Hitchhiker’s Guide author’s “puddle” argument against fine-tuning — and a response

_{Denyse O'Leary

April 25, 2021

Fine tuning, Intelligent Design

2}_{Categories
Fine tuning
Intelligent Design}

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

At Stand to Reason, Tim Barnett reminds us of an argument against fine-tuning of the universe Douglas Adams (1952–2001) offers in one of the Hitchhiker books (he Salmon of Doubt: Hitchhiking the Galaxy One Last Time):

This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, “This is an interesting world I find myself in—an interesting hole I find myself in—fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!” This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.

Barnett responds:

In the puddle analogy, the puddle—Doug—can exist in any hole. That’s how puddles work. The shape of the hole is irrelevant to the existence of the puddle. If you change the shape of the hole, the shape of the puddle changes, but you always get a puddle.
The problem is, life doesn’t work like that. Life cannot exist in any universe. The evidence from fine-tuning shows that a life-permitting universe is extremely rare. If you change certain conditions of the universe, you cannot get life anywhere in the universe. For instance, slightly increase the mass of the electron or the up quark, and get a universe with nothing but neutrons. No stars. No planets. No chemistry. No life.
Tim Barnett, “Why the Puddle Analogy Fails against Fine-Tuning” at Stand to Reason (April 22, 2021)

It’s a good argument. But in reality, any argument against fine-tuning will be accepted, whether it makes sense or not. It is only the defenders of a rational universe who need to make sense. And that’s not for the other guy; it’s for you.

See also: What becomes of science when the evidence does not matter?

Comments

Re WJM, he still does not recognise that anything that undermines a major faculty of mind, here, perception of the common world we inhabit, is self referential and discrediting
It is false that IRT undermines that major faculty of mind; it only undermines your particular belief about one particular aspect of that faculty of mind: where the information is coming from and how it is being processed into what we call the 'common world" experience. IRT does not deny that we have common, transpersonal, mutually verifiable sets of experiences that we usually refer to and characterize as "an external world." BTW, "external of mind" (universal mind) and "external of self" are two different concepts under IRT. You seem impervious to this distinction. Lots of things exist outside of my self; mutually verifiable things. But, you have been completely uninterested in learning the distinctions between self, experience, the distinction between "internal of self" experiences and "external of self" experiences under IRT. Unfortunately for you, ERT (external of mind, not "external of self") has been scientifically disproved. If that fact only leaves you personally with nothing available but self-referential absurdity, that's your personal problem. It's not mine.William J Murray_{May 5, 2021
May
05
May
5
05
2021
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT}

Paige ---"Why do souls need a cause?" Because they are creatures. They depend on a self-existent being for their coming into being and for their continued existence. Only a self-existent being can exist without a prior cause and there can only be one self-existent being.StephenB_{May 5, 2021
May
05
May
5
05
2021
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT}

KF, I was going to write this but stopped
Anyone who answers this is feeding the troll.
But your reply is short and to the point. Hopefully the troll goes under the bridge never to return. But somehow I doubt it. The troll needs nourishment, replies from others to its inanity.jerry_{May 5, 2021
May
05
May
5
05
2021
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT}

Re WJM, he still does not recognise that anything that undermines a major faculty of mind, here, perception of the common world we inhabit, is self referential and discrediting. KFkairosfocus_{May 5, 2021
May
05
May
5
05
2021
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT}

You got me there, BA77. Caught me using the "there is no evidence" line that really should never be used. My bad, my mistake. Let me make a better statement: we know now that we are not experiencing an actual external world with an actual past comprised of actual states and characteristics that exist independent of personal, conscious observation. The evidence clearly indicates that no "God" actualized a particular "universe," but rather that all potential "universe" experiences are local to the individual observer. The evidence disproves the narrative that some "God" created any particular universe at any particular point of time in the past with certain qualities. Rather, it indicates that each conscious being is "manifesting" their particular, individual experience of what we call "the universe" out of the potential of all possible experiences.William J Murray_{May 5, 2021
May
05
May
5
05
2021
06:04 AM
6
06
04
AM
PDT}

I read StephenB's response at 293. It was beautiful piece of Theological apologetics. Way out of my depth, but still very beautiful for me to read. In regards to the science at hand though, WJM claimed that "there is no logically necessary reason or evidence that God “created” souls or that God actively “created” anything." Scientific evidence from embryogenesis and Big Bang cosmology not withstanding of course:
"The magic of the mechanisms inside each genetic structure saying exactly where that nerve cell should go, the complexity of these, the mathematical models on how these things are indeed done, are beyond human comprehension. Even though I am a mathematician, I look at this with the marvel of how do these instruction sets not make these mistakes as they build what is us. It’s a mystery, it’s magic, it’s divinity." - Alexander Tsiaras: Conception to birth -- visualized - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKyljukBE70? In a TED Talk, (the Question You May Not Ask,,, Where did the information come from?) – November 29, 2017 Excerpt: Sabatini is charming.,,, he deploys some memorable images. He points out that the information to build a human infant, atom by atom, would take up the equivalent of enough thumb drives to fill the Titanic, multiplied by 2,000. Later he wheels out the entire genome, in printed form, of a human being,,,,: [F]or the first time in history, this is the genome of a specific human, printed page-by-page, letter-by-letter: 262,000 pages of information, 450 kilograms.,,, https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/in-a-ted-talk-heres-the-question-you-may-not-ask/ “My argument,” Dr. Penzias concluded, “is that the best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted, had I had nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole.” - Dr. Arno Penzias, Nobel Laureate in Physics – co-discoverer Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation – as stated to the New York Times on March 12, 1978 “Certainly there was something that set it all off,,, I can’t think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match Genesis” - Robert Wilson – Nobel laureate – co-discoverer Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation - Fred Heeren, Show Me God (Wheeling, Ill.: Daystar, 2000), "The question of 'the beginning' is as inescapable for cosmologists as it is for theologians...there is no doubt that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing" - George Smoot and Keay Davidson, Wrinkles in Time, 1993, p.189. - George Smoot is a Nobel laureate in 2006 for his work on COBE
Verses:
Psalm 139:13-16 For You created my innermost parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb. I will give thanks to You, because I am awesomely and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Your works, And my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from You When I was made in secret, And skillfully formed in the depths of the earth; Your eyes have seen my formless substance; And in Your book were written All the days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them. Genesis 1:1-3 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.
bornagain77_{May 5, 2021
May
05
May
5
05
2021
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT}

