Not Just Intelligently Designed, Intelligently Engineered

_{GilDodgen
February 13, 2010

Intelligent Design

2}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

Those of us who are ID proponents often hear the following from ID deniers (hey, if it’s good for the goose, it’s good for the gander): “You mindless, science-destroying, knuckle-dragging, religiously fanatical ID clowns keep talking about complexity. What’s the big deal about complexity? Complex stuff happens all the time by chance and necessity. Get a life, and stop trying to impose a theocracy on those of us who have it all figured out. The science is settled.”

So goes the highly persuasive, ever-logical, empirically validated, ideologically neutral argumentation of the ID denier.

The problem is that living systems are not just transparently intelligently designed; they are intelligently engineered. It’s not just ID; it’s IE.

Those of us who design and engineer functionally integrated systems, especially information-processing systems, know what is required. Design is just the first step. We do mathematical and proof-of-concept studies. Often it is concluded, early on, that the concept is fundamentally flawed and cannot be engineered. When it is concluded that a solution is possible, we build and test prototypes. Trial and error do play a role, but the trials are always planned in advance, based on what has been learned so far, so as to minimize wasted effort. Mindless, unplanned trials are never considered, because their number is essentially infinite, and the probability of success as a result of such an approach is obviously zero.

Once a proof-of-concept study has been completed and validated, and initial prototype engineering has shown promise, a team of engineers with specialized expertise (in our case, electrical, mechanical, aeronautical, and software engineers) pursue the final goal with much teamwork, thought, planning, and dogged determination.

A living cell is not just a marvel of intelligent design. It’s a marvel of intelligent engineering that far surpasses anything we have yet to dream about.

Comments

Seversky @ 29,
In fact we could argue that evidence of design is evidence of a being who is less than the God for whom it is purported to be evidence.
I agree. By limiting the designs of the designer, such as the forces of physics, you are limiting the designer. If he cannot create a universe that can create life, he is not the designer you claim he is.Toronto_{February 14, 2010
February
02
Feb
14
14
2010
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT}

GilDodgen ended the OP by writing:
A living cell is not just a marvel of intelligent design. It’s a marvel of intelligent engineering that far surpasses anything we have yet to dream about.
Let us be honest, he and the other neo-Paleyists here have been citing what they perceive as exquisite examples of biological design as evidence for a designer who is a god in all but name only. In response to that I have cited the human eye as one example - there are others - of a design which, while functional, is less than the perfection we are entitled to expect from the Designer that neo-Paleyists aspire to worship. hrun0815 has pointed out, quite correctly, that:
All arguments based on good or bad design necessarily HAVE TO FAIL without being to identify the intentions of the designer.
My argument is that we are entitled to assume from its observed function that the eye is an imaging sensor: it gathers image-forming light and converts it into electro-chemical signals which are transmitted into the visual cortex of the brain. We are also entitled to infer that the Designer envisaged by the neo-Paleyists is not just one who strives for perfection but is one who can do nothing else because it is its nature to be perfect. Human designers produce inept designs because they are fallible beings who have no choice to work within the constraints of limited knowledge, limited energy and limited materials. No such limits are assumed to apply to the Ultimate Designer. In fact we could argue that evidence of design is evidence of a being who is less than the God for whom it is purported to be evidence.Seversky_{February 14, 2010
February
02
Feb
14
14
2010
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT}

SCheesman,
On their own, the forces of physics are quite incapable of design, or we’d see cities of sandcastles and newspaper headlines spelled out on every beach in sand.
Neither the designer nor the forces of physics, need cities or headlines. We needed them so we designed them. It is more probable that the designer designed the forces of physics, which gave rise to us, who eventually produced cities. Not being able to demonstrate the powers of an intelligent designer in a lab does not show the limits of the designer, anymore that not being able to duplicate biological processes would somehow show the limits of the forces of physics.Toronto_{February 14, 2010
February
02
Feb
14
14
2010
11:52 AM
11
11
52
AM
PDT}

Toronto:
If this is the case, then by properly designing the forces of physics, there was no need to do the hands-on designing of life, since he knew that life would result and adapt without any intervention on his part.
Or perhaps it is only because of the way the forces of physics are set up that we are even able to design things. On their own, the forces of physics are quite incapable of design, or we'd see cities of sandcastles and newspaper headlines spelled out on every beach in sand. There is quite enough evidence of design in the structure of the universe and its physical laws without endowing them with mystical self-organizational properties that have never been demonstrated in a laboratory.SCheesman_{February 14, 2010
February
02
Feb
14
14
2010
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT}

The designer could have delegated the actual designing to subordinates much as an Army General has his subordinates carry out his orders. If this is the case, then by properly designing the forces of physics, there was no need to do the hands-on designing of life, since he knew that life would result and adapt without any intervention on his part.Toronto_{February 14, 2010
February
02
Feb
14
14
2010
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT}

Mr SCheesman, That behaviour is decidedly non-biological. HGT, duplications, etc. are decidedly biological.Nakashima_{February 14, 2010
February
02
Feb
14
14
2010
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT}

hrun0815:
Certainly, human design can do that. But Gil made a general statement, namely that such ‘Monte Carlo’ style optimization has no place in design. It does. And it is exactly what evolution does as well.
Gil never explicitly addressed the use of Monte Carlo or other optimization methods, but he did say the following:
When it is concluded that a solution is possible, we build and test prototypes. Trial and error do play a role, but the trials are always planned in advance, based on what has been learned so far, so as to minimize wasted effort.
I think the two paradigms are nicely offset here. The heavy lifting design is the first half, and the use of Monte-Carlo simulations can be included in the second. And you must realize even multi-parameter optimizations, though they may run very smoothly, require a great deal of engineering to set up if they are to be effective, with the parameters carefully selected and bounded. You say "It is exactly what evolution does as well". Well, in fact, as the "Edge of Evolution" has demonstrated, the "evolutionary" optimization generally makes single steps in solution space (one mutation at a time). It is NOT good at taking multiple steps simultaneously, the reason being that the probabilistic resources are insufficient to pick the target from the exponentially increasing number of less fit solutions that involve two or more mutations. In other words, once it gets stuck in a local minimum, it demonstrably does not and cannot (except in the rarest instances of double-mutations) take simultaneous, multi-parameter modifications in order to jump to a new path. That behaviour is decidedly non-biological.SCheesman_{February 14, 2010
February
02
Feb
14
14
2010
05:33 AM
5
05
33
AM
PDT}

You may consider that it has been engineers who deigned Auschwitz.osteonectin_{February 13, 2010
February
02
Feb
13
13
2010
11:36 PM
11
11
36
PM
PDT}

It is squared by taking into consideration the topography of the solution space in which the two cases are deployed. The multiparameter optimizations to which you refer work because the do not need to go very far from local minima to get back on the global track to success. It is Monte Carlo, and the computer can search enough locations to come up with a new, good path. Human design, and intelligent design in general leaps far beyond what can be achieved through a random, short-range search of solution space.
Certainly, human design can do that. But Gil made a general statement, namely that such 'Monte Carlo' style optimization has no place in design. It does. And it is exactly what evolution does as well.hrun0815_{February 13, 2010
February
02
Feb
13
13
2010
10:54 PM
10
10
54
PM
PDT}

Hrun0815, I wonder how this ‘argument’ can be squared with the amazing effectiveness of hill-climbing algorithms for multiparameter optimization problems. Mr Dodgen is making a point against random, generate and test search procedures, not against any form of evolutionary algorithm. As I pointed out, EAs implement what Gil thinks is good engineering practice - basing subsequent tests on prior results and iterating to allocate trials efficiently. As powerful as hill climbers are, they make assumptions about the landscape (Smoothness, continuity, etc.) that may not be appropriate for all probems. Generic EA algorithms do not make these assumptions. Just as we have learned that evolution uses more than point mutation, EAs have other genetic operators than simple bit flipping mutation. Not that we should completely disregard mutation! Our experience with efficient allocation of engineering trials is based on trying to squeeze the most information out of the fewest possible runs. Individual trials can be very costly (firing rockets, crash testing vehicles, very long running simulations). In comparison, bacteria are running millions and billions of trials in small patches of dirt and pond scum. If the chance of a random mutation in a single base position of DNA is one in a billion, then a billion bacteria are all you need to test every position in the bacterial genome in every generation. Each trial is cheap - it only costs one bacteria!Nakashima_{February 13, 2010
February
02
Feb
13
13
2010
10:48 PM
10
10
48
PM
PDT}

hrun0815
I wonder how this ‘argument’ can be squared with the amazing effectiveness of hill-climbing algorithms for multiparameter optimization problems.
It is squared by taking into consideration the topography of the solution space in which the two cases are deployed. The multiparameter optimizations to which you refer work because the do not need to go very far from local minima to get back on the global track to success. It is Monte Carlo, and the computer can search enough locations to come up with a new, good path. Human design, and intelligent design in general leaps far beyond what can be achieved through a random, short-range search of solution space.SCheesman_{February 13, 2010
February
02
Feb
13
13
2010
08:39 PM
8
08
39
PM
PDT}

gleaner63: “What we need in this thread, are some mechanical engineers, or engineers in general, who can relate their experiences in countering the idea that “no human designer would do this sort of thing” approach.” You came to the right place. See here: http://www.hdtglobal.com/aerial-delivery I was the software engineer who designed the guidance, navigation and control software for AGAS. I work with a team of extraordinarily talented people in aerospace R&D. One might ask, “Why did we use an out-of date, round-parachute system, with a glide ratio of .6/1 with riser slips (pulling down the parachute risers), as opposed to more state-of-the-art square parachutes with lift-to-drag ratios (equivalent to glide ratios) of more than 3:1? Surely a good designer would opt for the more advanced parachute type.” There are practical considerations. Round parachutes are in universal use, are inexpensive to produce, have a consistent reputation for reliability, and military personnel are familiar with how to rig and deploy them. In addition, a round parachute can come straight down when required. Square, gliding parachutes have higher performance, but this vastly complicates the GN&C (guidance, navigation and control) algorithms. A square parachute, with its highly superior glide ratio, must perform a downwind, base and final approach to the LZ (landing zone), and it must face into the ground-level wind in order to avoid a high-velocity, downwind ground impact. By the way, the entire point of our research into high-altitude precision cargo deployment is to get supplies to our soldiers, and keep the aircraft out of harm’s way from ground-based threats, such as small arms, RPGs, and shoulder-launched antiaircraft missiles, which cannot shoot down aircraft above about 12,000 feet AGL (above ground level). Constrained optimization is the name of the game in the real world, and in living systems. Those who don’t know about this are blowing smoke, and are out of contact with reality. They are theoretical ideologues who don’t have the faintest clue what engineering is all about.GilDodgen_{February 13, 2010
February
02
Feb
13
13
2010
08:23 PM
8
08
23
PM
PDT}

"Mindless, unplanned trials are never considered, because their number is essentially infinite, and the probability of success as a result of such an approach is obviously zero." Excellent point. Another nail in the coffin of tornado int the junkyard thinking.
I wonder how this 'argument' can be squared with the amazing effectiveness of hill-climbing algorithms for multiparameter optimization problems.hrun0815_{February 13, 2010
February
02
Feb
13
13
2010
08:09 PM
8
08
09
PM
PDT}

