Reflectorites
On Fri, 13 Oct 2000 13:30:03 -0500, Chris Cogan wrote:
[...]
CC>Therefore, to clear this up, I'd like to see a kind of statement of the
>"program" of folks like Jones as to how they expect to justify a concept of
>intelligent design (or even just design) that is isolated from types of
>designer (such as naturalistic (aliens, humans, animals, machines) and
>supernaturalistic (demi-gods, ghosts, and "God")).
[...]
Chris' slightest wish is my command! :-)
Here is an FAQ that I have just drafted on the topic. This, and other
FAQs can be found on my web page starting at:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/faqs.html.
*Constructive* criticism would be welcomed.
PS: As Murphy's Law would have it, my normally reliable ISP
seems to be having some problems uploading new web pages. So
there might be a slight delay of getting this FAQ webbed.
Steve
===========================================================
FAQ: DESIGN & DESIGNER: SEPARATE QUESTIONS
Q. How does Intelligent Design (ID) theory justify separating the questions
1. Is there design? and 2. Who (or what) is the designer?
Each scientific discipline has had to deliberately limit itself to a domain
within boundaries appropriate to its subject matter.
ID's subject matter is detecting *design* in biological nature. If some other
field like theology or philosophy wants to speculate on who (or what) the
designer is, even before ID actually detects design, they are welcome to do
so.
To be sure ID requires that there is a designer with the *minimum*
requisite intelligence and ability to account for the design in question.
I point to the examples of the sciences of archaeology and SETI. Recently
there was news about the Golan Venus figurine which is on the borderline
between an artefact and a geofact. Archaeologists have now apparently
determined that it was an artefact, by eliminating unintelligent natural
causes. They don't need to know (and may never know) who was the
designer or even what species it was.
Similarly with SETI. If they ever receive a message they will know it was
designed, by eliminating unintelligent natural causes, even if they never
know who sent it. They will, from the message, be able to deduce the
*minimum* level of intelligence required to account for it. But they could
not tell the maximum level of intelligence of the sender. That is because a
higher intelligence can send a lower intelligence message but a low
intelligence cannot send a higher intelligence message.
If the message is a complex series of prime numbers, then SETI researchers
will know the designer had at *least* a knowledge of the mathematics
required to produce the message. OTOH the message might be an intercept
of a stray routine communication, which might not tell them much about
the level of intelligence and power of the sender. In both cases the senders
could be members of a million-year old civilisation of highly advanced
intelligence and technology but that would not be able to be deduced from
the message. All that can be safely deduced from a designed artefact is the
*minimum* level of intelligence and power to design and make it.
So it is with ID. ID requires only that there be a designer of a *minimum*
level of intelligence and power to cause the effect in question. ID does not
need to speculate on who the designer is or what level of intelligence and
power the designer has beyond that required to produce the design in
question.
Of course if design is empirically detected by ID, this will be interpreted by
Christians as more evidence for the Christian God. But there is no way that
Christians can *prove*, from the level of evidence that ID can provide, that
the designer *was* the Christian God. The empirical detection of design by
ID would be equally supportive of *all* religions and philosophies which
maintained that there was a designer or design.
If ID did empirically detect design in biology, it could even be
accommodated within atheism, by atheists claiming that the designer was
an alien or time-traveller.
The discovery of real design would of course be a problem for
*Darwinism* which claims there is no real design in biology, only apparent
design. But as Dawkins1 points out, there were atheist before Darwin, just
not intellectually fulfilled ones!
Notes
1Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker," [1986], Penguin: London, 1991,
reprint, p.6.
Stephen E. (Steve) Jones
http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/faqdddsq.html
===========================================================
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E. (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ Email: sejones@iinet.net.au
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Web: http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
Warwick 6024 -> *_,--\_/ Phone: +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, Western Australia v "Test everything." (1 Thess. 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 17 2000 - 17:52:28 EDT