble robotic pick and place machines which are digitally programmed machines which assemble larger structures from smaller component parts. There is no instance in nature where machines of these sorts are known to be produced by any unintelligent process. Of course that doesn't mean that only intelligent processes are capable of such feats but it does mean that until an unintelligent mechanism is positively demonstrated as being capable the proven means via intelligence is the only working theory. Unless of course you have for some unscientific reason ruled out the possibility that intelligence of this sort existed earliar than a few decades ago. If you do that then you have no working theory at all but rather just a hunch that chance & necessity can somehow git er' done. DaveScot_{November 13, 2006
November
11
Nov
13
13
2006
12:57 AM
12
12
57
AM
PDT}

The point about the Zipf laws is the while they are a sign of natural language it is nothing to do with the information properties. They are a mathematical fact about natural languages which we happen to have observed.
Zipf's law refers to a "mathematical fact" concerning natural languages. How is this not an "information property" of a given text? The text itself contains this mathematical relationship. Meaningful, natural-language text is information in every sense of the word. Therefore, the text in question (information) contains a property (the mathematical relationship of its word distribution). Again, how is this not an objective information property of the text? To put it simply, let's say we find a text in an unknown script in some cave. It turns out to obey Zipf's Law. That would serve as evidence that it is actually a natural language (notice I said evidence, not proof), and we have not needed to postulate anything about the designer or its/his/her intention(s). We would have evidence (again, not final proof) for design without any knowledge of intention. Throw in the presence of CSI and now we have extremely strong evidence of design, much stronger than it just following Zipf's law. Still, no knowledge of intention necessary to detect design.Atom_{November 13, 2006
November
11
Nov
13
13
2006
12:02 AM
12
12
02
AM
PDT}

Joseph I am not sure what you mean. I guess it is something like: "We don't always observe the designer so therefore we sometimes deduce design by studying the object and nothing else." I could do with an example. Can you show me an example where you deduce design simply because of some intrinsic property of the outcome? In the case of the Nazca lines we study the lines but we also take into account the objects and shapes which they resemble, the propensity of people to draw recognisable shapes for a large number of reasons, the existence of such people at an appropriate time etc.Mark Frank_{November 12, 2006
November
11
Nov
12
12
2006
10:27 PM
10
10
27
PM
PDT}

Mark Frank: but you cannot deduce design without making some implicit assumptions about the designer and at least part of the designerÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s motivation. That too is false. Reality tells us that the only way to do what you "require", in the absence of direct observation or designer input, is by studying the designed object in question.Joseph_{November 12, 2006
November
11
Nov
12
12
2006
06:59 PM
6
06
59
PM
PDT}

2001 space oddessy's black monolith was clearly the result of natural forces. A designer would have made it a far mor efficient sphere shape. [/sarcasm]StephenA_{November 12, 2006
November
11
Nov
12
12
2006
05:21 PM
5
05
21
PM
PDT}

Yes, DaveScot, the experience of design is instantaneous and a function of instinct based on past experience of design vs no design. Consideration of the nature of the designer is not a part of that experience. It can come later or not. When considering the rather obvious presence of design in the universe, I don't find all that much that is revelatory concerning the nature of the designer.bj_{November 12, 2006
November
11
Nov
12
12
2006
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT}

I've always found this bad designer argument puzzling. After all, it seems to concede the designers existence. But more than that, it is based on some pretty flawed logic. There is an assumption that all of the design criteria are known. Yet an apparently "flawed design" relies on knowing what a design has been optimised to acheive. All design inevitably involes working between a number of constraints. And frankly, I think the website http://www.defectivebydesign.org/en/node perfectly illustrates the point. DRM software is designed to be broken the way it is, and for the desired end it is actually about as good a design as it possible, even though from a different perspective (that of the consumer) it is a terrible design. Clearly the defectivness of the design is in part "in the eye of the beholder" and relies upon knowing the goals of the design itself. Why anti-ID folks think this is such a strong argument is a mystery too me, but who expects clear thinking from such politically motivated activists ?jwrennie_{November 12, 2006
November
11
Nov
12
12
2006
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PDT}

Mark Frank We may not know much about the Nazca designers but we are assuming that they were trying to produce symbolic representations of animals and geometrical shapes. (If they werenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t trying to do that - then the resemblance is indeed a bizarre coincidence.) This not correct. The animal shapes are observable, empirical facts. We only have guesses about who made them or why. We don't need those guesses to recognize the shapes themselves have no reasonable explanation for their origin other than intelligent design. If they were on the face of the moon instead of where they are it would be no less apparent they are intelligent designs but we'd have almost no evidence whatsoever upon which to base speculation about who made them or why. You don't necessarily need to know anything at all about the designer to recognize a design. Sure it helps in some cases but it isn't strictly required as the Nazca symbols amply demonstrate.DaveScot_{November 12, 2006
November
11
Nov
12
12
2006
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT}

You both should read more carefully what people actually write. My point is simple: artifacts can contain information properties that act as signs of design. Mark Frank seems to argue that this is never the case without prior knowledge of motivation, but that is simply false. The Nazca Lines in Peru form a counter-argument. We how or why they were made, and even the who is surrounded in conjecture and mystery. But the specified shapes matching those of geometery and biology leave no doubt to the fact that they were designed.
Atom 1) The point about the Zipf laws is the while they are a sign of natural language it is nothing to do with the information properties. They are a mathematical fact about natural languages which we happen to have observed. So when we observe some other potential language that confirms to Zipf's law then we deduce it is also a natural language. The same logic would apply if we happen to observe that natural languages are always written in curly script while non-natural languages are generally written in more angular script. 2. The Nazca lines example is very interesting. I oversimplified the case by saying I think you can only recognise if something is designed by hypothesising something about the designerÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s intentions or plans. but you cannot deduce design without making some implicit assumptions about the designer and at least part of the designer's motivation. We may not know much about the Nazca designers but we are assuming that they were trying to produce symbolic representations of animals and geometrical shapes. (If they weren't trying to do that - then the resemblance is indeed a bizarre coincidence.) To see the importance of this imagine that someone did come up with an alternative explanation that did not rely on design. They propose that the patterns are the result of natural processes that just happen to form these shapes. The important thing is not the plausability of this alternative (very low) but the kind of thing that would be produced as evidence in the argument. The natural process hypothesis might point to the fact that the shapes were not very good imitations of hummingbirds or whales or whatever or they might point out the difficulty in creating such shapes. i.e. they would discuss the motivation and capabilities of the designer. The design hypothesis would discuss the fact that these are pretty good resemblances given the constraints under which the people would be working. Or they might discuss the fact possibility that the designers were not trying to make a perfect resemblance but only a symbolic resemblamce. This is how a rational discussion of the "design" hypothesis would proceed.Mark Frank_{November 12, 2006
November
11
Nov
12
12
2006
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT}

If God designed humans, I wouldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t need my glasses. Here's the evidence conclusively rebutting your claim While I don't know any of the Blind Boys of Alabama they certainly seem happier than many people I know with perfect sight. To claim bad design one has to know the purpose of the designed object. A perfectly designed fuse breaks perfectly.tribune7_{November 12, 2006
November
11
Nov
12
12
2006
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT}

I know that in Christian theology there is an explanation for less that perfect design in the fall, which sort of gets God off the hook. For those of us who don't follow that path, God is responsible for less than perfect design for whatever reason. The issue, however, is the same in both ways of thinking. Less than perfect design does not rule out a deity or some kind of entity beyond or underlying matter and energy.bj_{November 12, 2006
November
11
Nov
12
12
2006
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply