Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Durston Cont’d

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Kirk Durston‘s Thoughts on Intelligent Design

 

In this thread, I would like to lay out my own thinking regarding a method to detect or identify examples of intelligent design. I then would like to unpack my thinking in a slow, meticulous (pedantic perhaps?) way and, if we can get that far, apply it to a few examples, including a protein, and the minimal genome.

 

Defining ‘Intelligent Design’:

 

I commonly see the term ‘intelligent design’ used in two ways. An example of the first way is in a magazine headline I saw this morning:

 

‘Evolution by Intelligent Design’

 

The above example is similar to the way ‘planning’ is used in, ‘Success through good planning.’

 

In this sense, we can define Intelligent Design as the ability of a mind to produce an effect that both satisfies a desired function or objective and might not otherwise likely occur. This ability emerges out of what we understand to be intelligence, defined in <a href=”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence”>Wikipedia</a> as the capacities to reason, to plan, to solve problems, to think abstractly, to comprehend ideas, to use language, and to learn.

 

The second way I see the term intelligent design used is:

 

‘That traffic control system is a beautiful example of intelligent design.’

 

The usage of ‘intelligent design’ in the above sentence is similar to the usage of planning in, ‘That rescue operation was an excellent piece of planning.’

 

In this second type of usage, we can define intelligent design as an effect that satisfies a function or objective and requires a mind to produce. Other examples of intelligent design are the Sphinx and the Microsoft Vista operating system.

 

In the first sense, ‘intelligent design’ is an ability and in the second sense, ‘intelligent design’ is an effect, or result of that ability.

 

With this in mind, the definition of intelligent design that I will be using in this discussion is as follows:

 

Intelligent Design:  1  the ability of a mind to produce an effect that both satisfies a desired function and might not otherwise occur.  2.  an effect that performs a function and that requires a mind to produce.

 

I realize that there are other definitions out there, some of which I do not at all agree with (e.g., Wiki’s). In general, most of the definitions of intelligent design that I see are actually specific examples, applications or results of intelligent design, rather than the defining essence of intelligent design. Ultimately, what I want to argue is that examples of intelligent design all required a mind to produce. I then want to argue that intelligent design is the most rational explanation for the protein families and the minimal genome. I will pause here in case anyone wishes to raise a question about what I’ve covered thus far. Then I will proceed to the next step.

Comments
trib (#5): You are a long time IDist, so remember one of our fundamental mottoes: "bad design does not mean no design" :-)gpuccio
February 3, 2009
February
02
Feb
3
03
2009
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT
Kirk, very clear and well said. In my usual language, I would just call your number 1 "the ability to design" (a functions of conscious intelligence), and your number 2 "the designed object", or "the product of design". Obviously, design detection is made on #2. I would suggest that we could also define a third entity, the "process" of design, which in many instances can be observed, but is distinct from the designed object itself.gpuccio
February 3, 2009
February
02
Feb
3
03
2009
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT
Other examples of intelligent design are . . . the Microsoft Vista operating system. Well, um . . . Sorry, Professor. Kirk, please continue.tribune7
February 3, 2009
February
02
Feb
3
03
2009
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT
How long will it be before we get someone demanding that Kirk must add the motivation of the designer or who created the designer to the discussion. Kirk, good start. You will get a lot of irrelevant questions so be careful with your time on this. You will be amazed at the inanity that will come up. Peter Olofsson has written a couple of articles attacking ID that are mainly to do with the use of probability and statistics in supporting ID. http://ramanujan.math.trinity.edu/polofsson/research/Chance.pdf http://ramanujan.math.trinity.edu/polofsson/research/RevBioAndPhilo.pdf You might want to read them to know what some critics have said. Professor Per is a frequent commenter here at UD.jerry
February 3, 2009
February
02
Feb
3
03
2009
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT
I agree Prof_P.Olofsson, please continue Kirk we do not have much to go on so far. Like the name Prof_P.Olofsson btw, I have a text book written by a Professor Olofsson. It is a good one too.GSV
February 3, 2009
February
02
Feb
3
03
2009
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT
Dear all, Can we all let Kirk finish his presentation before we comment?Prof_P.Olofsson
February 3, 2009
February
02
Feb
3
03
2009
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT
I clearly follow your premise as I am sure most others can, but would like to point out that the antagonistic position held by the Prof., and most other hard-core Darwinists on this site, is that of unbending resolve of blind chance producing an effect/function no matter how much the unlikelihood is of its "natural" occurrence is pointed out to them. I would like to point out Newton's conclusion in Principia: In Newton’s Principia, he concluded that humans know God only by examining the evidences of His creations: “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done. We know him only by his most wise and excellent contrivances of things, and final causes; we admire him for his perfection; but we reverence and adore him on account of his dominion; for we adore him as his servants. i.e.Newton found the fact that such order should be found in reality, instead of chaos, to be overwhelming evidence of God's ultimate dominion of reality and thus the vacancy of any rational premise in which the atheists has rational basis to appeal to chaos/chance in the first place. With that being said, of my utter contempt for the atheistic/materialistic premise in the first place, compared with the actual state of scientific evidence/reality, I will eagerly watch by the sidelines and intrude no more in what I think will be a very interesting exchange that may lead to "checkmate'.bornagain77
February 3, 2009
February
02
Feb
3
03
2009
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT
Kirk, I will follow your thinking to the end and not interrupt. If we open the debate already, you'll never get through!Prof_P.Olofsson
February 3, 2009
February
02
Feb
3
03
2009
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT
Kirk, All the examples you cited involve not only a mind but also a body, i.e. a way to bring the design into physical reality. I'm not interested in mind/body semantics (I'm willing to accept that a thought is non-material for the sake of argument), but I think it's safe to say that no one has ever observed a mind willing something into reality without the help of, for example, hands. so you can't really say that anything designed is just the product of a mind.Khan
February 3, 2009
February
02
Feb
3
03
2009
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply