The Designer Apparently Designs Like Humans Do

_{May 5, 2009

Intelligent Design}

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

Here at UD we’ve heard over and over again that unless we “know” who the Designer is, then we can’t infer design. For example, if we were to argue that we’ve never seen the ancient Native Americans who fashioned arrowheads from stone, yet we are able to infer design in arrowheads nonetheless, the Darwinian side would respond saying, “Yes, but that’s because the Native Americans are humans like ourselves.”

PhysOrg.com has an article about the microRNA, miR-7, which has been found to regulate a network which brings about uniformity among humans. The article is interesting in itself, but most interesting is this comment by one of the lead authors, Richard W. Carthew:

When something is changed, say the genetic sequence of a molecule or the temperature of the organism, the network responds to compensate for the change and keep things intact. . . . This design is similar to the principle that engineers use to design safety features into products.”

Unless some Darwinist can mount some kind of sensible objection, then I guess we here at UD can safely, and reasonably, conclude that whoever the Designer is, he ‘designs’ like human engineers do. Thusly, the opposite is true: if we find human engineering-like design in biological systems, then we can conclude that we have encountered the/a Designer. And Darwinists can kindly drop this type of argument from their repetoire.

Comments

(Even though I'm quoting jerry, my questions remain open to all.) Because the moment you mention this, the anti ID people roll their eyes and ask you where the little green men came from. Okay, but that's just the naysayers. You can't allow eye-rolling to stop progress. (Saying people came from monkeys sounds silly too, but somehow that managed to be part of mainstream biology.) Why isn't the laboratory work in ID being done with a "green men" assumption? And if not, what scientifically-known-to-be-possible phenomenon is being assumed instead of green men? The thing about synthetic biology, for instance, is that it remains an analogy or metaphor of design, and not a literal description, so long as the designer remains a nebulous being capable of anything, or whose motivations might be anything. (By "more advanced techniques", do you in fact mean more sophisticated physical technology, larger test tubes, or what? If the techniques are utterly beyond our comprehension, why even bother to talk about them?) The designer can still be omnipotent so long as its actual design process works in a specific, non-omnipotent way. You're getting somewhere if you can say "in its interfering with biological life, the designer does X and only X". Message Theory comes closest to this of all the hypotheses I've heard. I really hope I don't seem like a troll with my questions — I'm honestly curious, and am genuinely pleased to hear about concrete ideas like Message Theory and the like. (I still admit that my mind is 95% made up that evolution explains it all, but that remaining 5% drags the rest of me here on the possibility that you've maybe got something here…)Lenoxus_{May 5, 2009
May
05
May
5
05
2009
05:03 PM
5
05
03
PM
PDT}

How is the original post anything other than a re-statement of Paley's Argument from Design and the argument from incredulity?Seversky_{May 5, 2009
May
05
May
5
05
2009
05:03 PM
5
05
03
PM
PDT}

Alan brings up how do humans really design? With forethought and planning of possible consequences of the designed objects interactions with surrounding environment in which the object functions through future probable outcomes over a period of time. Cars for 5-10yrs. Homes for 30-50 or more, Pacemakers for life, etc. and Tommy V. makes some interesting statements about how a Designer arises, plus Jerry mentions synthetic design. Great time for Design Matrix, by Mike Gene: Church in the Matrix Mike looks at how today's Life Design Engineer approaches his work. He quotes George Church:
"That’s what we mean when we’re talking about basic life. And that’s sort of what we’re trying to get at when we’re doing synthetic biology; we’re trying to increase diversity, increase replicated complexity, and maintain our ability to continue to do that for many many years, and we don’t want to endanger that by doing something that’s too risky." Mike Gene: "Whoa. The design of life comes with the design objectives of increasing diversity and increasing replicated complexity, while maintaining the ability to continue the input from design. What you have here, in embryonic form, is the thinking of a front-loading designer." "To design life is to design evolution. Eventually, the designers will have to confront the following question (again, from the Design Matrix): If a designer is trying to use reproduction to perpetuate a design far into the future, how does one control for all the noise that Darwinian evolution will produce along the way? "Now, I should point out that I am not trying to imply that Church is some type of closet IDer or sympathetic to ID. On the contrary, the significance of the echoes is stronger when you consider that Church is not in anyway associated with ID and would probably dismiss it as nonsense." "He is a designer and he is trying to design life. He, in essence, doesn’t know we’re watching and becomes a model - a model for a designer of life. And oddly enough, as the DM(Design Matrix) ponders what biology has taught us about life and potential ways evolution could be designed, it effectively sketches out the broad outlines of ….George Church. In an oblique sort of way, Church’s timely musings, luckily and conveniently captured by Edge, have worked to throw a bit of corroboration toward my speculations about how “natural” life may have been designed."
I asked a question along similar lines to Allen MacNeil. I did not receive an answer. The question was how Deign Engineers of Life would approach the same issue that Mike Gene brings up. The point was to raise the fact that by looking into the future Life Engineers may discover many reasons for specific design elements of evolutionary modeling in the present, in which limitations are better understood, thus predictable outcomes and patterns arise. In short, as Life Engineers design new life forms to replicate themselves with growing complexity based off the present, then what we see is the possible result of front loading or prescriptive information. A suite of algorithmic design tools that allow for replication of increasing complexity. We know by the thought process itself utilizing George Church's own comments that Engineered evolutionary life cannot be ruled out. He and others are thinking about it today. Since it cannot be dismissed anymore, the next logical question is if this direction in scientific research is a fruitful endeavor? A new theoretical construct that may deliver better research outcomes for solving current problems in disease and organ replacement and lengthening life times. It appears it will rapidly become a fruitful heuristic process as Life Engineers struggle to answer real questions that require real solutions for the present. This moves evolution out of the past. Essentially ID becomes the front runner as Life Engineers transfer knowledge of present reproductive life to design new life forms that evolve into the future. Intelligence sees past, present and future and understands the implications of transferring information from one application to another. We sit in a unique perspective of increasing evolutionary progress by Intelligent Design. And by doing so, being self-aware what scientist may produce in the future can eventually become self-aware. Which raises more interesting questions. Is morphology that important? Or the eventual triumph of design to recreate intelligence through designed evolutionary processes that will spread the seeds of life around? This brings up the Panspermia solution. This is why an argument against design solely for discrediting it along lines of God(s) is not a valid rebuttal. And why Design metrics for life should not be ruled out from discussons either in high schools, colleges or research. To do so, is to dumb down minds and the natural curiosity of inquiring minds.DATCG_{May 5, 2009
May
05
May
5
05
2009
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PDT}

"Why is that not being thoroughly explored and broadcasted, as the first and most likely possible explanation for evolution’s shortcomings, by the leaders of the field?" Because the moment you mention this, the anti ID people roll their eyes and ask you where the little green men came from. These are the same people who saw the movie, "Contact", and will tell you how great Carl Sagan is (who believed in millions of other possible worlds with intelligence) and isn't SETI a fantastic project. To get one off my back, I once suggested he check out synthetic biology. They have conferences on the topic and I suggested the designer was probably using some more advanced techniques but this subject area might give them some ideas. It was ignored because they thought I was not serious and just joking. They do not really care who or how it was done. They only want to get you in an embarrassing comment or bogged down in some useless discussion that goes no where. Stick around long enough and you will see it repeat itself over and over again. Right now there are a couple people roaming this site doing exactly that.jerry_{May 5, 2009
May
05
May
5
05
2009
04:32 PM
4
04
32
PM
PDT}

Jerry, Don't get me wrong. I am not a Darwinist. I may not believe in a designer, but I do find ID compelling and an exciting and worthwhile pursuit. The reason I do not believe in God or a designer is that my imagination cannot fathom such a thing. But I am not so bold to think that the universe is somehow limited by what I can or cannot imagine. A finite imagination cannot possibly comprehend the full reality of an infinite God. I can understand this fact, but it still does not expand my imagination enough to accept how a designer might actually manifest itself. Until then I am open to all reasonable assertions and possibilities. Just my thoughts of course.Tommy V_{May 5, 2009
May
05
May
5
05
2009
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT}

Alan Fox @9:
Is that really how humans design things?
Sorry. My post had nothing to do with how humans design things the way they do. It had to do with why they design things at all as opposed to using random trial and error. They just don't want to wait forever.Mapou_{May 5, 2009
May
05
May
5
05
2009
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PDT}

Human beings design objects in order to get around the exponential explosion that would emerge if they were to rely on random trial and error.
Is that really how humans design things? Most useful things that humans design aren't produced from thin air. Very often they are modifications of earlier attempts. Further modifications follow road testing. Do you rush to the store to buy the latest new gadget, or do you wait until the bugs in a new product have been ironed out?Alan Fox_{May 5, 2009
May
05
May
5
05
2009
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT}