What we need in this thread, are some mechanical engineers, or engineers in general, who can relate their experiences in countering the idea that "no human designer would do this sort of thing" approach. Here's another example I discoverd as a youth on the farm. A friend of mine had a large farm tractor, I think it was a John Deere. One of the batteries was located beneath a thin metal door underneath the steps upon which you trod to enter the tractor operators seat. That thin plate sitting over top of the battery was in fact the top tread of the steps. As anyone could guess, or if you've done farm work, all matter of dirt and material is always attached to the bottom of your boots. In this case while getting on and off of the tractor all or some of this debris would eventually find its way into the battery tray where finally, you simply couldn't remove the battery. We ennded attaching a cable to it to pull it free. Poor design, but design nonetheless.gleaner63_{February 13, 2010
February
02
Feb
13
13
2010
05:12 PM
5
05
12
PM
PDT}

Seversky at #6: "Yes, we all know the human eye works and works very well but no human designer would do such a thing." This simply is not true, at least in my experience. I see poor, or bad design on a regular basis. I curse desingers and engineers reguarly. For example, what sense does it make to put a 100 pound capacitor in a transmitter that is nearly impossible to remove and replace? What use is a disposable oil filter in a vehicle that can not be removed without busted knuckles and virtually impossible to get a wrench on? And yet, in both of these examples, there are intelligent designers at work.gleaner63_{February 13, 2010
February
02
Feb
13
13
2010
05:03 PM
5
05
03
PM
PDT}

Seversky writes in part at #6 "That being the case, we must ask why we see instances of what is unquestionably poor design even when viewed from our own less advanced perspective." I think this is good idea. And with the eye under consideration, I would like to see further discussion of why the wiring makes its *unquestionably" poor design. Does the eye work or not? If we "fixed" it to where it suited you, what would the result be? Would it now work at greater efficiency? If so, would it be a significant amount? I've worked in an engineering environment for quite a few years now and one thing I have noticed is that it is imposssible to get anything to work at 100% effeciency. Also, there is *always* more than one way to build something. I know this simply from my projects at the house.gleaner63_{February 13, 2010
February
02
Feb
13
13
2010
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT}

re # 6 "One problem is not with the existence of design in the Universe. We know it exists. We do it ourselves. No, the problem is finding evidence of any one or anything else that has also been responsible for designing things we observe here on Earth." Wow. What a candid admission from the naturalist camp on the one hand (design exists), which is then unfortunately followed by a rapid retreat (there is no evidence of someone else accounting for design besides humans). What about humans themselves? What about 3.3 BILLION (give or take) base pairs of nucleic acids that manufacture human beings. What about the INFORMATION required to execute those instructions, which are encoded in those base pairs? Is it possible that might be evidence for a "non-human" designer?tgpeeler_{February 13, 2010
February
02
Feb
13
13
2010
04:19 PM
4
04
19
PM
PDT}

However, the question of whether design is present (and real) or absent (hence simply an appearance) is entirely different, and for that the intentions of the designer irrelevant.
Strange though, that optimality is often suggested to be part of the design inference.
hrun0815_{February 13, 2010
February
02
Feb
13
13
2010
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT}

hrun0815:
All arguments based on good or bad design necessarily HAVE TO FAIL without being to identify the intentions of the designer
I must entirely agree. However, the question of whether design is present (and real) or absent (hence simply an appearance) is entirely different, and for that the intentions of the designer irrelevant. Fortunately, ID is not concerned with evaluating how well the observed design achieves the original goals of the designer.SCheesman_{February 13, 2010
February
02
Feb
13
13
2010
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT}

Gil, If you were confident in your position you would go outside your blog and try to convince the general population of engineers. If you IDists just keep to yourselves, engineers are sure to continue to ignore the ID movement and to accept the theory of evolution. One thing you could do, as I suggested to you once before, is contact the National Academy of Engineering and straighten them out about celebrating the work of Charles Darwin. I bet that all the engineers reading this would like to hear the NAE's response. Another thing you could do, as I recently suggested to Timaeus, is get the Discovery Institute to put out some press releases promoting such IDist notions as "ID is an engineering science," "ID is reverse engineering," and "Engineers instinctively believe in ID."Freelurker_{February 13, 2010
February
02
Feb
13
13
2010
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT}

The possibilities are endless. Which is the beauty of not identifying a designer or the intentions of that designer.
Case in point:
So what makes a design “good” or “bad”? It’t the degree to which its implementation fulfills the requirements of the designer.
All arguments based on good or bad design necessarily HAVE TO FAIL without being to identify the intentions of the designer.hrun0815_{February 13, 2010
February
02
Feb
13
13
2010
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT}

Seversky
In the much-discussed case of the human eye, running the ‘wiring’in front of the photoreceptors where it interferes with the incoming image-forming light and then have it exist through a hole in the retina whcih creates a blind-spot is unquestionably poor design.
Well, you're wrong right off the start, because I am questioning whether that is poor design. Appently your criteria for good design is one that manages to achieve perfection in the particular category you find most appealing, which in this case is coverage. But in this case a trifling reduction in coverage (one so small you need to do special tests to detect it) is balanced against the needs for cooling, nutrition, and repair and likely a half-dozen more. Because we have two eyes, not one, even in the "blind" spot you can see with the other eye, so really, coverage is 100%. A crystal can be "perfect" and lacks any need for design. Perhaps you can share how the blind spot lessens reproductive advantage. Since RM+NS is supposed to be such a good substitute for design, why has such an "unquestionably" bad design not been eliminated? Easy: because it's not a bad design. The suggestion that man would never design this way is just an insult to human designers and simply untrue. Human designers constantly trade off "perfection" in one or more areas to improve overall efficiency or performance. The automobile engine is a perfect example. Turn the question around. If human engineers had to reproduce all the attributes of the human eye on a biological scale, including the demands for growth, self-repair, nutrition, waste-removal, not to mention visual performance in terms of speed, acuity, motion sensing, sensitivity, colour detection, etc., how would they do it? We know of one remarkable solution. Can you achieve everything with the non-inverted solution? No one has demonstrated that yet. So what makes a design "good" or "bad"? It't the degree to which its implementation fulfills the requirements of the designer. I find the presence of a blind spot, a tiny perfection in one the less important design requirements, a pretty good indicator of the extraordinary level of design found in the eye. You've had to dig pretty hard to find "bad design", and this is a good case where the exception proves the rule.SCheesman_{February 13, 2010
February
02
Feb
13
13
2010
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT}

Seversky --One problem is not with the existence of design in the Universe. We know it exists. We do it ourselves. OK, design exists. Does it have quantifiable features?tribune7_{February 13, 2010
February
02
Feb
13
13
2010
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT}

I am sure even Gil could come up with a better design which solves the problems of cooling, supplying nutrients, carrying away waste products and conveying signals to the optic nerve without obscuring the photoreceptors.
I think such arguments always fail to have any impact-- mainly because somebody can always claim that there is an actual design-reason for what others see as 'poor design'. In the end it boils down to the fact that it is impossible to make any arguments about why certain designs are implemented in certain ways without knowing the intended purpose of the design. For the eye-wiring-- maybe the designer was giving himself a challenge: what if I obscure the photo-receptors with wiring, could I still produce a workable design? Or, the designer made a mistake when drawing out the design plan and was too lazy to change it. Or the designer draw out a normally wired eye, but in the process of communicating the design to the engineer, things got fouled up. The possibilities are endless. Which is the beauty of not identifying a designer or the intentions of that designer.hrun0815_{February 13, 2010
February
02
Feb
13
13
2010
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT}

If I remember correctly, kairosfocus has a colorful metaphor concerning 'strawmen soaked in oil of ad hominem', which always struck me as sounding like a tasty recipe from the Mediterranean diet, but which could also apply here. One problem is not with the existence of design in the Universe. We know it exists. We do it ourselves. No, the problem is finding evidence of any one or anything else that has also been responsible for designing things we observe here on Earth. We are pretty sure that we were not responsible for the immensely intricate and complex biological structures we all marvel at. If they were designed, that design was founded on a science and technology far more advanced than our own. That being the case, we must ask why we see instances of what is unquestionably poor design even when viewed from our own less advanced perspective. In the much-discussed case of the human eye, running the 'wiring'in front of the photoreceptors where it interferes with the incoming image-forming light and then have it exist through a hole in the retina whcih creates a blind-spot is unquestionably poor design. Yes, we all know the human eye works and works very well but no human designer would do such a thing. How many modern digital cameras run wiring in front of the CCD chip and then out through a hole in it? If we can see the problem why didn't this alleged more intelligent designer? I am sure even Gil could come up with a better design which solves the problems of cooling, supplying nutrients, carrying away waste products and conveying signals to the optic nerve without obscuring the photoreceptors. And this is just one of many other examples of poor design that could be cited which call into question the whole concept of an intelligent designer being directly responsible for the design of each and every biological component and system. We can envisage, perhaps, some extraterrestrial intelligence 'seeding' life on the early Earth and then allowing evolutionary processes to take their course but that is all. I think it is fair to say that people on both sides of this debate are equally impressed with what we have discovered about the complex structure of cells, for example; discoveries, I feel bound to point out, which have been made through methodologically natural science. But that does not alter the fact that it is extremely difficult to reconcile the many instances of poor design with the concept of a highly-advanced, even supernatural, designer which is being proposed here.Seversky_{February 13, 2010
February
02
Feb
13
13
2010
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT}

I didn't know where to place this link. But I think many of you would be interested in this. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100209183335.htmtraderdrew_{February 13, 2010
February
02
Feb
13
13
2010
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT}

Great point Gil. Designs need to be engineered, and that involves process, but not blind evolution. Therefore many of the hierarchies and homologies that are interpreted as evidence for evolution as a process, might be better explained as the result of a process of R&D. E.g. start with the Cambrian explosion; try many kinds of basic bodyplan. Then pick the best few to build more complex creatures. Among vertebrates, differentiate fish, birds, mammals, reptiles as basic designs for different purposes/environments. For example birds and mammals have a high metabolism which supports flight and intelligence respectively. Further specialise and differentiate. Then explore the boundaries of what each basic design can do (e.g. bats and whales). Then perhaps build in some capacity for living types to differentiate into sub-species and adapt. Then allow to compete and evolve and see what happens.andyjones_{February 13, 2010
February
02
Feb
13
13
2010
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PDT}

they are intelligently engineered. It’s not just ID; it’s IE. Gil, now, that was NOT very good phrasing to make your point :-)tribune7_{February 13, 2010
February
02
Feb
13
13
2010
06:14 AM
6
06
14
AM
PDT}

Mr Dodgen, Mindless, unplanned trials are never considered, because their number is essentially infinite, and the probability of success as a result of such an approach is obviously zero. Excellent point. Another nail in the coffin of tornado int the junkyard thinking. Of course, the reason evolutionary algorithms are popular in design and planning stages is that they allocate trials in a way that will both explore and exploit the problem space efficiently and non-randomly. These are not toy problems where the best answer is already known and hard coded in the fitness function. These realistic fitness functions only know how to score the solutions - minimize distance travelled, in a travelling salesman problem. Trial and error do play a role, but the trials are always planned in advance, based on what has been learned so far, so as to minimize wasted effort. Now combine some trials being based on the results of previous triala (instead of all being planned in advance) with "based on what has been learned so far", and the minimizaton criterion - voila! Evolution in action.Nakashima_{February 13, 2010
February
02
Feb
13
13
2010
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT}

Instead of being called ID or IE, I think the ID should change and adopt the idea that life is a foreign technology. Technology is both intelligent designed and intelligent engineered. We all use human technology (pc, iphones, etc..) but do we need to know the name of the engineer that created the product in order to use it or to appreciate its design and functionality? Detecting foreign technology is being used by spies when they tries to infer the origin of some sophisticated listening device for example.Kyrilluk_{February 13, 2010
February
02
Feb
13
13
2010
01:43 AM
1
01
43
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply