On the subject of atheism.

[Asmodean]

"intelligent design" doesnt mean intelligently designed. it means designed by an intelligence
. theres no requirement that the design must be well-engineered, merely that occurence by chance is unlikely.

I disagree. Intelligent design assumes design by a supreme inteligence. A chimp can fashion a tool for fishing termites from a hole. I can do it better. Someone properly trained or divinely intelligent and wise can do it better still.

In short, intelligent design does assume application of intelligence in the design elements. The rest is a matter of magnitude.

if you can find anything intelligent in a jackson pollock painting i will reconsider the point.

You could, though this is a flawed comparison. Ignoring any emotional bullshit involving "the meaning of art," Pollock's paintings were designed about as well as "any other" painting. You take your canvas, you build a rectangular frame from wood or metal or whatever have you, You stretch the canvas over the frame. You apply layers of colour to one side of said canvas. You have a painting. Remember, we are not debating the soul and meaning of a giraffe - only its plumbing/electrics.

richard dawkin's arrogance is in his belief that the only real god must exist in the image of richard dawkins. thats not something most people assert, and dawkins is too dumb to see it.

He may be working from a premise that man created god in his image, and may not be wrong in doing so. I don't see how he believes that that image is of him specifically. I would not have designed giraffes or human penises that way either.

[billy rubin]

why would you expect a god to hold the same system of values that you grew up with? perhsps a being more intelligent than you or i would have different motivations  kr aesthetics..

a termite stick that isnt made well by our standards may be perfect according to plans of any particular god who is engaged in a project of which you and i are ignorant.

i could design a solar system far superior to what we actually have, according to my own wants and needs. the fact that the real solar system doesnt conform to how i would do it says nothing about whether a designer was involved, intelligent or otherwise.


dawkins is a great sociobioligist, and his novel approach to natural selection clarified a lot of muddled thinking about abiogenesis in the primitive earth. his 1976 book on the selfish gene was a gem that broke down evolutionary theory to its fundamentals in a way that nobody had ever thoyght of. it was revolutionary. his god stuff, not so much.

[Asmodean]

why would you expect a god to hold the same system of values that you grew up with? perhsps a being more intelligent than you or i would have different motivations and insights.

It's not a matter of values I grew up with. Let me put it this way; you could design a circuit for turning your kitchen light on and off in many different ways. The best way can be thought of as the best available tool for the job. How do you achieve what you are after using the least material and in the most efficient way? Now, there may be minor variations in the end result, but the underlying philosophy is still "is it the best tool for the job?" You could wire your kitchen light from the breaker a meter and a half away using five kilometers of plastic tubing filled with salt water. Sure, it would work (we are assuming no practical hindrances), but it's a wasteful and inefficient - unintelligent, in fact - design, when compared to other available solutions. It's comparative rather than cultural.

a termite stick that isnt made well by your standards may be perfect according to that of any particular god who is engaged in a project of which you and i are ignorant.

Again, I am not making a cultural argument. My tool would be capable of fishing out more termites per unit of time than a chimp's. It's comparative.

i could design a solar system far superior to what we actually have, according to my own wants and needs. the fact that the real solar system doesnt conform to how i would do it says nothing about whether a designer was involved, intelligent or otherwise.

Same issue. If your solar array converts more light into electric energy, then yours is better than mine. That is its job, and yours does more of it with roughly the same expense (not exclusively or even primarily of the monetary kind) - or as much of it with less. If it's perfect according to you, but mine does the job better. then yours sucks by comparison regardless of your upbringing, self-importance or prior accolades. (What can affect the final tally, so to speak, are things like for example longevity and robustness of the system, but even before you reach that point, a patently bad design can be evaluated as such with reasonable objectivity with regard to no more than the job it is for and how it compares to other available designs for the same job)

[billy rubin]

again, you misunderstand "intelligent design, " asmo. theres not much more i can say.

it does NOT mean"intelligently designed," "well-designed," or "best-possible design." efficiency, economy, best use of materials, and so on have nothing to do with the religious concept of intelligent design. the sole criterion is that the observed system could not arise by non-sentient natural forces.

here is a standard definition:

noun The belief that physical and biological systems observed in the universe result chiefly from purposeful design by an intelligent being rather than from chance and other undirected natural processes.

noun The purposeful design perceived in the universe or one of its parts and attributed to such a being.

im not defending the idea-- i think its BS and argue against a designed cosmos with theists on a regular basis.

[Asmodean]

What then, if anything, separates something that was designed by [an] intelligence from something that occurred through other processes?

I mean, if it's not intent, then what?

[The Magic Pudding..]

What then, if anything, separates something that was designed by [an] intelligence from something that occurred through other processes?

I mean, if it's not intent, then what?

I think we are talking dog works in mysterious ways, the ineffable plan.
Billy understands this and Dawkins doesn't, Dawkins is such a dolt.

[zorkan]

Initially I didn't get much out of the Selfish Gene.
It reminded more of a quip by Terry Pratchet: "The Shellfish Scene".
Only after I took the big flip with the Neckar cube analogy, I did eventually get it.
Over time, I became less impressed because it does not explain life at all.
All genes do are to encode proteins.
I think Dawkins grew ever more frustrated that few people understood what he was saying.
That's why he had to publish ever more books.
His flaming metaphors don't impress me, either.
 

[The Magic Pudding..]

Initially I didn't get much out of the Selfish Gene.
It reminded more of a quip by Terry Pratchet: "The Shellfish Scene".
Only after I took the big flip with the Neckar cube analogy, I did eventually get it.
Over time, I became less impressed because it does not explain life at all.
All genes do are to encode proteins.
I think Dawkins grew ever more frustrated that few people understood what he was saying.
That's why he had to publish ever more books.
His flaming metaphors don't impress me, either.
 

"Over time, I became less impressed
because it does not explain life at all
All genes do are to encode proteins"

[billy rubin]

What then, if anything, separates something that was designed by [an] intelligence from something that occurred through other processes?

I mean, if it's not intent, then what?

intent is the separator. non-sentient processes do not have "intent" to start with. so that is the only distinction.

in practice, proving design is very difficut. paley's watchmaker is a good example of the attempt, as was behe's irreducible complexity

i do not know how to distinguish something designed with intent from something that arose without design, except by comparing it to something very similar that i know had a designer. thats why paleys watchmaker fails-  everybody knows a watch has a designer. but a fine-tuned universe?

not so simple.

[Asmodean]

Indeed, but then my point stands. To assume intelligent design is to assume designer[-s] creating a system for a purpose. Even the aforementioned Pollock paintings have that - from profit generation to hole-in-the-wall covering. Having made that assumption, you absolutely can evaluate the design comparatively as good or bad as compared to what could have been done with the available resources in stead.

For example, a giraffe converts vegetation into little giraffes. Other systems such as zebras do similar things, but at lower heights, so from a designer's standpoint, the call/need would have been for a system that converts vegetation at greater heights into baby-itself-selves. (more or less. More more than less.)

The overall system is decent at it, but its subsystems are suboptimal. Therefore, having looked at a generation 1 giraffe, a designer would optimise most of those out in generation 2. That's what intelligence does - turns wheelbarrows into space shuttles through the evolution of design. Is a cable unnecessarily long? Re-route it. Is the lower neck too un-bendy? Implement a [lockable] joint. Such like. The tools and scalable templates are already there, so either god is shit at designing systems, uncaring of the quality or wastefulness of the end product (thus having no professional pride in it) or he did not design shit.

Intent does open those avenues of inquiry in ways that evolution by natural selection simply does not, since there is no capacity for fore- or afterthought. Being able to plan and then evaluate an action (learn and adapt, in slightly different terms) is pretty much the difference between an intelligent and a non-intelligent system.

[zorkan]

If the intelligent designer exists then why can't we see him?
Many have no doubt tried, but god has a trick up his sleeve.

https://firmisrael.org/learn/no-man-can-see-my-face-and-live/

Does that mean if you do see him face to face, he will kill you.
Or does it mean the opposite?

[billy rubin]

an example, asmo. an endpoint to make a larger point about the general distribution.

you are a woodcutter. every day you walk to the forest, cut wood, and carry it back to town to sell. between your hut and the forest is a stream. not too wide, not too deep, but inconvenient.  one day you decide to solve the problem.

you journey up to the creek  step up to the nearest tree, and cut it down so it falls across the creek. now you have a bridge. the bridge is an example of intelligent design. an intelligent agent designed and implemented it.

but its a lousy bridge. its too narrow, round on top , not very stable, covered in scrubby branches, and at an inconvenient spot. you could have made a better one perhaps, but you didnt.

that night there is a thunderstorm. a bolt of lightning hits a large tree a ways down the stream from your bridge. it splits the tree in two, and sets fire to all the twigs. half the tree falls across the stream, embedding itself firmly in the soil. the halftrunk is wide and flat on top, perfect for walking. no twigs are left yo trip you up. it doesnt rock because its firmly fixed, and it hsppens to be at a very convenient place.

the natural bridge is superior to the one you made in every wsy, but it wasmt designed by an intelligent agent. your inferior bridge is an exampke if intelligent design, while the superior natural bridge is not.

thats the difference between intelligent design and mere.happenstance.

recent examples of intelligent design include behes bacterial flagellum, an interesting electric motor with a spinning propeller. behe cites it as evidence of intelligent design based on its irreducible complexity, not because it is a superior design. like the metaphor of the mouse trap, the flagellum is composed of a few essential parts, none of which have any functional ability until the others are all there. only when assembled does the mousetrap, and the flagellum, work. evolution could not derive the structure because there is no increase in adaptive fitness with any incompkete set of parts-- all must be tbere for it to work, like the mouse trap. he says.

because of this, he cites the need for an intelligent designer to direct the evolution of the parts, someone who has an endpoint in mind. there might be a thousand better ways to allow locomotion to evolve in bacteria, but the designer put his finger on the scales and chose the flagellum and its biochemical motor.

in fact, behes model fails because all the parts have been shown to have adaptive precursors, and the evolution of the flagellum can be modelled by adding these pieces one by one, for different purposes.

thats the idea. there are other examples. the woodcutter was an endpoint in the bell curve, an extreme instance to illustrate the distinction.

[billy rubin]

I think we are talking dog works in mysterious ways, the ineffable plan.
Billy understands this and Dawkins doesn't, Dawkins is such a dolt.

yes. out of his area of expertise, dawkins is a dolt. he would have done better to emulate his idol, thomas henry huxley.

when huxley learned of darwins theory of evolution by means of natural selection, his immediate response was to say,

"how stupid of me not to have thought of that . . ."

i have yet to hear dawkins utter anything so humble.

[Asmodean]

an example, asmo. an endpoint to make a larger point about the general distribution.

you are a woodcutter. every day you walk to the forest, cut wood, and carry it back to town to sell. between your hut and the forest is a stream. not too wide, not too deep, but inconvenient.  one day you decide to solve the problem.

you journey up to the creek  step up to the nearest tree, and cut it down so it falls across the creek. now you have a bridge. the bridge is an example of intelligent design. an intelligent agent designed and implemented it.

but its a lousy bridge. its too narrow, round on top , not very stable, covered in scrubby branches, and at an inconvenient spot. you could have made a better one perhaps, but you didnt.

Precisely!

It's a poor design, as per the argument.

As I put it above, "so either god is shit at designing systems, uncaring of the quality or wastefulness of the end product (thus having no professional pride in it) or he did not design shit." Can this be successfully merried to the god of the bacteria chap below? If not, what is the other option? I think Dawkins' argument lies here-abouts.

Yes, you could make a makeshift bridge that sucks. However, the bridge is subject to generational changes and your whim as the designer. Wheelbarrows to space shuttles. Does it have an inconvenient branch you keep stumbling upon? Beat it with your wood cutter tools until it doesn't. Such like.

that night there is a thunderstorm. a bolt of lightning hits a large tree a ways down the stream from your bridge. it splits the tree in two, and sets fire to all the twigs. half the tree falls across the stream, embedding itself firmly in the soil. the halftrunk is wide and flat on top, perfect for walking. no twigs are left yo trip you up. it doesnt rock because its firmly fixed, and it hsppens to be at a very convenient place.

the natural bridge is superior to the one you made in every wsy, but it wasmt designed by an intelligent agent. your inferior bridge is an exampke if intelligent design, while the superior natural bridge is not.

Indeed, the latter is not even an example of design. Now, to design a bridge drawing on the parameters of that hapless half-trunk would be intelligent. Intelligence the ability to solve problems, and efficiency in solving them is the measure of magnitude of intelligence.

thats the difference between intelligent design and mere.happenstance.

It's a difference between design and happenstance. For one thing, designs evolve - happenstances merely decay.

recent examples of intelligent design include behes bacterial flagellum, an interesting electric motor with a spinning propeller. behe cites it as evidence of intelligent design based on its irreducible complexity, not because it is a superior design. like the metaphor of the mouse trap, the flagellum is composed of a few essential parts, none of which have any functional ability until the others are all there. only when assembled does the mousetrap, and the flagellum, work. evolution could not derive the structure because there is no increase in adaptive fitness with any incompkete set of parts-- all must be tbere for it to work, like the mouse trap. he says.

because of this, he cites the need for an intelligent designer to direct the evolution of the parts, someone who has an endpoint in mind. there might be a thousand better ways to allow locomotion to evolve in bacteria, but the designer put his finger on the scales and chose the flagellum and its biochemical motor.

...And the question is, if we assume such a designer, would any reasonable one have chosen that solution? Perhaps the answer is yes. In that giraffe example, the answer is "no." The end system gains nothing from it, and is worse for it. In terms of your example, it would be somewhat like the crafty wood cutter splitting the trunk as the lightning did, but rather than put the pieces along each other side by side, he puts them on top of each other, flat sides inwards, thus "re-creating" the very same trunk. It's useless effort for the purpose. Is it still deliberately designed? Sure. Is it intelligently designed? No. It's dumb.

I suppose the argument revolves around the implications of "intelligent" and is semantic in nature, but then the proponents of Intelligent Design the philosophy do tend to play that game.

[zorkan]

Reading Dawkins is like a brain tonic, concludes one reviewer of his books.
Doubt if he realises that Dawkins borrows heavily.
Having few original ideas of his own he enlarges on works by Bill Hamilton and George Williams.
I understand that Hamilton's mathematical logic is flawed and Williams's idea of reducing life to the level of the gene is also flawed.
The title of Dawkins' book Unweaving The Rainbow comes from the poet Keats.
It opens with his most famous quote:
"We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born."

Clever, but still does not explain why life bothers to exist in relation to the universe.