While I'm asking uninformed questions, I'll throw out another one here: Why does ID not start with the one design hypothesis most in the realm of the "known designers" — genetic engineering by ETs? Why is that not being thoroughly explored and broadcasted, as the first and most likely possible explanation for evolution's shortcomings, by the leaders of the field?Lenoxus_{May 5, 2009
May
05
May
5
05
2009
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT}

Nice post. Human beings design objects in order to get around the exponential explosion that would emerge if they were to rely on random trial and error. All genetic algorithms quickly run up against the exponential barrier: they can only solve trivial problems. This is the reason that software engineers design code as opposed to counting or picking numbers at random. After all, a computer program is just a massively huge number. No evolutionary mechanism can be effective unless its search space is severely restricted. This is what is observed in living organisms. We can only conclude that that evolution was engineered.Mapou_{May 5, 2009
May
05
May
5
05
2009
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT}

Blind men looking at the Sun / Son Romans 1 - "they are without excuse", not excuses though as they have plenty of them. AH - the mystery of what you WANT to be true... and it turns out, I very strongly suggest, that the Designer will give you what you want - "they have their reward" - let the dead bury the dead" The "arguments" from "science" will continue back and forth until the end of our "time" - therefore when I post it is with some hope of getting words that may conquer that eternal beast. To THE Author and Finisheralan_{May 5, 2009
May
05
May
5
05
2009
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT}

Here's a way "who is the designer" might be rephrased: Maybe there is a "who", or maybe not, but in any case, the central ID claim is that there is a design phenomenon that has produced some of the species we see today. And the question of how this phenomenon works — not just what this phenomenon is like — is very pertinent to how we can evaluate it. If we found that certain biological structures resembled "blind watchmaking", that wouldn't serve as sufficient evidence for "blind watchmaker" evolution until that how of evolution is explained. What I'm always struck by is how hestitant ID experts seem to outright label current phenomena as design in action — "See that mutation in the lab right there — that was design!". I have yet to see how uniformitarianism enters the picture, or by what underlying principles design starts and stops. It's like how things would be for Darwinism if mutations or death were never observed. Of course, I will admit that certain parallels might be found in some areas of science; for example, we don't have any dark matter on hand, so how can we claim what it is? Yet even then, we generally try to find an explanation that fits with the substances we do know to exist. I have yet to see any demonstrated evidence that the "design phenomenon" always happens, the way that gravitation always happens.Lenoxus_{May 5, 2009
May
05
May
5
05
2009
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT}

Tommy V, The number or incredulous defenses the anti ID proponent takes are what can I say "incredulous." But that is what it is like to be anti ID. It is not something I would be proud of. I have only found one honest Darwinist here since I have been here which is over 3 1/2 years. Maybe you can make #2.jerry_{May 5, 2009
May
05
May
5
05
2009
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT}

I guess we here at UD can safely, and reasonably, conclude that whoever the Designer is, he ‘designs’ like human engineers do. Thusly, the opposite is true: if we find human engineering-like design in biological systems, then we can conclude that we have encountered the/a Designer.
That sounds like a premature — even presumptuous — judgment on the sensibilities of the designer. Such an argument is frequently raised but weak.Reg_{May 5, 2009
May
05
May
5
05
2009
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT}

This seems to be another example of what in embryology is called developmental plasticity. The growing organism can adjust to some errors by subsequent compensation in the supporting structures finished later. Like all the blood vessels, nerves, muscles and ligaments of a limb adjusting to an initial error causing the limb to be very short or very long. Of course this adjustment isn't transmitted to the genome, but the incredible system that accomplishes it is. It appears to be a sophisticated fail safe design engineering approach. Since Darwinism can't be falsified, the Darwinists will naturally claim that this (like anything and everything else) somehow came about purely through RV + selection.magnan_{May 5, 2009
May
05
May
5
05
2009
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT}

It's a silly argument and I don't think it really needs to be addressed all that much. I don't even believe in a designer, and I don't think you need to know who the designer is to detect design. Certainly knowing the designer amps up your certitude, but in no way is it necessary. At some point you have to have confidence in your ability to call BS, and that's a BS argument. The Darwinists determination to hold on to it as something viable is a far bigger indication of the psychology of their position rather than its intellectual validity. If they honestly believe that is a defensible position than they are far too committed to their beliefs for inference through argument and logic to ever change their mind.Tommy V_{May 5, 2009
May
05
May
5
05
2009
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply