Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Intelligent Design cannot explain the origin of intelligence

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Intelligent Design cannot explain the origin of intelligence

    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

  • #2
    If the intelligent designer is God, it would be an intrinsic part of Him and since he is eternal and has no beginning, neither would his intelligence.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
      If the intelligent designer is God, it would be an intrinsic part of Him and since he is eternal and has no beginning, neither would his intelligence.
      Agreed, but there is no objective verifiable evidence that can falsify Intelligent Design. The negative hypothesis that our existence, including life, and humanity could not have resulted from natural law and natural processes is not falsifiable.

      I believe God is the Creator by natural methods observed by science, and not a mechanistic design engineer making watches and 747s.
      Last edited by shunyadragon; 07-14-2017, 07:00 AM.
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        I believe God is the Creator by natural methods observed by science, and not a mechanistic design engineer making watches and 747s.
        But if a tornado roared through a junkyard in just the right way...


        I'm always still in trouble again

        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          If the intelligent designer is God, it would be an intrinsic part of Him and since he is eternal and has no beginning, neither would his intelligence.
          The intelligent designer is most definitely not God, no siree bob. We can't teach God in 'Merkin schools because of that pesky Constitution thingy. But intelligent design is nothing at all to do with God (despite what Judge Jones said) and so ID (which is not just creationism in a cheap labcoat) can legally be taught in schools.

          If the designer is God, then explaining the origin of intelligence requires explaining the origin of God. Since neither ID nor theology can explain the origin of God -- theology just defines the question away -- then neither has an answer to the origin of intelligence.

          rossum

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by rossum View Post
            The intelligent designer is most definitely not God, no siree bob. We can't teach God in 'Merkin schools because of that pesky Constitution thingy. But intelligent design is nothing at all to do with God (despite what Judge Jones said) and so ID (which is not just creationism in a cheap labcoat) can legally be taught in schools.

            If the designer is God, then explaining the origin of intelligence requires explaining the origin of God. Since neither ID nor theology can explain the origin of God -- theology just defines the question away -- then neither has an answer to the origin of intelligence.

            rossum
            Theology does explain the "origin" of God: He is eternal. He was never created so he needs no origin.

            I guess ID could claim it is some alien scientist who is from a metaverse who created this universe as an experiment. That would push the problem back one level and then you can say "where did he come from then? Who cares?"

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by rossum View Post
              The intelligent designer is most definitely not God, no siree bob. We can't teach God in 'Merkin schools because of that pesky Constitution thingy. But intelligent design is nothing at all to do with God (despite what Judge Jones said) and so ID (which is not just creationism in a cheap labcoat) can legally be taught in schools.

              If the designer is God, then explaining the origin of intelligence requires explaining the origin of God. Since neither ID nor theology can explain the origin of God -- theology just defines the question away -- then neither has an answer to the origin of intelligence.

              rossum
              I appreciate your interest in support of the teaching of intelligent design in classes. I would disagree that there is a constitutional restriction against teaching intelligent design -- it is not an "institute of religion."

              If, as in the Christian understanding, this world is indeed a created item and our intelligence is derivative , we are not necessarily privy to understanding some theoretical origin of intelligence preceding our created realm. The effort to understand an origin of intelligence within creation would be futile. The effort to figure out the essence of God's intelligence would be more futile since we only can understand God through revelation and, possibly, through recognition of his attributes analogically -- since we were created in his image.

              I'm not sure then how you can say "Intelligent Design cannot explain the origin of intelligence. Only a non-intelligent process can do that." Sure you are speaking of "origin of intelligence" -- but that is not the goal of intelligent design -- which focuses on designs we see in creatures on earth. (This doesn't even address the probability/possibility that the laws of physics were designed -- which are required to exist before any creatures can exist.)

              We are creatures limited by creation. Even the problems we encounter with concepts of infinity (and infinite regression) may simply be built in to creation. It may be that, in heaven, we will see that 'infinity' in creation was not big deal -- or was only a 'problem' of limited perspective.

              Thus, I don't see anything convincing in your argument.

              Comment


              • #8
                This argument applies to any possible origin. All you have done is imagine an infinite regression and say it cannot be. How in the world does that even have meaning?

                Originally posted by rossum View Post
                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
                Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                  Agreed, but there is no objective verifiable evidence that can falsify Intelligent Design. The negative hypothesis that our existence, including life, and humanity could not have resulted from natural law and natural processes is not falsifiable.

                  I believe God is the Creator by natural methods observed by science, and not a mechanistic design engineer making watches and 747s.
                  I'm shocked, we agree on something.

                  Intelligent Design fails to explain a lot of issues and has some very bad theological consequences.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                    Theology does explain the "origin" of God: He is eternal. He was never created so he needs no origin.
                    Which is what I said: "theology just defines the question away".

                    I guess ID could claim it is some alien scientist who is from a metaverse who created this universe as an experiment.
                    That is indeed one possibility for ID. Since we do not know the chemisrty (or its equivalent) in that metaverse, then a natural (for that metaverse) origin of the aliens is possible. No god-of-the-metaverse needes. A pity really, those tentacles looked very nice.

                    That would push the problem back one level and then you can say "where did he come from then? Who cares?"
                    Which is one of the big failing of ID, it refuses to push the problem back and does not speculate about the identity of the proposed designer.

                    rossum

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by rossum View Post
                      Which is what I said: "theology just defines the question away".



                      That is indeed one possibility for ID. Since we do not know the chemisrty (or its equivalent) in that metaverse, then a natural (for that metaverse) origin of the aliens is possible. No god-of-the-metaverse needes. A pity really, those tentacles looked very nice.



                      Which is one of the big failing of ID, it refuses to push the problem back and does not speculate about the identity of the proposed designer.

                      rossum
                      as someone pointed out above you have the same problem with a natural universe: what caused a singularity which existed somehow without space or time, to expand into a universe?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by rossum View Post
                        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
                        The question of origin implies time, it implies was not but now is. God, as defined, as revealed, has always been and never was not. To say that 'defines the problem away' is simply trying to put an negative spin on the fact that you are trying to define the characteristics of one system using the postulates or axioms of another. This is not negative spin nor is it a short cut or a short circuit. It is a simple reality. If I try to define Parallel lines on a sphere using the plane geometry postulate 'Parallel lines never meet' then I end up with a contradiction and a flawed geometry. In fact, I end up with a meaningless contradiction. On a sphere, parallel lines meet twice. And we can construct a meaningful geometry of a spherical surface if we adjust that basic postulate. This is the difference between spherical and euclidean geometry.

                        God is an eternal being, outside time and space, existing at all times and in all places. You simply can't try to subject a discussion of God to the constraints found in a system where we are within time, where existence is transitory, where there is always a beginning and and ending. All you end up with are meaningless contradictions like the one you raise here.


                        Jim
                        Last edited by oxmixmudd; 07-14-2017, 12:50 PM.
                        My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                        If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                        This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                          I appreciate your interest in support of the teaching of intelligent design in classes.
                          I do not. ID is not science.

                          I would disagree that there is a constitutional restriction against teaching intelligent design -- it is not an "institute of religion."
                          ID was carefully designed to give the appearance of science and not the appearance of religion. Unfortunately for ID the Kitzmiller case showed that the appearance was just that -- mere appearance. It is instructive to compare what ID proponents say when they are talking to secular audiences with what they say when they are talking to Christian audiences. For example, "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." -- William Dembski.

                          I'm not sure then how you can say "Intelligent Design cannot explain the origin of intelligence.
                          That is exactly what I am saying. If your start with an intelligent designer then you have not explained the origin of intelligence; you have merely assumed it.

                          We are creatures limited by creation.
                          Look at the top left of my posts. I am not Christian. I do not necessarily accept the presuppositions of the Abrahamic religions.

                          rossum

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
                            This argument applies to any possible origin. All you have done is imagine an infinite regression and say it cannot be. How in the world does that even have meaning?
                            No, I have not imagined an infinite regression. If intelligence is cause by chance then there is no infinite regression. If intelligence is cause by necessity then there is no infinite regression. If intelligence is caused by an unintelligent designer then there is no infinite regression.

                            It can be noted that evolution is both unintelligent and has some of the characteristics of an intelligence. Dembski says:
                            "The word "intelligent" derives from two Latin words, the preposition inter, meaning between, and the verb lego, meaning to choose or select. Thus according to its etymology, intelligence consists in choosing between."

                            -- Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information.

                            There is at least one natural process which can choose between options without involving intelligence: natural selection. Natural selection chooses between the range of options generated by random mutation. Moreover it does not need intelligence to do so. Such an unintelligent designer avoids the infinite regress.

                            rossum

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                              God is an eternal being, outside time and space, existing at all times and in all places.
                              You contradict yourself. God is "outside time and space", yet He exists "at all times", and "in all places", both of which are inside time and space. Inside or outside? Does God exist here (inside space) and now (inside time) or not? You need to resolve this contradiction.

                              You simply can't try to subject a discussion of God to the constraints found in a system where we are within time, where existence is transitory, where there is always a beginning and and ending.
                              God parted the sea for Moses. That action had a beginning and an ending. Are you saying that God did not part the sea for Moses? Actions within time have a beginning and an ending. If God cannot act with a beginning and an ending then God cannot act within time and so He is no longer omnipotent -- His actions are limited to outside time and barred inside time. Another contradiction to resolve.

                              All you end up with are meaningless contradictions like the one you raise here.
                              Not meaningless. How can a God who is outside space act within space to part the sea for Moses? How can a God who is outside time act within time to part the sea for Moses?

                              rossum

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                              48 responses
                              135 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Sparko
                              by Sparko
                               
                              Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                              16 responses
                              74 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                              6 responses
                              47 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Working...
                              X