I again write for record/reference. Pardon a few details.
I have no problem with doing so as long as long as it isn’t constantly repeating the same thing. In this case it’s not only a repeat but an indecipherable one. At least it’s not overly long. I love the line
There is no incoherence in this concept
For something that I had no idea what you were saying. It’s an example of my math professor saying something was intuitively obvious while proving a theorem as 15 PhD students in mathematics were in unison completely bewildered. Maybe it flowed but it was anything but obvious and definitely not intuitive.jerry_{May 5, 2021
May
05
May
5
05
2021
05:14 AM
5
05
14
AM
PDT}

SB @297: You're making claims of faith; there is no logically necessary reason or evidence that God "created" souls or that God actively "created" anything. Being a necessary "ground of existence" doesn't mean that "ground" actively or deliberately created anything. You might use the analogy of God being that which provides for the existence of the canvas, paint, painter and the infinite possible paintings that can be produced; but God itself is not creating any particular painting, in any particular location, at any particular time because ground of being God exists as all possible such arrangements. It is irrational to say God, as ground of being, created something in particular; that requires a particular personality, a particular identity, a particular perspective. Such an entity is not God as ground of being; it is a particular possible being whose existence is allowed for by the ground-of-being God (or whatever you want to call it.) These cannot rationally be said to be qualitatively "the same being." One is infinite potential; the other is one particular actualized entity with individual, particular qualities (say, "goodness" or being "just") that makes particular choices based on its particular nature.William J Murray_{May 5, 2021
May
05
May
5
05
2021
04:52 AM
4
04
52
AM
PDT}

StephenB:
It appears, though, that your real objection to the Christian religion is less about science or metaphysics and more about your perception of ethics and the justice of God.
I have several "real" objections: (1) it has been disproved by science (quantum experimentation results,) (2) it has been experientially, empirically disproved by the existence of counterfactual afterlife experiences; (3) it doesn't hold up to logical examination, and (4) by its own premise of our capacity to locate what is good, we know it cannot be a good system. It is an immediately recognizable evil system (if one believes in objectively recognizable evil.)
Don’t you have to first be brought into existence before you can be consulted?
As Paige pointed out: no. We do not have to be "brought into existence" if we have always existed. Being forced into existence within the confines, structure and ruleset of some other being's particular creation obviously (1) represents a first-order, origin-level violation of my free will and (2) puts me in conditions of duress that functionally render me, my thinking and decisions a product of that coercive system, not expressions of my personal "free will." Any reasonable person would agree, I cannot be held responsible for things I must choose between when under the threat of eternal torment or existential annihilation. In regards to God's supposed inherent lovability only being understood by a certain special kind of "experience," the counterfactual experiences of countless NDErs, as well as other such "beautific" experiences, undermine the "exclusivity" claim by Christianity. Do you assume I've never had such an experience? I and countless others have; we have had our lives utterly transformed by these experiences and they had nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity or Jesus. To my knowledge, after reading hundreds of NDE reports and research reports, there has never been a message delivered to anyone by the "being of light," even when recognized by the experiencer as Jesus or the Christian God, representing Christian exclusivity. In fact, the bulk of the experiencers bring back a message of complete non-judgmental love that has nothing whatsoever to do with any religion, creed, or particular spiritual belief. Their lives are transformed by this experience. As far as the evidence you've outlined that you believe supports the claim of Christian exclusivity; even if we accept all your evidence arguendo, the uniqueness of such evidence doesn't logically imply existential exclusivity. That's a fundamental error of logic. So what if Jesus made that claim, so what if all the prophecies of the Bible came true, so what if miracles occurred, so what if it is 100% historically accurate, etc? None of that even begins to make the case for existential exclusivity, especially in the face of counterfactual experiences and evidence. The evidence indicates that there is a multi-dimensional experiential construct (for some people here and involving at least one afterlife realm) that is structurally consistent with Christian beliefs (generally speaking.) The evidence indicates that there are many such multidimensional constructs that have nothing whatsoever to do with the Christian construct. I and many people I know, and perhaps millions of people around the world have visited these places. We have a mountain of credible evidence from people living in these "afterlife" worlds. We've accomplished many forms of live, two-way communication, including technological means that transmit voice, images and physical objects from their world to ours. IMO, Christian existential exclusivity has been conclusively disproved empirically, logically and by a rational examination of the available evidence.William J Murray_{May 5, 2021
May
05
May
5
05
2021
04:19 AM
4
04
19
AM
PDT}

F/N: For emphasis, I again note for those suggesting chaotic incoherence:
. . . where X = x1 + x2 + . . . + xn is claimed to be inconsistent but a reasonable explanation E1 is such that E1 + X is coherent [i.e. forms a possible world], then X is strictly coherent. It is of course possible to create a radical disharmony D1 so D1 + X is incoherent, but that is irrelevant once an E1 does or may exist. . . . The logic of coherence just summarised is a general result. Once we do or may possibly have some Ek that C(Ek + X) –> 1, i.e. a reasonable coherence check is actually or potentially positive then that there are many cases where C(Dk + X) –> 0 becomes irrelevant.
KFkairosfocus_{May 4, 2021
May
05
May
4
04
2021
10:58 PM
10
10
58
PM
PDT}

Jerry & VL (attn Paige and WJM): I again write for record/reference. Pardon a few details. Again, UD is at focus, about the design . . . intelligently directed configuration . . . issue, on the world of life and the physical cosmos, with linked general and cultural issues. All are important as inherently tightly interconnected. On the design inference, it is clear that the presence of coded algorithms in the living cell is directly a sign of language turned to creation of goal directed procedure. That is decisive though widely unacknowledged or unrecognised. A cosmos fitted to such life, showing fine tuning, on fair comment, suggests a common root. Next, I have highlighted above, a key argument on worldviews engagement through comparative difficulties, and have thereby addressed the projection of the accusation, chaotic discrediting incoherence, directed at the question of evils/goodness of God and the commonly promoted perception that the Scriptures of the Bible are similarly incoherent:
[KF, 251:] . . . where X = x1 + x2 + . . . + xn is claimed to be inconsistent but a reasonable explanation E1 is such that E1 + X is coherent [i.e. forms a possible world], then X is strictly coherent. It is of course possible to create a radical disharmony D1 so D1 + X is incoherent, but that is irrelevant once an E1 does or may exist. . . . The logic of coherence just summarised is a general result. Once we do or may possibly have some Ek that C(Ek + X) –> 1, i.e. a reasonable coherence check is actually or potentially positive then that there are many cases where C(Dk + X) –> 0 becomes irrelevant.
The question of God comes in here, as a root of reality issue. God is a serious candidate necessary being, so, to be part of the framework for any possible world. Where, necessary being is eternal, as present in any world, ultimately, an aspect of the root something that is why a world exists. [As in, utter non-being cannot be a source of any world, the debate is to characterise the root.] Serious candidacy is secured by major worldviews turning on God as pivot. With such a candidate, either there is impossibility of being or actuality. (Try to think of a world without two-ness in it, or where such began or ceases and you will see how NB's are framework to any world.) Thus, the point is that a possible world Ek + X involves God, unless God is impossible of being. God, being understood i/l/o the presence of morally governed creatures and the centuries of debates on is and ought that can only be bridged in the root of reality. Thus, we can see a bill of requisites for God as filled by his being the inherently good, utterly wise creator and world root/source/sustainer, a necessary and maximally great being. There is no incoherence in this concept, indeed maximal greatness is about having what is good and wise in perfect fullness and balance across its dimensions. Such is a first point for general understanding of reality, but it is not where design theory starts, as an empirical investigation. As regards scripture, as long as there is or may be a relevant Ek + X, the projection of radical disharmonies Dk + X is of little substantial effect. KFkairosfocus_{May 4, 2021
May
05
May
4
04
2021
10:30 PM
10
10
30
PM
PDT}

