Intelligent Design posits the existence of an intelligent designer or designers. ID does not characterise the designer greatly, it is generally left undefined. However, there are two necessary characteristics of the ID designer: existence and intelligence. Any real intelligent designer must exist and must be intelligent. If it were not intelligent, then we would not have intelligent design, but unintelligent design.
ID's designer must be intelligent, but it is obvious that it did not design its own intelligence since something cannot design itself. That leaves open the question of the origin of the intelligence inherent in the intelligent designer.
Dr. Dembski allows three possible origins: design, chance or necessity. Neither chance nor natural causes are intelligent design. If either of these is the case, then ID has failed to explain the origin of intelligence, since intelligence would be due to chance or necessity, not design.
That leaves Dembski's design origin: the intelligence in the intelligent designer was itself designed. This obviously requires a meta-designer to design the intelligence in the intelligent designer. If the meta-designer is itself intelligent, then by the same argument we would need a meta-meta-designer to design the intelligence in the intelligent meta-designer. Obviously this gives us an infinite regress of intelligent metan-designers. To avoid the infinite regress, we would need the last of the chain of meta-designers not to be intelligent, but to be an unintelligent designer. In this case, the origin of intelligence is not intelligent design, but is unintelligent design. In this case also, ID cannot explain the origin of intelligence, only UD -- Unintelligent Design -- can explain the origin of intelligence.
In all three cases: chance, necessity and design, Intelligent Design has failed to explain the origin of intelligence.
Intelligent Design cannot explain the origin of intelligence. Only a non-intelligent process can do that. Evolution is one example of just such an unintelligent process.
rossum
ID's designer must be intelligent, but it is obvious that it did not design its own intelligence since something cannot design itself. That leaves open the question of the origin of the intelligence inherent in the intelligent designer.
Dr. Dembski allows three possible origins: design, chance or necessity. Neither chance nor natural causes are intelligent design. If either of these is the case, then ID has failed to explain the origin of intelligence, since intelligence would be due to chance or necessity, not design.
That leaves Dembski's design origin: the intelligence in the intelligent designer was itself designed. This obviously requires a meta-designer to design the intelligence in the intelligent designer. If the meta-designer is itself intelligent, then by the same argument we would need a meta-meta-designer to design the intelligence in the intelligent meta-designer. Obviously this gives us an infinite regress of intelligent metan-designers. To avoid the infinite regress, we would need the last of the chain of meta-designers not to be intelligent, but to be an unintelligent designer. In this case, the origin of intelligence is not intelligent design, but is unintelligent design. In this case also, ID cannot explain the origin of intelligence, only UD -- Unintelligent Design -- can explain the origin of intelligence.
In all three cases: chance, necessity and design, Intelligent Design has failed to explain the origin of intelligence.
Intelligent Design cannot explain the origin of intelligence. Only a non-intelligent process can do that. Evolution is one example of just such an unintelligent process.
rossum
Comment