StephenB
Good question. They were created by God. They are not eternal because they did not always exist.
How do you know? Both souls and God are immaterial. God does not require a cause. Why do souls need a cause?paige_{May 4, 2021
May
05
May
4
04
2021
10:14 PM
10
10
14
PM
PDT}

SB, good to see you. Perhaps, some interlocutors will be more willing to attend to you than they have to me. However, the evidence is, that engagement of substance will be problematic. The gaps in modern education speak, including the logic of being issues you just raised. We are contingent beings, not necessary ones, however the rational soul is an inherent unit and cannot be broken apart, once it exists. However, as it has freedom, it can grow towards its potential or become ever more warped, twisted away from its true ends and so destructively evil; especially if it rejects redemptive light. Hence, our lives as a soul-building opportunity and test and hence also the consequences of our choices. KFkairosfocus_{May 4, 2021
May
05
May
4
04
2021
09:50 PM
9
09
50
PM
PDT}

Paige: ---"Are our souls truly eternal or were they created by God?" Good question. They were created by God. They are not eternal because they did not always exist. They are immortal because they will exist from now on. They cannot die or disintegrate because, unlike our bodies, they are not made of parts. ---"And if they coexist with God, didn’t we always exist, and didn’t we always have free will?": Humans didn't always exist because they are creatures that the Creator brought into existence. God always had existence but he had to give it to his creatures, just as he had to give them their distinct faculties of intellect and will, which allow them to make free (though with limitations) moral choices.StephenB_{May 4, 2021
May
05
May
4
04
2021
07:32 PM
7
07
32
PM
PDT}

Viola Lee
the fact that creativity exists does not mean there is a creator.
I am not sure I understand your point. Doesn’t creativity imply intent? And if there is intent, is there not a creator? Or multiple creators? Or are you suggesting creativity in the purely physical sense? Such as carbon and high pressure can “create” a diamond?paige_{May 4, 2021
May
05
May
4
04
2021
06:44 PM
6
06
44
PM
PDT}

StephenB
Don’t you have to first be brought into existence before you can be consulted? Don’t you have to first possess free will in order to love?
Just a question. Are our souls truly eternal or were they created by God? And if they coexist with God, didn’t we always exist, and didn’t we always have free will?paige_{May 4, 2021
May
05
May
4
04
2021
06:38 PM
6
06
38
PM
PDT}

WJM: ..."if God created the metaphysical system we live in under the Christian perspective, excluded all other possible experiential lines from access, forced me into existence, forced free will on me, forced me into the system here on Earth without consulting me about any of it,..." Don't you have to first be brought into existence before you can be consulted? Don't you have to first possess free will in order to love?StephenB_{May 4, 2021
May
05
May
4
04
2021
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PDT}

To William J. Murray @263: I understand that you do not accept Christian apologetics as something that is unique and exclusive, but you seem to discount its comprehensive function, which goes much deeper than simply providing evidence for near death experiences. Among other things, Christian apologetics cites historical facts and, metaphysical truths in defense of Christianity, all of which can be easily grasped and confidently asserted. One good example of the former would be this: Among all those who claim to speak for God, only Jesus Christ can be considered to be credible in that role: First, his existence was foretold in the Old Testament, which provided specific details about the location of his future birth, the nature of his mission, and the circumstances under which he would die. If God wanted us to accept His Son, the least he could do is tell us in advance, which is exactly what he did. Second, he performed other kinds of miracles (physical) and even raised people from the dead. Even his enemies acknowledged these events as facts. Third, his moral doctrine was complete, authoritative, and coherent, explaining the purpose of man’s existence and the means by which it can be realized. Clearly, Jesus Christ has no peers in this sense.. Even if you dismiss the physical miracles, you cannot dismiss the prophetic miracles. Christ alone claimed to be God and would not have been a moral person if his assertion was not true. So he could not have been simply a "good moral teacher." What could Muhammed, Confucius, Ramakrishna, or any other religious leader say in the same context other than, “No, I am not God, and no, I was not pre-announced, but I am here anyway -- just trust me.” There is no apologetic in that sense outside of Christianity. The metaphysical arguments for a Christian apologetic are even stronger. The Christian religion begins with a Trinitarian God, which is the logical foundation for everything else that follows. Unity and diversity are both explained as God, in himself, existing as a community of Divine persons. Human relationships reflect these same qualities because, as creatures, they were fashioned in the divine image. Further, the rational nature of the universe, as observed in the order of creation, reflects the rational nature of Logos, which is Christ; it is God acting in creation, revelation, and redemption. There is no Logos or rational principle found in Pantheism, Islam, Hinduism, or Atheism. At the same time, there is no other way to explain the correspondence between our rational minds and the rational universe except in terms of that same rational principle, that is, through the Christian world view exclusively. It appears, though, that your real objection to the Christian religion is less about science or metaphysics and more about your perception of ethics and the justice of God. To be more specific, you refer to the Christian God as a tyrant God who demands that we love him “or else,” meaning that if we refuse to respond to Divine love, we will suffer the consequences of eternal torment. As I understand it, you are saying that God is unlovable because he has forced his creatures to make such a choice “under duress,” which I also understand to mean that human free will has been compromised under those circumstances. The point you seem to miss is that God doesn’t need to “demand” love because his nature, properly understood and described, is already lovable enough to “command” it. Using an analogy, an excellent student shouldn’t need to demand an “A” on his report card if his performance commands it. If, objectively speaking, God’s majesty, power, wisdom, and goodness exist at a level that cannot be appreciated by his creatures, save those who have experienced the “beatific vision,” then that reality must be taken into account. That you cannot imagine or conceive of a lovability that rises to that level doesn’t mean that it isn't true.. Accordingly, It is unjust and unreasonable to reject a God who loves his creatures enough to create them (out of nothing), visit with them (through his incarnation), suffer for them (through his passion) and die for them (as the ultimate sacrifice). These kinds of loving actions command a loving response. ---WJM: "Nobody is going to choose eternal torment; they may choose not to believe in it, or to not believe in a God that set it up; but that is not the same thing as choosing eternal torment. Especially not under duress.” Very few, if any, would choose eternal torment directly, but there are many, I think, who choose it indirectly through progressive stages. Even in this life, when cultural barbarians remove faith in God and hope for the future from the minds of children, many of their victims lose the capacity to establish meaningful goals or live a meaningful life. Why would they try to achieve something that doesn’t exist or is out of range for them? Over time, they may feel that the only way to assert their individuality is to stage riots or burn down buildings. They don’t stop to ask the question: Where am I going? They didn’t choose to be lost, but they are, nevertheless, lost. In a similar fashion, I think that many lost souls end up in hell by falling into the pit one step at a time. Due to their nature, disembodied souls live forever and, if Christianity is true, they will one day be reunited with their risen bodies to face a final judgment. If they must live somewhere or in some state of existence forever, it follows that the quality of their life will be determined by where and with whom they must live. This is a logical consequence of immortality.StephenB_{May 4, 2021
May
05
May
4
04
2021
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PDT}

Ooops. I forgot that many people read this on a phone, as I use my computer. I apologize for my long post. I could have condensed it. It's too late for me to delete it, but an admin can delete it if they like.Viola Lee_{May 4, 2021
May
05
May
4
04
2021
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT}

to Paige re 278: When I wrote, "A creator of massive intelligence is an assumption of an anthropomorphized entity of some sort, but that is not the only way to conceive of the source of creativity that underlies or precedes our universe.", you replied, "While this [the Christian God] may actually be true, if you leave out the religious preconceptions, couldn’t this intelligent agent be more akin to an idiot savant? A being with off-the-chart skills and abilities in a narrow field." That is not at all what I am suggesting. Rather, several major religions of philosophical perspectives posit a Oneness that is ineffably beyond being thought of in personal terms. The Christian God is an anthropomorphism of our Western conception of personhood: a conscious, thinking mind which then implements its thoughts via action: based on the idea of intelligent agent. However, the One, according to these views, is beyond personhood: the fact that creativity exists does not mean there is a creator. That is, the Western view, while it may be right, is not necessarily so. Quantum theory, if I dare bring it up and apply it to that which I have no business applying, hints at causal connections that can exists "horizontally", so to speak, spread out over time and space at a moment, rather than "vertically", from moment-to-moment, as pre-QM physics supposed. Carl Jung, who was quite interested in Eastern thought, coined the word syncronicity:
Jung defined synchronicity as an “acausal connecting (togetherness) principle,” “meaningful coincidence”, “acausal parallelism” or “meaningful coincidence of two or more events where something other than the probability of chance is involved.”
That is, the creative power of the world may reside "below the quantum level", so to speak, where the nature of the One "bubbles up", so to speak, into the world of our experience through quantum syncronicity. Just food for thought, as an alternative to think about other than the prevalent theistic views of our culture.Viola Lee_{May 4, 2021
May
05
May
4
04
2021
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT}

:) Oh no, I didn't know that multiple designers of cars,bikes and planes are gods. Good to know. Atheists lost the plot.Sandy_{May 4, 2021
May
05
May
4
04
2021
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT}

Viola Lee@285. I wore a groove in my iPhone scrolling past this comment. It is reminiscent of scrolling past a BA77 comment. :)paige_{May 4, 2021
May
05
May
4
04
2021
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT}

I was trying to break the record.Viola Lee_{May 4, 2021
May
05
May
4
04
2021
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT}

An Introduction to Multiple Designers Theory
We are getting into serious competition for a longest comment. I assume there is no active link. RBH is Richard B. Hoppe.jerry_{May 4, 2021
May
05
May
4
04
2021
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT}

Even if we have direct observable evidence of the Wright brothers intelligently designing a plane, then still on a strictly logical basis there is no evidence of the intelligent designer. That is because for science the choices of the Wright brothers would just be noted as randomness, and what made their decisions turn out the way they did, is categorically a subjective issue. Logic dictates that the agency of a choice, can only be identified with a chosen opinion. That is the logical basis of subjectivity, of expressions of what is beautiful, loving and good. The human souls of the Wright brothers, which did the actual intelligent designing, is just as well without any objective evidence whatsoever, as God is.mohammadnursyamsu_{May 4, 2021
May
05
May
4
04
2021
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT}

Jerry writes, "There does not have to be any reason why the same intelligence is responsible for all the designs. There could be one for the universe, another for the origin of life, another for the changes in life forms.... Now people make assumptions that they are one in the same but there is no reason from ID for this to be so. I have my own personal opinions but nothing in ID says they are the same intelligence, just that they were designed." I think if one is serious about sticking to ID and not bringing religion into as, as BA, KF, sandy and others regularly do, then Jerry's point is well-taken. So, both to further that thought, and provide a little historical input, consider this: Back in 2002, over at the Discussion forum at Dembski's ISCID site, the poster rbh (now deceased) wrote a lengthy and substantial essay on Multiple Designers Theory, and another poster, Evan, contributed some additional comments, including the idea that animism (one designer per kind) might actually be closer to the truth than monotheism, and that the designers growing and learning and developing their style over time accounts for the progressive change in organisms over the last two billion years or so.
An Introduction to Multiple Designers Theory Prologue The observation that stimulated my thinking on this topic was of a humble grammatical phenomenon. In reading an array of ID works over the last several months, I realized that virtually without exception, the hypothesized entity responsible for the designs is referred to in the singular. Whether called an "intelligent designer," an "intelligent agent," or an "intelligent agency," it is always in the singular. Only in one or two remarks quoted in newspapers has the plural form appeared, for example in comments from leading ID theorists (e.g., P. Johnson and W. Dembski) that "space aliens" might be the designers. Michael Behe, interestingly, maintained the singular even there: "space alien." However, off-hand public remarks quoted in newspapers can't be taken as serious theoretical statements. The more technical and formal works in ID habitually refer to "designer," not "designers," "agent," not "agents," and "agency," not "agencies." There are occasional exceptions to my generalization. For example, in "No Free Lunch" Dembski has a section titled "Embodied and Unembodied Designers," using the plural form. However, in the very first sentence of that section he reverts to the singular: "Even if we grant the possibility of an unembodied designer, ..." (p. 347). The singular is a powerful default for IDists. I will not speculate on the reason people habitually use the singular in this context, but it seems obvious that it is an unsupported assumption (perhaps made out of awareness) that if design is responsible for the diversity of structures and properties of life on earth, it was an "it" rather than a "them": there was/is just one designer. The central message of Multiple Designers Theory is that the unwarranted assumption of a single designer is not only unnecessary, it is an unjustifiable constraint that puts artificial and arbitrary limits on theory and research in ID. Therefore, with the help of a few colleagues I have prepared an introductory outline of Multiple Designers Theory, MDT, to stimulate thinking and discussion. I do not claim that this is a complete statement of Multiple Designers Theory. That is not yet fully worked out. These preliminary remarks are by way of introduction to the outline of a theory that has the real potential to account for a good deal of observed data and organize disparate lines of ID thought, and that has promise of generating potentially fruitful research programs in intelligent design. It is offered not as a belief system or a finished product, but as a hypothesis for discussion and a basis for elaboration. I. Brief Multiple Designers Theory Overview As its name implies, the central tenet of Multiple Designers Theory is that if intelligent design is implicated in the properties and structure of life of on earth, then multiple designers are implicated, not merely a single designer. As I will sketch below, the evidence that is interpreted to be supportive of the design hypothesis almost universally implicates multiple designers rather than just one designer. The universal ID assumption (and assumption it is) of a single designer is probably an artifact of language. If something - a human artifact or a biological structure - appears to have been designed (say on the formal grounds that Dembski invokes in "No Free Lunch"), so the ID argument goes, it must have had a designer. "Designer" is used in the singular, carrying with it the strong connotation that there is just one designer. That linguistic practice leads ID theorists unconsciously astray in assuming just one designer. I do not recall reading anything in the ID literature that carefully examines or even explicitly mentions the assumption of a single designer, but the assumption is pervasive and it cripples ID thinking. Multiple Designers Theory rests on the same philosophical, mathematical, and empirical foundations as current Intelligent Design theory. All the support that single-designer ID garners from those disciplines is, a fortiori, support for MDT. In fact, current ID theory is a proper (albeit conceptually impoverished) subset of MDT, a special case that invokes just one designer. Thus MDT automatically inherits the support adduced for current ID. II. Some Properties of Multiple Designers The multiple designers of MDT have one of the properties commonly attributed to hypothesized entities like the "intelligent agency" Dembski writes of in such works as "No Free Lunch" and "Intelligent Design Coming Clean." That property is the first described below. Additional properties are implied by the fact that there are multiple designers. A. The multiple designers are unembodied. They are not of the material or biological world, but they can affect it in the same way(s) that Dembski's "intelligent agency" affects the material world. In "Intelligent Design Coming Clean" Dembski suggests that since in the limit as the wavelength of electromagnetic radiation tends to infinity the energy tends to zero, an unembodied intelligent agent could in principle transmit information (designs) to biological entities via an infinite-wavelength zero-energy signal. That sort of conjecture makes physicists uneasy, invoking as it does a purely mathematical abstraction ("in the limit") to explain the causal efficacy of an unembodied agent acting on physical matter via a zero-energy signal using unfocusable (because of its infinite wavelength) electromagnetic radiation, but that's something to be worked out later as the technical details of Multiple Designers Theory are fleshed out. As Dembski assures us in "Intelligent Design Coming Clean," we don't have to immediately understand how it happens as long as we know it does happen. B. The multiple designers are not identical to one another. To posit identity of the designers would collapse MDT to the special case of SDT (Single Designer Theory), and the evidence does not permit that. The multiple designers differ from one another in several potentially detectable respects, and those differences are of enormous importance because they can underpin a potentially rich scientific research program. I will discuss that program below. C. The multiple designers are not perfect designers. That follows from the fact that they are different from one another. Perfect designers would by definition be identical to one another, and their designs would be indistinguishable. Therefore MDT posits that the multiple designers are imperfect in the sense that they do not produce the ideally optimized design, the highest peak on the 'goodness of design' landscape. Moreover, they differ from one another in their very imperfections, and those differences provide cracks into which one can drive MDT research wedges. A significant part of the research program underpinned by MDT will be teasing out the differences in designs that are diagnostic of different designers. The multiple designers leave "fingerprints" on their work, and like human fingerprints, the metaphorical fingerprints that the multiple designers leave behind differ from designer to designer in ways that one may be able to discern with appropriate methodological 'lenses.' D. There is a finite and limited number of multiple designers. This premise is more difficult to support by empirical evidence than the others, but it is logically necessary to prevent the MDT enterprise from degenerating into a mere list of designed phenomena, a cosmic oddity shop of designs. Scientific theories condense disparate phenomena into similarity classes and explain the behavior of instances of the classes by invoking general principles and laws that refer to those classes rather than to individual instances. If the number of designers is unlimited then in the limit each class would have just one member, and (since in that case no multi-member classes exist) no general laws are possible and therefore there is no science. It is logically possible that there is an infinite number of designers, but in that case no scientific study of design is possible. It is therefore a scientifically sterile speculation. III. Some Evidence Consistent with Multiple Designers Theory Multiple Designers Theory does not rest on thin air. There are logical and empirical bases for it. Several lines of evidence already well established in the biological literature are consistent with MDT in addition to the evidence that is usually claimed by orthodox ID theory. I will here indicate just a few of the lines of evidence specifically supportive of MDT that have been suggested. Others will no doubt occur to people more knowledgeable than I. A. Design-versus-design: The design-vs.-design pattern is a ubiquitous phenomenon in biology. In fact, it is fair to say that some of the most impressive designs in biology appear to have as their primary purpose the defeat or subversion of other designs. Designs engage in various kinds of arms races with one another. Some examples are: 1. Predator/prey arms races. 2. Parasite/host arms races. 3. Male/female arms races. 4. Disease-causing bacteria/drug companies arms races. Each of these is an example of design pitted against design, directly implicating multiple designers. The fourth example is a particularly interesting hybrid case because we know exactly what one of the designers is: human antibiotic drug researchers. Pitted against the human drug designers is the member of the set of unembodied multiple designers that is responsible for designing bacterial strategies for developing antibiotic resistance. The data tell us that the unembodied designer is superior to human designers: bacterial resistance is winning. There are now disease-causing bacteria that are resistant to the full spectrum of human-designed antibiotics. No new family of antibiotics has been invented by human designers for 20 years. MDT strongly suggests an intense research focus on 'naturally' occurring candidate antibiotic agents since that may make it possible to find and co-opt the work of some other intelligent designer if the design-vs.-design pattern holds. That, by the way, is a general principle that emerges from MDT: It is often better to take advantage of the work of an MDT designer that has already produced a design that (as a side effect) accomplishes a human goal than for humans to try to invent it themselves. Such general guides for practical action do not naturally emerge from Single Designer Theory. However, the 'Failures and imperfections' described below imply a cautionary limit on this recommendation. B. Designs acting in concert: The fact that different designs sometimes act in concert rather than at odds is also consistent with MDT and points to lines of research, too. Such phenomena as symbiosis and co-evolution raise interesting research questions. Does a flower/pollinator 'team' represent the work of a single designer creating a coordinated multi-component system, or is it the product of two designers working in collaboration? We know from analysis of the organization of human designers on large complicated projects that separate teams of designers often work on different components of the larger project, linked only by a set of common overall specifications and communication protocols. The same may be true in MDT. In any case, the relationships among arms races, symbiosis, coevolution, and cooperation deserve sustained and careful study. However, their very existence is clearly most consistent with the hypothesis of multiple designers. Single Designer Theory cannot comfortably accommodate them. C. Failures and imperfections of design: That the multiple designers are not perfect implies that their designs will vary in (at least) efficiency, quality, and longevity, and the evidence favors design imperfections. The history of life on earth is littered with failed designs. While some designs may last a long time, others fail quickly and even catastrophically. The multiple designers vary in their skills and abilities, and the variable success of the designs they produce is evidence of those differences. Just as in a genetic algorithm running on a computer one can (roughly) map the topography of a fitness landscape by observing the dynamics of segments of the population as they traverse that landscape, finding peaks and valleys, first forming several clusters around suboptimal peaks and then finally migrating to cluster on the highest peak, so one can discern the fingerprints of various designers as the several designs segregate themselves on a variety of suboptimal peaks on the 'goodness of design' landscape. A difference is that in contrast to a human-designed GA, the multiple (imperfect) designs never converge on a single highest peak. The designs of the multiple designers are dispersed on suboptimal peaks scattered around the 'goodness of design' landscape. D. Intermittent interventions: By definition, an unembodied intelligent designer must intervene in what would otherwise have been an undesigned biological structure or process in order to impose a design on it. There are indications that those interventions occur intermittently as discrete events in time rather than either continuously or only once at the beginning of things. In "Intelligent Design Coming Clean" Dembski argues strenuously against 'front-loading,' writing
:... as a general rule, information tends to appear discretely at particular times and places. To require that the information in natural systems ... must in principle be traceable back to some repository of front-loaded information is, in the absence of evidence, an entirely ad hoc restriction. (Section 7)
MDT fully agrees. The observation of intermittent interventions is much more consistent with multiple designers intervening seriatim - in effect taking turns, perhaps sometimes in response to another designer's earlier intervention on one side of an arms race - than with a single designer repeatedly altering its designs, first taking one side and then the other in an arms race. IV. Programmatic Research Directions As I noted in the introduction, Multiple Designers Theory has great potential to drive fruitful research programs. I will here sketch a few lines that the research might follow, pointing also to some potentially useful research methods. This is not intended to be an exhaustive list. It includes only those lines of research that strike me personally as interesting. Others will no doubt see more implications of MDT that can be profitably researched. MDT is a rich vein waiting for empirical miners to exploit it. A. The Unit of Analysis of Design: This question is at the core of MDT (and of SDT - current ID - for that matter). It asks "Just what is it that is/was designed?" In current ID literature most focus is on the molecular level, where "irreducibly complex" biochemical reactions and/or molecular structures are apparently taken to be what was designed. Michael Behe concentrates on this level, and the biochemical theme has been taken up by others. But sticking to that level seems to be a matter of happenstance - Behe is one of the few scientists in ID who has published real scientific research, and he happens to be a biochemist - rather than a considered choice based on systematic research. The biochemical speculations of Behe and others notwithstanding, I am aware of just one genuinely systematic on-going research effort that is clear on the level of analysis being assumed. That is the baraminology research program centered at Bryan College. There they are focusing on whole organisms - expressed adult phenotypes - as the unit of analysis, attempting (apparently mostly via hybridization analysis) to ascertain the boundaries between basic "kinds." While I think their methodology is problematic (hybridization as a marker of "kinds" has some technical and pair-wise combinatorial problems - think about cross-breeding all possible pairs of 1,000 different potential "kinds" to see if fertile hybrids result!) nevertheless at least they don't waffle on the unit of analysis question: they are attempting to answer it by doing actual research. And their work might someday shed some light on the number of multiple designers there are/were: the number of "kinds" may provide clues to the number of designers if the appropriate unit of analysis is at or near that level. At the moment MDT is agnostic on the unit of analysis question, but it is emphatically not indifferent to it. A prerequisite for defining the appropriate level(s) of analysis is the research to be performed under the "Design Themes" heading below. The presence or absence of design themes at various levels will provide information about the unit(s) of analysis that are likely to be most fruitfully incorporated into theory. MDT provides a research program to ascertain the appropriate level of analysis; it does not merely assume one. B. Design Themes: As I have mentioned elsewhere, in the study of human-designed phenomena like works of art or literature, there are more-or-less well-developed research methods for assigning works to designers. Analysis of physical properties (e.g., characteristic brush stroke micro-patterns visible on a painting), statistical properties (e.g., distributions of vocabulary items or syntactic structures), and other properties of human-designed objects are routinely used to attribute an object to one or another creator. The same is true of the unembodied designers of MDT. It should in principle be possible to identify characteristic design properties and even different general design themes that differentiate one from another of the multiple designers. It is likely that the same methods that are used in attributing human-designed objects to one or another human creator could be adapted to attribute biological designs to one or another of the unembodied creators. That suggests the utility of multi-disciplinary research teams involving not only scientists but also those trained and experienced in discerning such things as individual esthetic themes and differing creative motifs among human artists. Their insights could form the basis for hypotheses that can then be tested scientifically. C. Borrowing among designers: While substantial differences among various candidate design themes are obvious to even the casual observer (e.g., 0-limbed organisms vs. 4-limbed organisms vs. 6-limbed organisms vs. 8-limbed organisms, not to mention organisms bearing odd numbers of limbs, e.g., starfish), it is also obvious even to the casual observer that some design themes are shared among what are otherwise very different designs. For example, flying is a functional design theme that currently occurs in mammals, birds, and insects, and at one time also occurred in reptiles (I am not aware of an extant true flyer among reptiles). Do the repeated occurrences of functional design themes across instances that are almost certainly the work of different designers represent collaboration, borrowing, or possibly outright plagiarism? Are there 'schools' of design theory among the multiple designers that can be traced in shared functional features across different individual structural design themes? D. Temporal succession of designers: A cursory review of the fossil record suggests that some prominent designs that occurred in early times are no longer present. There are fossils of creatures in the Burgess Shale that appear to have no current analogs. Is it possible to trace the careers of individual unembodied designers in the fossil record? Have individual designers come and gone over the millennia, leaving a record of their work in design themes that appear, flourish for a while, and then disappear? E. Characteristics of Designers: Perhaps the most exciting potential research program provided by Multiple Designers Theory is directed at ascertaining characteristics of the designers themselves. Since the several designers differ from one another, and since those differences are reflected in the designs they produce, it should be possible to actually do comparative research on the designs in order to gain insights into the designers themselves, to learn something of their preferences, temperaments, abilities, and other such characteristics. Archaeology has long used systematic methods to infer cultural characteristics and processes from physical artifacts, and one should be able to do something similar with the artifacts - designs - created by the unembodied designers of MDT. There is a subdiscipline of psychology devoted to the study of individual differences, too. It may even be possible to make empirically-based inferences about the intentions of the several designers: the teleos of the designers may be empirically accessible to us. V. Conclusions A. Multiple Designers Theory is a logical and empirical superset of Intelligent Design. Anyone who is an adherent of current mainstream ID is perforce an adherent of MDT, subject only to the former's arbitrary and ad hoc restriction to a single designer. B. MDT provides a coherent theoretical structure for understanding a wide range of phenomena that are not easily or plausibly accounted for by a single-designer ID model. C. MDT insulates ID from the claim of anti-ID critics to the effect that ID pays no attention to the nature of the designers. Empirical research on the nature and features of the designers is a central focus of MDT. D. MDT provides rich research opportunities and offers the prospect of allowing one to make empirically supportable inferences about the designers themselves. MDT does not merely offer a list of general questions that 'might' be addressed by a research program, it offers specific research proposals and provides concrete methodological guidance for attacking the questions it raises. On every criterion one might use to judge a scientific theory of intelligent design, Multiple Designers Theory is superior to current thinking in ID. Personal Note I am known to be an ID critic, and readers may therefore believe that this description of Multiple Designers Theory is presented as a parody of ID. It is not. It is a logical extension of a dominant stream of thought in current ID. MDT takes the ID thesis at face value and explores an obvious question implied by it. That question is completely legitimate and, as I point out, MDT accounts for patterns of evidence that current ID theory cannot comfortably handle, leads to the kind of research program that current ID has been unable or unwilling to provide, and blunts at least one significant criticism of current ID. It is the kind of theoretical structure and research that ID must build if it is to make good on its claims to scientific utility. Rather than a parody, read it as a challenge to IDists to make good on their promises. RBH Evan’s Contribution? Before I respond specifically to the details of MDT offered below, I would like to make a few general comments to support my belief that this is a valuable contribution to the ID discussion. My Prologue: When I first joined ISCID back in March, I offered a ID hypothesis, in a thread entitled “Evolution and Design: a synthesis.” At the time, I pointed out that one of the things it seemed the ID movement lacked was active attempts to offer hypotheses about the details of ID: when did it happen, and particularly how did it happen. The emphasis has been on the theory of design detection as opposed to a more full-fledged attempt to describe the details of ID. One argument has been that this is the proper order of things, for until we can determine if in fact design has happened, hypothesizing about further details is a moot point. Obviously, ID critics who believe that arguments for the detection of design are invalid might not believe that further discussion is relevant. Others have argued that while a design inference is scientifically valid, further inferences about the designer are invalid. I believe that both of these arguments are wrong. I definitely believe that if we accept inferences about the existence of design, we can equally accept inferences about the nature of the designer. This is standard science - we offer hypotheses about the nature of an entity (think quarks, or black holes) based on the consequences that we observe. We work backwards from observed consequences to testable hypothesis about the nature of the source of the phenomena which produces the consequences. If design is detectable, then inferences about the nature of the designer are valid. Secondly, the first argument, while logically correct, is in fact not correct in practice. It is common in science to explore a concept by hypothesizing what its effects would be, and then looking for those effects. This is certainly what was done with the Big Bang theory (Michael Behe and Mano Singham had an interesting exchange about this at a conference I attended) - at first the Big Bang was entirely conjectural, but thinking about what its effects would be if it were true led to testable hypotheses that eventually led us to accept the Big Bang as a strong theory. So, I support the development of possible ID theories - let us assume that the details of detecting design can be worked out empirically, if not now then in the future, and let us think about where that might lead. My response to RBH’s MDT theory: 1) First, it seems to me RBH has done a good job of outlining the evidence for MDT, and has correctly pointed out that the existence of a single designer is in fact a subset of MDT. I think the evidence for MDT is strong enough that it seems to me valid to say that if someone wants to posit a single designer, the burden perhaps is on them to show why a single designer is more likely. 2) Secondly, I think the imperfections we see in design are because the designers are in fact limited in the way they interact with the world. RBH mentions Dembski’s idea that design information might enter the world through an undetectable “infinite-wavelength zero-energy signal.” I believe the mechanism I described in my thread on evolution and design is more likely: the designers manipulate quantum probabilities at the molecular level in genetic events. These manipulations have a limited ability to affect the world - once a design event is attempted, the designer has little impact on how the design plays out. Part of the reason for this is that for macro-phenomena the statistical effects of large numbers of events overwhelm the effect of any small number of discrete quantum interventions. My second point is that I hypothesize that the designers only interface with the world at the level of genetic molecular activity. For the most part the world (all of physics and chemistry, natural selection, comets hitting earth, etc.) are fully explainable by naturalistic causes and are not subject to design. However, the universe, according to design theory in general, does require, and shows evidence for, intervention at the level of genetic change. Therefore it is reasonable to hypothesize that it is precisely at molecular genetic change, and nowhere else, where intelligence intervenes. Third point on this topic of imperfection: The evidence clearly shows that the progression of changes in life forms on earth the past 3 billion years or so has been sequential and slow - we see an orderly development as opposed to extremely abrupt new creations. There are no creatures of mammalian complexity in the Cambrian, dinosaurs aren’t recreated suddenly after the great extinction 65 millions years ago, and so on. I think this evidence shows that the designers are fairly limited in their powers. They cannot create whole genomes independently, but can only make small adjustments to existing genomes, and once they introduce a change, the rest of that organism’s life plays out according to naturalistic forces. 3) RBH points out that to some extent our grammar causes a unconscious bias towards the singular (much as it causes a bias towards the masculine when we use “he” to refer to people in general.) I think there are cultural reasons why this is so, the most obvious one being the monotheistic tradition in the Western world. But I offer as food for thought the idea that the animistic notions of primitive people (who were in much closer experiential contact with living things than we are) are closer to the truth: the world is inhabited by a vast pantheon of life forces, each expressing itself through the interface of it’s particular kind of creature. The wolf, the bear, the eagle, the flower, and so on each have their own “spirit”, so to speak, in an animistic tradition. This seems to be a primitive expression of MDT. I don’t want this idea to sidetrack the discussion into possible religious connections with design theory. I do mention it, thought, because I think it is important for us to perhaps consider the cultural biases we might bring to design theory that might perhaps keep us from looking objectively at the evidence. 4) A related issue is this: How are the multiple designers related to each other? RBH pointed out that if we use human design as a benchmark (and design theory commonly does so), then it is reasonable to look for evidence of multiple designers from different cultures (some antagonistic to each other), evidence of teams of designers working together, and so on. In fact, using human design as our model, obviously we are talking about designers in the plural. Humans beings design. Thus we might ask if the designers are organized in a hierarchical pantheon, with some designers having a larger scope of influence than others, being able to give guidance to designers of lesser power, and so on. This might account for the divisions that we see into phyla, orders, families, etc. Or perhaps the designers are more decentralized, having equal powers and in fact “battling” (either with serious antagonistic intent or more in the spirit of art and sport) to more effectively influence the diversity of life. Summary: There is lots of food for thought in RBH’s thought, and I think this type of hypothesizing should be encouraged. If we assume, even provisionally, the existence of design of the type outlined by Dembski and Behe (intelligently guided change that causes otherwise improbable biological molecular events to happen), then we ought to be taking the step of speculating on further hypotheses which follow, including hypothesis about the nature of the designers. Clearly a fundamental issue, them is whether there are one or many designers. The goal of such speculation, as in all of science, is to help work backwards - to use the speculations to develop empirical tests by which one hypothesis or another can be strengthened at the expense of others. As Feynman once said, part of the value of a good model is that it generates good questions - questions which can then be tested empirically. Speculating about how many designers there are, the extent to which their influence reaches into the world, and the mechanism by which that happens should help design theory build some substance that is currently lacking. Last point: obviously, all of the above does hinge on the acceptance of the inference of the existence of design itself, and that seems to hinge on probabilistic studies of what types of events, and in fact what events, can truly and empirically be said to be so improbable that natural causation is not a reasonable explanation. The results of such investigations will obviously influence the future development of an established design theory. If research could show that genera, for instance, are truly “kinds” that natural evolutionary processes can not cross, then that would be evidence for at least investigating the existence of a very large number of designers - the animistic view might be quite plausible. However, if research shows that just features that came into existence at the origin of life, or perhaps last at the Cambrian, are all that are designed, then the existence of one or a few designers might be more likely. Also, a really last point. It seems to me a safe and obvious assumption that if intelligent designers exist and are responsible for introducing and guiding the development of life in a world otherwise subject to and explicable by naturalistic forces, then this should be a universal phenomena that has been played out on countless other worlds. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that these forces have limited themselves, or are limited, to activity on this planet. Of course, having a suitable environment in which they can work is important, but I don’t think we really know how ingenious they might be in creating the mechanisms for life in environments quite different than ours. It seems to me that the more we admit the possibility of such intelligent agents who are somewhat unconstrained (at least a bit) by naturalistic causation, the more likely it is that life is widespread and perhaps more diverse in scope than we can possibly imagine. Very interesting post, RBHEvan Another thought has occurred to me: that the designers themselves have grown in their abilities, and that that accounts for some features of the history of life on earth. I think an analogy could be drawn between the history of humans and the history of the designers. Modern humans spent at least tens of thousands of years with approximately the same hunter-gatherer lifestyle. Then the agricultural revolution suddenly brought about the advent of civilization, which led to the first historically documented intellectual achievements (the Greeks, the Chinese, etc.) Similarly, perhaps the long period of exclusively one-celled life up until 3/4 of a billion years ago or so reflects a period of minimal skill on the part of the designers, and a satisfaction with the results, and perhaps the Cambrian explosion represents an analog to the agricultural revolution in which a period of great learning and experimentation took place among the designers. I don’t mean, of course, to claim much of an exact analogy between human history / designer history. I offer the analogy, rather, just to stimulate the idea that the designers themselves have grown in their abilities, and the progressive complexity of life on earth is a reflection of that growth. In a lot of ways, this makes more sense than postulating designers who have always had the skills to develop creatures as sophisticated as human beings but for unknown reasons choose to develop nothing but one-celled creatures for almost 3 billion years.
Viola Lee_{May 4, 2021
May
05
May
4
04
2021
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT}

Jerry There could be one for the universe, another for the origin of life, another for the changes in life forms.
I guess you've seen too many SF movies and read no books. Also you don't know the definition of God.Sandy_{May 4, 2021
May
05
May
4
04
2021
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT}

As the gods of the various religions are candidates for the intelligent agent, refusing to acknowledge this just plays into the hands of ID opponents.
I don't see how that is true. It may be the strategy of those against ID to do so then they can claim ID is religion. I personally have no objection to saying that various religions have used what was seen as design in the universe/world as evidence for a creator and various religions. The Greeks had Zeus. Others have had their various reasons but that is not ID. The Greek religion, other ancient religions, Christianity and other religions since existed long before the science was available to understand the nature of origins and how unlikely they are. The world seemed magical to them and they were right.
However, it is important to itemize the various assumptions that ID is based on. Surely the abilities and limitations of the intelligent agent responsible for the design is an important aspect in the detection of design.
There does not have to be any reason why the same intelligence is responsible for all the designs. There could be one for the universe, another for the origin of life, another for the changes in life forms. At the very minimum the power to create a universe as large as we have and so fine tuned with entities with amazing characteristics requires some creative force with massive abilities. Now people make assumptions that they are one in the same but there is no reason from ID for this to be so. I have my own personal opinions but nothing in ID says they are the same intelligence, just that they were designed.jerry_{May 4, 2021
May
05
May
4
04
2021
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT}

Tell that to KF. His number one point, which he has posted many times is that the root of reality is an all-knowing, all good, loving being.
That may be true (I will let Kf decide it that is his number one point) but it is not ID nor does it flow from ID. I happen to believe this but do not depend on ID/science to justify that belief.jerry_{May 4, 2021
May
05
May
4
04
2021
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT}

Jerry writes,
I just claimed ID has nothing to do with religion and immediately we get comments on the religious nature of it.
the Christian view of the intelligent agent responsible for life, the universe and everything, is an all knowing, all good, loving being
That is not ID so pointing to it is another non-sequitur.
Tell that to KF. His number one point, which he has posted many times is that the root of reality is an all-knowing, all good, loving being.Viola Lee_{May 4, 2021
May
05
May
4
04
2021
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 14 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply