Intelligent Design
Glaukon
Design". Isn't that an pleonasm? I mean, every design is intelligent,
isn't it? If only we can attribute intelligency to entities without
mind and a design certainly is such entity....
Adam
Stephen Calder
Your question is ill-formed but I'll attempt the one I think you might
be asking.
Religious fundamentalists, who disapprove of the theory of evolution on
the grounds that it writes God out of the picture, attempt to write God
back in by appealing to the design of the universe as requiring divine
intelligence to bring it into being; hence the use of the term
"intelligent design" to replace the discredited term "creationism",
which it used to be called when the argument was simply that evolution
cannot be true because God created the universe.
In other words, "intelligent design" is a term used by those who
mistakenly believe that the big bang theory of the universe's origin,
combined with the theory of evolution, would, if true, exclude the
possibility of God's existence, or at least support those who deny it.
In fact, of course, nothing in science either supports or disproves the
existence of God.
--
Stephen
Lennox Head, Australia
dontbother
Think "fractals". No, not every design is intelligently created. Some
designs are random.
--
Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor
Native speaker of American English; posting from Taiwan.
Unmunged email: /at/easypeasy.com
"Impatience is the mother of misery."
Lanarcam
> "Glaukon" <Adam....@gmail.com> wrote
>
>> As a non-native I have some problems with the phrase
>> "Intelligent Design". Isn't that an pleonasm? I mean, every
>> design is intelligent, isn't it? If only we can attribute
>> intelligency to entities without mind and a design certainly is
>> such entity....
>
> Think "fractals". No, not every design is intelligently created. Some
> designs are random.
>
is a deliberate action by some conscious entity.
I see fractals as patterns, not designs and not really random
since they obey the laws of physics.
J. J. Lodder
> As a non-native I have some problems with the phrase "Intelligent
> Design". Isn't that an pleonasm?
In current American practice it is just creationism by another name,
as established once and for all by judge Jones in Dover vs Kitzmiller.
> I mean, every design is intelligent,
> isn't it? If only we can attribute intelligency to entities without
> mind and a design certainly is such entity....
How can you know that something which appears desiged
actually is designed?
The believers in the doctrine of ID hold
that there is something they call 'irreducible complexity'.
Some complex things may arise through chance,
others are so complex that a designer must be postulated
to explain them.
Basically there is nothing to it
beyond the 'argument from incredulity',
Jan
J. J. Lodder
> "Glaukon" <Adam....@gmail.com> wrote
>
> > As a non-native I have some problems with the phrase
> > "Intelligent Design". Isn't that an pleonasm? I mean, every
> > design is intelligent, isn't it? If only we can attribute
> > intelligency to entities without mind and a design certainly is
> > such entity....
>
> Think "fractals". No, not every design is intelligently created. Some
> designs are random.
I would call fractals patterns, not designs.
Don't offend Plato,
Jan
Lars Eighner
<1160211994.9...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, the lovely and
talented Glaukon broadcast on alt.usage.english:
First, "Intelligent Design" is simply a political code word, used to try to
get Biblical teaching into public schools. Religious teachings are not
allowed in public (that is, tax-supported) schools in America owing to the
First Amendment of the US Constitution.
But your question seems to go to whether there can be a "design" without a
"designer." And the answer is, in general speech "design" is sometimes used
when the implication of a designer is not intended. It would be less
confusing if people would say "pattern" in such cases, but people are not
always so careful in their expressions. If you say you perceive a pattern
in a natural crystal, you are not taking a position on whether the crystal
or the rules of chemistry which made it grow as it did were "designed" or
not. "Pattern," in other words, can be merely a matter of perception. Some
people who mention the "design" of a crystal will mean that they think some
willful entity is responsible, but other people will not mean to imply that
at all.
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> <http://myspace.com/larseighner>
"The worth of a book is to be measured by what you can carry away from it."
--James Bryce
J. J. Lodder
Fractals are usually understood to be mathematical patterns.
Patterns found in nature may at best resemble a fractal,
to a certain extent,
Jan
Marius Hancu
Glaukon wrote:
I think that in many contexts this means
"a design which is _more_ intelligent than others,"
in an ellipsis.
Marius Hancu
dontbother
dontbother
> dontbother <dontb...@mushmail.mom> wrote:
He's dead, so I don't think he'll be offended. But those patterns
look very much like designs, especially the fire fractals in the
Tech Repbulic gallery of amazing fractals I saw yesterday. If
human beings had created the "patterns" (much too complex to grok
as recursive patterns of any sort), they would be called "designs".
Computer programs can produce "music" very much like JS Bach's. Is
it "music" or merely a set of patterns that may (or may not) please
the ear and soothe the savage breast? If a computer program and a
human composer produce exactly the same melodic line, is one "a
pattern" and the other "music"?
dontbother
> dontbother a écrit :
>> "Glaukon" <Adam....@gmail.com> wrote
>>
>>> As a non-native I have some problems with the phrase
>>> "Intelligent Design". Isn't that an pleonasm? I mean, every
>>> design is intelligent, isn't it? If only we can attribute
>>> intelligency to entities without mind and a design certainly
>>> is such entity....
>>
>> Think "fractals". No, not every design is intelligently
>> created. Some designs are random.
>>
> Not being a native speaker neither I would say that designing
> is a deliberate action by some conscious entity.
That's tautologous; therefore, "intelligent" is redundant.
> I see fractals as patterns, not designs and not really random
> since they obey the laws of physics.
Repeat the same pattern often enough and it becomes what some might
call a "design". If you look at Richard Dawkins's _The Blind
Watchmaker_, you'll see that he demonstrates, using a simple
recursive branching program that starts with a single line that
branches into two that branch into two each etc, that what we might
want to call "designs" evolve without conscious planning. His
computer program's "designs" -- "biomorphs", he calls them --
include things that look like 8-legged insects, airplanes,
butterflies, a fox head, a lamp, and others, things that look more
like objects we know, he says, than clouds sometimes look like
things we know.
I remember an embarrassing incident in the art world about 40 or 50
years ago when a number of finger paintings that had won first
prize in an art contest turned out to be the work of a chimpanzee.
Lots of people complained that "art" was something created only by
humans and not by chimps. Others, however, thought that a beautiful
sunset was "art". If something is "beautiful", is it "art"? If it's
"art", does it have to be "beautiful"? Can Jackson Pollack's action
paintings every be considered "art" or "designs"? Must "designs" be
deliberately created in the mind before they exist in a more
concrete or other type of form visible to others?
This demonstrates that some concepts have no meaning without a
proper definition. If the contest judges considered considered the
abstract paintings "art" before they knew that a chimp had done the
work, why did they change their minds? Either "abstract art" is not
"art" at all or the "abstract art" of a chimp is just as much
"art" as that of a human, child or adult.
I would say that the beauty of nature is not "art" and that the
beautiful crystal structures found in geodes are not "consciously
designed". If I take pictures of those instances of natural beauty
and frame them, are they "art"? If I put them on T-shirts, are they
"designs"?
Steve Hayes
Keyboards with function keys across the top are an example of unintelligent
design.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://people.tribe.net/hayesstw
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
ray o'hara
"Murray Arnow" <ar...@iname.com> wrote in message
news:%eOVg.10557$e66....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> "Pattern" used as above is still flawed. A pattern assumes a method, and
> methods just don't appear spontaneously. "Design" is not used and
> "pattern" is rarely used by physicists to describe a crystal; the
> preferred word is "structure." I heard some unexpected comments arising
> from the incautious use of "design" by scientists well before "Intelligent
> Design" was created, but I don't recall any excitement over "pattern." The
> possible reason is that "design" assumes an intelligence, while a pattern
> assumes a method or logic.
>
> Of course, there is the argument it is not possible to have a method or
> logic without an intelligence. This is where science ends and philosophy
> begins. But as far as physics is concerned, a Designer is not required.
> Thank God for that, otherwise, physicists couldn't keep their eyes off
> their navels.
>
>
The trouble with ID and patterns is we only see what works, what doesn't
work doesn't happen.
Fractals happen because they work.Nothing that works happens only once.
Leslie Danks
[...]
> Can Jackson Pollack's action
> paintings every be considered "art" or "designs"? Must "designs" be
> deliberately created in the mind before they exist in a more
> concrete or other type of form visible to others?
Just as an aside, in "Order in Pollock's Chaos" (Scientific American,
December 2002), Richard Taylor claims that Pollack's works are fractal in
nature and that this enables them to be distinguished from fakes using an
appropriate computer program. I have not managed to find the article
online, though.
--
Les
dontbother
> "Glaukon" <Adam....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>As a non-native I have some problems with the phrase
>>"Intelligent Design". Isn't that an pleonasm? I mean, every
>>design is intelligent, isn't it? If only we can attribute
>>intelligency to entities without mind and a design certainly is
>>such entity....
>
> Keyboards with function keys across the top are an example of
> unintelligent design.
Wait. Can you really say that? After all, no matter how stupid the
designer, he or she had to be more intelligent than the design in
order to create it, and all designs are created by some form of
intelligence.
If this is true, then we can claim that the intelligent designer
doesn't have to be supernaturally intelligent. Animal trainers know
very well that some animals are more intelligent than others, so why
couldn't the intelligent designer be a chimp instead of a god? If a
chimp is good enough to win an art contest, why couldn't one have
designed the keyboards most of us now use? Not only are the function
keys in the wrong place, but the Caps Lock and Insert keys are also
mal-placed. I think a chimp or maybe even an orangutan or a gibbon
might have been responsible for those boners.
dontbother
[..]
> The trouble with ID and patterns is we only see what works, what
> doesn't work doesn't happen.
> Fractals happen because they work.Nothing that works happens
> only once.
Right. You only die twice.
John O'Flaherty
dontbother wrote:
> nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote
>
> > dontbother <dontb...@mushmail.mom> wrote:
> >
> >> "Glaukon" <Adam....@gmail.com> wrote
> >>
> >> > As a non-native I have some problems with the phrase
> >> > "Intelligent Design". Isn't that an pleonasm? I mean, every
> >> > design is intelligent, isn't it? If only we can attribute
> >> > intelligency to entities without mind and a design certainly
> >> > is such entity....
> >>
> >> Think "fractals". No, not every design is intelligently
> >> created. Some designs are random.
> >
> > I would call fractals patterns, not designs.
> >
> > Don't offend Plato,
>
> He's dead, so I don't think he'll be offended. But those patterns
> look very much like designs, especially the fire fractals in the
> Tech Repbulic gallery of amazing fractals I saw yesterday. If
> human beings had created the "patterns" (much too complex to grok
> as recursive patterns of any sort), they would be called "designs".
If you look at fractals for a while, you can often see patterns
repeated at different scales. The fact that they can be at least partly
understood is part of their attraction. There is free software
available for anyone to experiment with fractal patterns, generating
them and applying mathematical post-processing. There's a lot of
mathematical pattern and a lot of design involved, and the result can
be beautiful. Some examples:
http://infinitezoom.com/
InfiniteZoom Fractal Gallery
> Computer programs can produce "music" very much like JS Bach's. Is
> it "music" or merely a set of patterns that may (or may not) please
> the ear and soothe the savage breast? If a computer program and a
> human composer produce exactly the same melodic line, is one "a
> pattern" and the other "music"?
I think the music is created in the mind of the listener upon
hearing, so if you listen to a computer-generated pattern and get
pleasure from it, it's music. The great composers knew how to create
patterns that would produce music, beautiful at many levels, in the
minds of listeners. The computer-generated output, at least in our
times, is limited to fewer levels, and so has limited beauty.
The same sort of argument applies to art-monkey output -- the beauty
and art are in the mind of the beholder.
Still, since what can be called beautiful or artistic can appear in
such abundance, no one needs to feel obliged to pay attention to all of
it, and it's reasonable to limit one's attention to art that is
human-produced, with no other excuse than that we are human.
--
John
dontbother
It's amazing the lengths to which art critics will go to justify
their absurd and personal judgments. Back in 1970, I heard John
Canaday say on NPR that Pollock was a mediocre artist at best, but
that the art critics of the period had nothing better to work with
and telling the truth about his art would have done serious economic
harm to the art world, especially the one that pays art critics.
Percival P. Cassidy
>> As a non-native I have some problems with the phrase "Intelligent
>> Design". Isn't that an pleonasm? I mean, every design is intelligent,
>> isn't it? If only we can attribute intelligency to entities without
>> mind and a design certainly is such entity....
> Keyboards with function keys across the top are an example of unintelligent
> design.
Hear! Hear! I hope my Gateway2000 "AnyKey" keyboards keep going for a
good long time.
Perce
dontbother
[...]
> Still, since what can be called beautiful or artistic can
> appear in such abundance, no one needs to feel obliged
> to pay attention to all of it, and it's reasonable to limit
> one's attention to art that is human-produced, with no other
> excuse than that we are human.
I like this very much. An excellent response. As is the part that I
snipt.
Glaukon
> Your question is ill-formed but I'll attempt the one I think you might
> be asking.
>
> In other words, "intelligent design" is a term used by those who
> mistakenly believe that the big bang theory of the universe's origin,
> combined with the theory of evolution, would, if true, exclude the
> possibility of God's existence, or at least support those who deny it.
>
> In fact, of course, nothing in science either supports or disproves the
> existence of God.
>
My question is rather liquistic in nature, I'm not trying to answer who
is right in this dispute but rather if this phrase is corect from a
linquistic point of view. BTW, there is at least one more theory dubbed
ID (some sort of mathematical theory), which has noting to do with
creationism.
Glaukon
UC
'Design' is such a vague term that adding 'intelligent' to it makes it
clearer that deliberate thought went into the design.
Glaukon
>
> How can you know that something which appears desiged
> actually is designed?
If something just appears desinged and in fact is not, then there is no
reason to call it 'design', is it? It's rather 'quasi-design' or
'designoid', if you know what I mean. Design appears to me, ex
definitione, connected with some agency, if I'm right then
'intelligent' means in this case 'intentional' rather than 'not
stupid'. And still saying that 'design' is intelligent seems redundant.
G.
ray o'hara
"Glaukon" <Adam....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1160238497....@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
And as you were informed ID was coined by Creationists as a backdoor attempt
to get Creationism taught in schools.
There is no other group using the term.
Glaukon
> "designer." And the answer is, in general speech "design" is sometimes used
> when the implication of a designer is not intended. It would be less
> confusing if people would say "pattern" in such cases, but people are not
> always so careful in their expressions.
that answers my question, thanks! As far as I know IDers are using the
word "pattern" as well, it seems that they are usig both expressions
interchangeably, without highlighting the difference.
UC
Glaukon wrote:
> >
> > How can you know that something which appears desiged
> > actually is designed?
>
> If something just appears desinged and in fact is not, then there is no
> reason to call it 'design', is it? It's rather 'quasi-design' or
> 'designoid', if you know what I mean.
No, the word 'design' is broad enough to allow for that. It can mean
merely 'pattern'.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/design
dontbother
But even "intelligent" is too vague a term. It's clear, for example,
that chimps are intelligent enough to create tools -- rudimentary
though they be -- and that at least some animals that hunt in packs
are intelligent enough to herd their prey into becoming proper and
easy targets. Other animals demonstrate other sorts of intelligence.
But because Glaukon defines "design" as something necessarily created
by a "being" with "intelligence", thereby creating a circular
definition, he's right in assuming that "intelligent" is redundant.
If it was designed, by a chimp, a god, or a dolphin, it was the
creation of an intelligent being.
dontbother
Yes, I agree. Designs are deliberately created structures, even if
their final forms are unknown before they are completed. They require
an intelligent agent. Anything else can be called "structure", as
someone else suggested in this thread.
the Omrud
I wonder if it's possible analyse a two-word phrase for linguistic
correctness. Is the term "Manchester tram" correct from a linguistic
point of view?
If you want to pursue it from that viewpoint, you might be better off
in sci.lang
--
David
=====
UC
dontbother wrote:
> "UC" <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote
> > Glaukon wrote:
> >> As a non-native I have some problems with the phrase
> >> "Intelligent Design". Isn't that an pleonasm? I mean, every
> >> design is intelligent, isn't it? If only we can attribute
> >> intelligency to entities without mind and a design certainly is
> >> such entity....
> >>
> >> Adam
> >
> > 'Design' is such a vague term that adding 'intelligent' to it
> > makes it clearer that deliberate thought went into the design.
>
> But even "intelligent" is too vague a term. It's clear, for example,
> that chimps are intelligent enough to create tools -- rudimentary
> though they be -- and that at least some animals that hunt in packs
> are intelligent enough to herd their prey into becoming proper and
> easy targets. Other animals demonstrate other sorts of intelligence.
Correct. I think the phrase "intelligent design" is really bogus, but I
at least understand what is meant, where 'design' by itself is
ambiguous.
Peter Duncanson
wrote:
Google found a few hits for "ID mathematics" where ID appears to
stand for interdisciplinary. This is not a branch of mathematics or
a mathematical theory. The term seems to be used in education.
For example:
http://tinyurl.com/octq4
...
Pennsylvania Department of Education Elementary Education,
Mathematics Standards
The following PDE Standards are addressed in this course.
I.D. Mathematics instruction at the elementary level in
accordance with the Pennsylvania Academic Standards including:
* Fractional numbers, measurement, algebra, geometry,
probability, statistics, reasoning, and problem solving.
* Use of developmentally appropriate manipulatives,
calculators, computers, and emergent technologies.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
tinwhistler
Lars Eighner wrote:
> Some
> people who mention the "design" of a crystal will mean that they think some
> willful entity is responsible, but other people will not mean to imply that
> at all.
The movie, _Beautiful Mind_, explores at some length mathematician John
Nash's ability to see patterns in random data, a facility that some
call "apophenia;" here is an excerpt from an ADS posting on this:
http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0602d&L=ads-l&D=1&F=&S=&P=13578
"apophenia
Not in either the OED or AHD4, nor in Merriam-Webster online. It
turned up in a book review in today's Times, and there are seven
other hits on Nexis going back to 2003, but there are, count 'em,
410,000 google hits, and Wikipedia ("We're virtually as accurate as
the Britannica!") defines it as "the experience of seeing patterns or
connections in random or meaningless data", attributing the coinage
(as do other sites) to Klaus Conrad in 1958..."
This maybe should be in a new thread, to suit Maria.
UC
dontbother wrote:
> "Glaukon" <Adam....@gmail.com> wrote
>
> >> How can you know that something which appears desiged
> >> actually is designed?
> >
> > If something just appears desinged and in fact is not, then
> > there is no reason to call it 'design', is it? It's rather
> > 'quasi-design' or 'designoid', if you know what I mean. Design
> > appears to me, ex definitione, connected with some agency, if
> > I'm right then 'intelligent' means in this case 'intentional'
> > rather than 'not stupid'. And still saying that 'design' is
> > intelligent seems redundant.
>
> Yes, I agree. Designs are deliberately created structures, even if
> their final forms are unknown before they are completed. They require
> an intelligent agent. Anything else can be called "structure", as
> someone else suggested in this thread.
The trouble is that the word 'design' has evolved over the ages to mean
a variety of things. It is indeed impossible in some instances when
looking at objects to determine whether they were 'created' by a
human(-like) intelligence or are merely the products of natural
processes.
dontbother
[...]
>
> The trouble is that the word 'design' has evolved over the ages
> to mean a variety of things. It is indeed impossible in some
> instances when looking at objects to determine whether they were
> 'created' by a human(-like) intelligence or are merely the
> products of natural processes.
Yes, it's one of the strengths and weaknesses of language that one
word can mean so many different things and that its speakers in
general don't care a whole lot whether they are clearly understood.
UC
dontbother wrote:
> "UC" <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote
> [...]
> >
> > The trouble is that the word 'design' has evolved over the ages
> > to mean a variety of things. It is indeed impossible in some
> > instances when looking at objects to determine whether they were
> > 'created' by a human(-like) intelligence or are merely the
> > products of natural processes.
>
> Yes, it's one of the strengths and weaknesses of language that one
> word can mean so many different things and that its speakers in
> general don't care a whole lot whether they are clearly understood.
"Intelligent Design" is, however, bogus concept, even if it's clearer
than 'design' by itself. The "Argument from Design" is an old argument
for the existence of God. It was demolished by Immanuel Kant in 1781,
in the Critique of Pure Reason.
Leslie Danks
> Leslie Danks <Leslie...@aon.at> wrote
>> dontbother wrote:
>> [...]
>>> Can Jackson Pollack's action
>>> paintings every be considered "art" or "designs"? Must
>>> "designs" be deliberately created in the mind before they exist
>>> in a more concrete or other type of form visible to others?
>>
>> Just as an aside, in "Order in Pollock's Chaos" (Scientific
>> American, December 2002), Richard Taylor claims that Pollack's
>> works are fractal in nature and that this enables them to be
>> distinguished from fakes using an appropriate computer program.
>> I have not managed to find the article online, though.
>
> It's amazing the lengths to which art critics will go to justify
> their absurd and personal judgments. Back in 1970, I heard John
> Canaday say on NPR that Pollock was a mediocre artist at best, but
> that the art critics of the period had nothing better to work with
> and telling the truth about his art would have done serious economic
> harm to the art world, especially the one that pays art critics.
A couple of links relating to (Physisist) Richard Taylor if anyone's
interested:
http://tinyurl.com/hs8se
http://tinyurl.com/hn8c3
--
Les
Martin Ambuhl
> As a non-native I have some problems with the phrase "Intelligent
> Design". Isn't that an pleonasm? I mean, every design is intelligent,
> isn't it? If only we can attribute intelligency to entities without
> mind and a design certainly is such entity....
The people who use the term "intelligent design" observe the
regularities in nature which appear to work together. These
regularities and their interactions appear to form a design in the
meaning "a decorative pattern". Further, scientists have always looked
for a design in the meaning of "a representation of the workings of the
universe." In neither of these meanings is "intelligence" presumed as
the source of the patterns and regularities of nature, although some
intelligence is required for humans to produce the representation of them.
The proponents of "intelligent design" jump to the unwarranted
conclusion that these regularities and patterns must have a designer who
("which" is probably better than "who", since they falsely deny pushing
a particular religious view) has a plan and a telos in mind and
intelligently pursues it. This view is a form of the argument from
ignorance: "We of the intelligent design community are too limited to
understand how such regularities and patterns come about, therefore we
posit a mythical being to have produced them and insist that schools
teach our mythology."
It is quite possible to have a design, as in pattern, in nature without
requiring it to have a design in the sense of a plan or telos, and such
a design does not need a designer, whether a bungler -- as often appears
the case -- or a perfect intelligence. No intelligence is only required
for design by people who confuse senses of words -- intentionally, I
believe -- and who have severe shortcomings intellectually.
Martin Ambuhl
> "Pattern" used as above is still flawed. A pattern assumes a method, and
> methods just don't appear spontaneously.
Is there any basis for your assertion other than your personal
mysticism? How do you know that a pattern assumes a method? And why do
you think that the method by which rainclouds form or planets move do
not appear spontaneously?
> Of course, there is the argument it is not possible to have a method or
> logic without an intelligence.
Then make it. You have merely asserted it. Circular argument by
assertion does not fly.
Skitt
> "ray o'hara" wrote:
>> Fractals happen because they work.Nothing that works happens only
>> once.
>
> Then you maintain that the Big Bang is a recurring event. That's ok;
> there are those who would agree. Any road, I don't see what your last
> statement has to do with ID or patterns.
Murray, be it by Big Bang or ID, I'm glad your appearance in AUE is a
recurring event. Where ya' been?
--
Skitt
Living in The Heart of the Bay
http://www.ci.hayward.ca.us/
Glaukon
> correctness. Is the term "Manchester tram" correct from a linguistic
> point of view?
>
for me this sounds perfectly fine, i don't know what's your point. The
term 'Manchester tram' can be analyzed as well as other, longer or even
shorter. What about 'square circle'? What is then correct starting
point of such analysis? Three words? Four? Sentence? Paragraph?
....
> If you want to pursue it from that viewpoint, you might be better off
> in sci.lang
thanks for advice, I'll check it, but I think that a good place for
such an analysis is this group. The number of responses serves as the
best rationale.
Don Phillipson
news:1160238497....@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > In other words, "intelligent design" is a term used by those who
> > mistakenly believe that the big bang theory of the universe's origin,
> > combined with the theory of evolution, would, if true, exclude the
> > possibility of God's existence, or at least support those who deny it.
>
> My question is rather liquistic in nature, I'm not trying to answer who
> is right in this dispute but rather if this phrase is corect from a
> linquistic point of view. BTW, there is at least one more theory dubbed
> ID (some sort of mathematical theory), which has noting to do with
> creationism.
Saying your question is "linguistic in nature" does not
make it less naive. The phrase "intelligent design" was
coined by the American lobby for "creationism" and against
evolution in public school curricula, after the failure of legal
attempts to enforce that all scientific "theories" (viz. natural
selection and divine creation) be taught as equally valid.
"Itelligent design" is an attempt to restate the case
without mentioning God or the Bible, but a case made by the
same lobby and for the same purpose.
The foregoing seems substantiated by semantic review
of actual arguments for "intelligent design." Other than
that, "linguistics" offers no help.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
Glaukon
> There is no other group using the term.
I don't know what do you mean by 'group' but there is (as I wrote) at
least one more theory called ID:
J. J. Lodder
> nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote
>
> > Lanarcam <lana...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
> >
> >> dontbother a écrit :
> >> > "Glaukon" <Adam....@gmail.com> wrote
> >> >
> >> >> As a non-native I have some problems with the phrase
> >> >> "Intelligent Design". Isn't that an pleonasm? I mean, every
> >> >> design is intelligent, isn't it? If only we can attribute
> >> >> intelligency to entities without mind and a design certainly
> >> >> is such entity....
> >> >
> >> > Think "fractals". No, not every design is intelligently
> >> > created. Some designs are random.
> >> >
> >> Not being a native speaker neither I would say that designing
> >> is a deliberate action by some conscious entity.
> >>
> >> I see fractals as patterns, not designs and not really random
> >> since they obey the laws of physics.
> >
> > Fractals are usually understood to be mathematical patterns.
> > Patterns found in nature may at best resemble a fractal,
> > to a certain extent,
>
> The structures of naturally occurring crystals?
What's fractal about that?
Jan
J. J. Lodder
> >
> > How can you know that something which appears desiged
> > actually is designed?
>
> If something just appears desinged and in fact is not, then there is no
> reason to call it 'design', is it? It's rather 'quasi-design' or
> 'designoid', if you know what I mean.
I don't.
> Design appears to me, ex
> definitione, connected with some agency, if I'm right then
> 'intelligent' means in this case 'intentional' rather than 'not
> stupid'. And still saying that 'design' is intelligentw seems redundant.
You presuppose what is to be demonstrated.
Given something complicated, you for example,
how can we decide if a designer was involved?
Jan
J. J. Lodder
> nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote
>
> > dontbother <dontb...@mushmail.mom> wrote:
> >
> >> "Glaukon" <Adam....@gmail.com> wrote
> >>
> >> > As a non-native I have some problems with the phrase
> >> > "Intelligent Design". Isn't that an pleonasm? I mean, every
> >> > design is intelligent, isn't it? If only we can attribute
> >> > intelligency to entities without mind and a design certainly
> >> > is such entity....
> >>
> >> Think "fractals". No, not every design is intelligently
> >> created. Some designs are random.
> >
> > I would call fractals patterns, not designs.
> >
> > Don't offend Plato,
>
> He's dead, so I don't think he'll be offended.
Most mathematicians are Platonists.
Fractals are just like regular solids:
they exist independently of anyone knowing about them.
> But those patterns
> look very much like designs, especially the fire fractals in the
> Tech Repbulic gallery of amazing fractals I saw yesterday. If
> human beings had created the "patterns" (much too complex to grok
> as recursive patterns of any sort), they would be called "designs".
Just a simple algorithm,
Jan
J. J. Lodder
> On 7 Oct 2006 02:06:35 -0700, "Glaukon" <Adam....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >As a non-native I have some problems with the phrase "Intelligent
> >Design". Isn't that an pleonasm? I mean, every design is intelligent,
> >isn't it? If only we can attribute intelligency to entities without
> >mind and a design certainly is such entity....
>
> Keyboards with function keys across the top are an example of unintelligent
> design.
Why complain about function keys?
QWERTY should be enough for your point,
Jan
Glaukon
That case we're both wrong. I thought that too, but some answers
indicate that people are more interested in criticizing the philosophy
of ID, than to analyse the very term, which was my motivation.
Glaukon
J. J. Lodder napisal(a):
> > If something just appears desinged and in fact is not, then there is no
> > reason to call it 'design', is it? It's rather 'quasi-design' or
> > 'designoid', if you know what I mean.
>
> I don't.
> > Design appears to me, ex
> > definitione, connected with some agency, if I'm right then
> > 'intelligent' means in this case 'intentional' rather than 'not
> > stupid'. And still saying that 'design' is intelligentw seems redundant.
>
> You presuppose what is to be demonstrated.
> Given something complicated, you for example,
> how can we decide if a designer was involved?
>
OK, so in my case we have two possibilities:
1. there is a designer --- then, I was designed, and my body is an
example of design.
2. there is no designer -- then you cannot state that I was designed.
It seems weird also to state that my body is an example of design
(without being designed? without designer?) all you can say is that
there is some pattern or structure (which I called quasi-design, or
designoid, because it's just a design prima facie).
As I stated, I'm just asking for your opinion, and not saying that I'm
right (especially as non-native). Perhaps, 'ID' in English sounds OK (I
know that naturalists speak also about unintelligent design). But all
this doesn't mean that there are no controversies around this term (I'm
not talking about creationists), that are lingustic in nature.
Lars Eighner
<1160250944.4...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
the lovely and talented Glaukon
broadcast on alt.usage.english:
You got your answer. The usage of the term is in propaganda. It is
a code word for "creationism."
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> <http://myspace.com/larseighner>
"Love is the wisdom of the fool and the folly of the wise." --Samuel Johnson
vorot...@yahoo.com
I think the "intelligent" of Intelligent Design refers more to the
purposeful-ness of the design, rather than the intelligence of the
creator (it's a given the creator is intelligent).
Glaukon
Lars Eighner napisal(a):
> In our last episode,
> <1160250944.4...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> the lovely and talented Glaukon
> broadcast on alt.usage.english:
>
> > I thought this was an English usage group, but perhaps I'm wrong.
>
> > That case we're both wrong. I thought that too, but some answers
> > indicate that people are more interested in criticizing the philosophy
> > of ID, than to analyse the very term, which was my motivation.
>
>
> You got your answer. The usage of the term is in propaganda. It is
> a code word for "creationism."
I do agree with you to some extent. But I think that there is something
more to investigate than than ideological roots of this phrase.
Still, one more thing remains untouched. Is it OK in English to
attribute intelligency to some entity without mind? In my native
language (Polish) this is a serious mistake. Fo example saying that
some house is 'intelligent' (because of some hi-tech stuff in there) is
considered wrong.
Lars Eighner
It is commonplace to call things "smart." Of course that often means
"stylish," but these days it also means crammed with high tech stuff.
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> <http://myspace.com/larseighner>
"When stupidity is considered patriotism, it is unsafe to be intelligent."
Isaac Asimov
Martin Ambuhl
> Martin Ambuhl wrote:
>> Murray Arnow wrote:
>>
>>> "Pattern" used as above is still flawed. A pattern assumes a method, and
>>> methods just don't appear spontaneously.
>> Is there any basis for your assertion other than your personal
>> mysticism?
>>
>
This is a completely bogus answer. The nameless "the dictionary" does
not do as a citation: which dictionary restricts the English word
"pattern" to things having an assumed method? Which dictionary supports
your claim that the English word "methods" refers only to things that
"don't appear spontaneously." Your answer is grossly inadequate, and
perhaps dishonest.
>
>> How do you know that a pattern assumes a method?
>
> Again, the dictionary.
Again the bogus "the dictionary" citation. Come on, you can do better
than this absurd answer.
>
>> And why do
>> you think that the method by which rainclouds form or planets move do
>> not appear spontaneously?
>>
>
> That is an odd question. Are you of the opinion that rain clouds and
> planets move spontaneously?
Yeh, right Murray. What do you mean by spontaneously? Your opening
salvo imputes patterns to methods to assumed non-spontaneity. If the
crap means anything, it means you presume a purposive agent. Either
your whole posting is post-modernist bullshit or you imagine God pushing
the planets around and sticking rainclouds together.
>
>>> Of course, there is the argument it is not possible to have a method or
>>> logic without an intelligence.
>> Then make it. You have merely asserted it. Circular argument by
>> assertion does not fly.
>
> I have merely made a deduction from a dictionary definition.
What crap. You have cited no dictionary definition supporting the
restriction of this words to your usage, nor have you supplied any
deduction. What garbage.
> You may agree
> with me or not. I am only reflecting on a matter of language usage and not
> philosophizing whether or not the motions of heavenly bodies are random. I
> thought this was an English usage group, but perhaps I'm wrong.
You are not reflecting on a matter of language usage. You are making
claims which are supported by nothing except your own assertion, and, if
they mean anything at all, they refer to your private language.
The Grammer Genious
> As a non-native I have some problems with the phrase "Intelligent
It happens that I disposed of the entire issue at coffee this morning by
pointing out that in the beginning there wasn't any graph paper.
Robert Bannister
> As a non-native I have some problems with the phrase "Intelligent
> Design". Isn't that an pleonasm? I mean, every design is intelligent,
> isn't it? If only we can attribute intelligency to entities without
> mind and a design certainly is such entity....
Of course all designs are not intelligent. If they were, they would be
no need for anyone to study engineering, and even qualified engineers
can come up with some surprisingly unintelligent designs.
--
Rob Bannister
Steve Hayes
wrote:
Because QWERTY has been around ever since I first touched a keybaord, but
there was a time when keyboards had function keys on the left, where they were
easy to reach, and then some idiot put them on the top, where they were harder
to reach.
And since then people have brought out (or should we now saw "rolled out"?)
keyboards that they have called "ergonomic" but they have still produced
nothing as ergnomic as the ones with the function keys on the left where they
belong.
Perhaps that's entropy rather than unintelligent design.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://people.tribe.net/hayesstw
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Martin Ambuhl
> Martin Ambuhl wrote:
>> Murray Arnow wrote:
>>> Martin Ambuhl wrote:
>>>> Murray Arnow wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Pattern" used as above is still flawed. A pattern assumes a method, and
>>>>> methods just don't appear spontaneously.
>>>> Is there any basis for your assertion other than your personal
>>>> mysticism?
>>>>
>>> The dictionary.
>> This is a completely bogus answer. The nameless "the dictionary" does
>> not do as a citation: which dictionary restricts the English word
>> "pattern" to things having an assumed method?
>
> citations:
Since you cannot read, I doubt there is any point in this post. This is
the situation: you asserted that a word was restricted to a certain use.
Above I asked for the dictionary that so restricted it. You stupidly
and snidely posted one of the 10 senses (14 counting subsenses) the AND
gives for the noun "pattern". Even your selective one of ten senses
does not support your claim. You asserted that a pattern assumes a
method; even your selected sense includes "method" as only one of three
choices, "form, style, or method". So you are claiming that one-third
of one sense trumps the other nine and two-third senses.
> AHD - pattern (5): A consistent, characteristic form, style, or method.
Similarly you choose the third of three senses the AHD has for "method"
(we'll not bother with the sense for "Method"). Once again, your
evidence is selective and in no way has anything to do with claims about
"spontaneity"
> AHD - method (3): The procedures and techniques characteristic of a
> particular discipline or field of knowledge: This field
> course gives an overview of archaeological method.
So your vastly superior intellect leads you to selectively discard
senses in order to support a claim about the _restrictions_ on a word's
use. In neither case does you "evidence" even support your claim.
Again, you choose two of eleven senses (thirteen counting subsenses) the
MWD gives for the noun "pattern" to support a claim about a word's being
_restricted_ to a certain meaning. Neither of them mentions "method".
Another example of selective "evidence" where selection is inappropriate
and where the "evidence" does not support your claim.
> MWD - pattern(2): something designed or used as a model for making things
> MWD - pattern (11) : a discernible coherent system based on the intended
> interrelationship of component parts.
And the same selection of "evidence", again with no support for your
claims about spontaneity, comes from Mr Arrow:
> MWD - method (1): a procedure or process for attaining an object: as
> a (1) : a systematic procedure, technique, or mode of
> inquiry employed by or proper to a particular
> discipline or art
> (2) : a systematic plan followed in presenting material
> for instruction
> b (1): a way, technique, or process of or for doing
> something
> (2) : a body of skills or techniques
> Etc.
>
> You seem to have a deficiency in connecting dots or you simply enjoy being
> a fuckwit.
No, your gross dishonesty suggest you lost your mirror before writing
the above line.
>
> Nowhere did I say or imply that a dictionary restricts a meaning.
Read your claim, idiot:
> A pattern assumes a method, and methods just don't appear
> spontaneously.
And your claimed authority for that claim was
> The dictionary.
That restricts "pattern" to a particular world. For you to maintain the
above claim that "Nowhere did [Mr Arrow] say or imply that a dictionary
restricts a meaning," then your first post was bullshit and had no
warrant. or your second post claiming "the dictionary" as your authority
was bullshit, or both. If you now are claiming that your initial post
was bullshit, and your abuse in this one was misplaced, I will agree.
> My
> comments were on usage; yours are on everything else.
You obviously did not read my initial response to the question, a
question to which you did not even attempt an answer. I gave the most
complete answer that I've seen here and it was completely about usage.
Your post was a series of unsupported claims about "pattern" and
"method" tied together with non-existent "logic."
> But you seem to need
> to invent unsubstantiated accusations and straw men. Find someone else to
> play your sophomoric games with. Goodbye.
Silly child.
Stephen Calder
Neither of you is or are up to the debate.
Hurling insults would appear to be, on the face of it, an admission that
you cannot make a good enough argument, or that not convincing the other
makes you irrational.
So much for the clarity of thought needed to think through issues like
whether or not the universe implies an intelligent designer.
--
Stephen
Lennox Head, Australia
Martin Ambuhl
> Martin Ambuhl wrote:
>> Murray Arnow wrote:
>
>>
>>> But you seem to need to invent unsubstantiated accusations and straw
>>> men. Find someone else to play your sophomoric games with. Goodbye.
>>
>> Silly child.
>>
>
>
> Neither of you is or are up to the debate.
>
> Hurling insults would appear to be, on the face of it, an admission that
> you cannot make a good enough argument, or that not convincing the other
> makes you irrational.
My posts in the Murray Arrow branch of this thread have only been to ask
for the justification for his bald assertions and to point out that his
supposed justifications won't work. My other post was a long answer to
the OP's question about usage. In fact, contrary to Mr. Arrow's claim,
every post under the subject "Intelligent Design" that I have made
before this one has been about usage. I have not engaged in a debate
with Mr. Arrow, nor have I made an argument: I have only asked for
clarification of his usage claims. I suggest that you have
misunderstood what is going on. I admit to being intemperate in my
reaction to Mr. Arrow's grotesque posturing in accusing me of not
knowing how to use a dictionary, which was followed immediately by his
giving a good lesson in improper and absurd use of two of them,
> So much for the clarity of thought needed to think through issues like
> whether or not the universe implies an intelligent designer.
Since no one has bothered to contest any claim I made in my post
answering the OP's question, I would suggest that you might find the
answer there.
J. J. Lodder
> Martin Ambuhl wrote:
> > Murray Arnow wrote:
>
> >
> >> But you seem to need to invent unsubstantiated accusations and straw
> >> men. Find someone else to play your sophomoric games with. Goodbye.
> >
> > Silly child.
> >
>
>
> Neither of you is or are up to the debate.
>
> Hurling insults would appear to be, on the face of it, an admission that
> you cannot make a good enough argument, or that not convincing the other
> makes you irrational.
Martin is, but you missed a point,
or your irony meter is defective.
Dear Murray here has the habit of saying 'silly boy'
whenever somebody says something he disagrees with
without being able to offer anything supporting him.
Martin is quoting his sillyness back at him.
Good fun,
Jan
J. J. Lodder
She used a slide rule instead,
Jan
Peter Moylan
> Lars Eighner napisal(a):
>> In our last episode,
>> <1160250944.4...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, the lovely
>> and talented Glaukon broadcast on alt.usage.english:
>>
>>> I thought this was an English usage group, but perhaps I'm
>>> wrong. That case we're both wrong. I thought that too, but some
>>> answers indicate that people are more interested in criticizing
>>> the philosophy of ID, than to analyse the very term, which was my
>>> motivation.
>>
>> You got your answer. The usage of the term is in propaganda. It
>> is a code word for "creationism."
>
> I do agree with you to some extent. But I think that there is
> something more to investigate than than ideological roots of this
> phrase.
I agree, to some extent. Still, it's difficult to be dispassionate about
a term that we know is nothing but a slogan.
Let's pretend that we'd never heard of creationists, and ask ourselves
whether "intelligent design" has any inherent meaning. First off, the
word "intelligent" is not redundant. I do agree with those who said that
"design" already implies a thinking entity, and that something that just
happens naturally shouldn't be called "design". However, we still have
the possibility of non-intelligent design.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that this universe was designed by a
conscious being. Now, it's pretty clear when you look around that there
are quite a few flaws in the design. That's OK. When you look at
buildings, it's clear that there are some very good architects and some
who are second-rate. Thus, it is possible to consider the idea that the
universe was designed by a conscious but incompetent designer. That
would make it an example of unintelligent design.
Having gone that far, we might conceive of another universe that was put
together by a more competent designer. Or possibly even the same one; it
might be, for example, that ours was just a practice run. If such a
universe exists, then "intelligent design" might have some meaning.
Unfortunately, all of this has to remain as a thought experiment. If
other universes exist, they are almost certainly unobservable from our
universe. This leads me to conclude that ID is interesting as an
abstract concept, but that it has no real application to this world.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain
eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer
receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses. The optusnet
address could disappear at any time.
Peter Moylan
> This view is a form of the argument from ignorance: "We of the
> intelligent design community are too limited to understand how such
> regularities and patterns come about, therefore we posit a mythical
> being to have produced them and insist that schools teach our
> mythology."
The traditional argument from ignorance, used throughout the history of
humanity, is along the lines of "No human can possibly understand how X
(e.g. thunder) works, therefore it must be of supernatural origin."
The creationists go one step further: "I don't understand how X works,
even though some other people do, therefore ...". In other words,
they've moved the focus from "all humans" to "my own clique".
Glaukon
Peter Moylan napisal(a):
> Let's pretend that we'd never heard of creationists, and ask ourselves
> whether "intelligent design" has any inherent meaning. First off, the
> word "intelligent" is not redundant. I do agree with those who said that
> "design" already implies a thinking entity, and that something that just
> happens naturally shouldn't be called "design". However, we still have
> the possibility of non-intelligent design.
Thus, it is possible to consider the idea that the
> universe was designed by a conscious but incompetent designer. That
> would make it an example of unintelligent design.
> Having gone that far, we might conceive of another universe that was put
> together by a more competent designer. Or possibly even the same one; it
> might be, for example, that ours was just a practice run. If such a
> universe exists, then "intelligent design" might have some meaning.
Note, that in your interpretation you're mixing two meanings,
'intelligent' = 'smart' (this allows you to put the universes in some
order and justify the use of 'unintelligent') and 'intelligent' =
'intentional' (because you said that only a product of a thinking
entity can be called design).
I'm not saying it's a mistake but I think that this is not far from
equivocation. What do you say?
Glaukon
You might be interested to check the following:
http://www.designinference.com/documents/2000.02.ayala_response.htm
and
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/08/21/opinion/edsafire.php
Glaukon
dontbother
>
> You might be interested to check the following:
>
> http://www.designinference.com/documents/2000.02.ayala_response.h
> tm
This is interesting until he gets to Dawkins, whose point, unlike
what the author claims about Gould's objections to ID, is not that
the alleged designs in the universe are suboptimal, but that what
appears to be intelligently designed entities can evolve purely by
chance through evolutionary processes. The author fails to deal
with apparent design because he can't dispute what Dawkins has to
say, which is not at all related to the author's fixation with
suboptimality and the problem of Godd and Evil.
[quote]
A common strategy of opponents to design in biology (like Stephen
Jay Gould, Richard Dawkins, and Francisco Ayala) is to assimilate
intelligent design to one of these categories--apparent or
optimal design. The problem with this move is that it constitutes
an evasion. Indeed, it utterly sidesteps the question of
intelligent, or actual, design. The automobiles that roll off the
assembly plants in Detroit are intelligently designed in the
sense that human intelligences are responsible for them.
Nevertheless, even if we think Detroit manufactures the best cars
in the world, it would still be wrong to say they are optimally
designed. Nor is it correct to say that they are only apparently
designed.
[/quote]
This is nonsense. Given the author's three categories of design --
apparent, intelligent, and optimal -- there are only two
possibilities for the theory of evolution: apparent and
intelligent. Optimal has to be out. If the universal design were
optimal, there would be no evolution. Everything would be perfect
and any change would constitute a dscent into imperfection. Gould
couldn't have been complaining that because the design is not
optimal that there is no watchmaker, only that the watchmaker
cannot have been te omnipotent and omniscient god believed in by
Christians. I haven't read Gould's critque of the panda's thumb
and won't take the author's summary as accurate because the rest
of his article is misleading.
Dawkins provides a reasonable alternative to intelligent in the
sense of an intelligent agent doing the designing (whether
stupidly or not) and an intent behind the design. If one accepts
Dawkins's axioms about the beginnings of life, then this author's
arguments are just so much fluff.
> and
>
> http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/08/21/opinion/edsafire.php
This adds nothing of significance to the discussion, AFAIC.
Stephen Calder
There is nothing new in these. In the second, William Safire merely
notes that scientists and the religious are using new language in the
old argument as to whether science is compatible with a belief in God.
Rather than insisting on a literal interpretation of the biblical
creation myth and a world a few thousand years old, they now propose
evolution as a divine tool. God has been pushed a little further into
the background but is still there.
In the first, intellectual language is used to convey the old idea that
despite the existence of evil there is a good God.
In my view, a radical eschatology is now available that does not attempt
to reconcile evil and death with a loving God, this being impossible,
but posits that the world, and thus the evil in it, is no more than a
nightmare into which we collectively fell in the erroneous belief that
we had separated ourselves both from each other and from the infinite
source of all which is still within us.
The separation, along with the world it spawned, is illusory and cannot
last. The earthly experience can be converted to a learning one in which
this is known, and a new state of mind entered in which it is recognised
that there can be no evil, despite appearances. That this state of mind
is a prelude to the end of the dream and therefore of all suffering.
I know; I said too much again. The ego, intent on maintaining the dream
(hologram or virtual reality) in the mistaken belief that it has
something of value to offer, resists unremittingly...until it can do so
no longer.
J. J. Lodder
> You might be interested to check the following:
Why am I not surprised?
> http://www.designinference.com/documents/2000.02.ayala_response.htm
No cretinist propaganda here please.
And if you want Dumbski taken to pieces
you should take this thread to talk.origins.
And remember, no cross-posting,
Jan
Glaukon
> And if you want Dumbski taken to pieces
> you should take this thread to talk.origins.
>
> And remember, no cross-posting,
>
I consider myself as agnostic, and NOT a supporter of ID philosophy. Of
course I have my opinion on the subject (as a philosopher I think that
both sides deserve emotionless analysis. However, I'm much more
sympathetic to the theory of evolution, which is JUST a theory and as
such of course can be criticized). My initial question was intended as
purely linguistic, that is why I restrained myself from evaluating any
side of the ID-evolution controversy. This appears too hard to do for
you.
I've posted those links not because I wanted to propagate Dembski's
ideas but because in this text he explains how do IDers understand the
term 'intelligent design', which, I thought, might shed some new light
on our discussion. Some of you think that it brings nothing new, and
that's ok for me. What is not ok is treating my posts as propagandist.
Stephen Calder
Well, now we know, but before we didn't. Of course people are going to
take those as your viewpoint without a disclaimer.
Leslie Danks
[...]
> I'm much more
> sympathetic to the theory of evolution, which is JUST a theory and as
> such of course can be criticized).
The whole of science comprises JUST theories. This is its strength and not,
as you seem to imply, a sign of inferiority. Designing experiments to test
theories as severely as possible is how science progresses. You cannot do
anything remotely similar with ID because it is JUST a belief.
[...]
--
Les
Peter Moylan
> Peter Moylan napisal(a):
>> Thus, it is possible to consider the idea that the universe was
>> designed by a conscious but incompetent designer. That would make
>> it an example of unintelligent design.
>
>> Having gone that far, we might conceive of another universe that
>> was put together by a more competent designer. Or possibly even the
>> same one; it might be, for example, that ours was just a practice
>> run. If such a universe exists, then "intelligent design" might
>> have some meaning.
>
> Note, that in your interpretation you're mixing two meanings,
> 'intelligent' = 'smart' (this allows you to put the universes in some
> order and justify the use of 'unintelligent') and 'intelligent' =
> 'intentional' (because you said that only a product of a thinking
> entity can be called design).
>
> I'm not saying it's a mistake but I think that this is not far from
> equivocation. What do you say?
I don't really accept that "intelligent" can have the meaning
"intentional". The "intentional" is instead implied by "design". I'm
aware that the creationists are using "intelligent design" as the
opposite of "accidental design", but just about every contributor to
this thread has said or implied that that's a sloppy use of the word
"design".
What I do accept is that "intelligent" can have different levels,
depending on the species of the creature in question. An intelligent
dog, for example, only needs to be intelligent by dog standards; it
doesn't need to meet the more exacting standards that we measure humans by.
Now, it's pretty clear that building a universe is beyond the power of
humans. Thus, "intelligent" in that context has to be measured relative
to all the hypothetical species capable of creating a universe. By those
standards, I claim that the creator of our own universe is somewhere
near the low end of the intelligence scale. In fact I'd say that such a
being would have to be a lot more powerful (obviously) than any human,
but not particularly smart by human standards.
Tony Cooper
<pe...@ozebelgDieSpammers.org> wrote:
>I don't really accept that "intelligent" can have the meaning
>"intentional". The "intentional" is instead implied by "design". I'm
>aware that the creationists are using "intelligent design" as the
>opposite of "accidental design", but just about every contributor to
>this thread has said or implied that that's a sloppy use of the word
>"design".
>
I've always thought that "intelligent design" means "created with a
purpose". I don't read the term as meaning that there was either
intelligence or a design involved with the conventional definitions of
the two words.
I think it's a bit silly to concern oneself with the applicability of
the components of the term in the definition sense because the users
of the term are not trying to define or explain anything. They want a
way to label their view in a way that avoids the word "creationism"
because "creationism" has been chewed over and rejected as a course of
teaching in schools. The users want a new label to sell an old
product.
--
Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL
Peter Moylan
> You might be interested to check the following:
>
> http://www.designinference.com/documents/2000.02.ayala_response.htm
That changes the picture as far as this thread is concerned, because
here we have an author who is using the word "intelligent" in a way that
English speakers normally wouldn't use the word. If you redefine the
meaning of a word, it's a little unfair to complain that your opponents
are basing their arguments on the more usual meaning. In hindsight, it
appears that the "intelligent design" community has been a little sloppy
in choosing the words that describe their hypothesis. They should have
picked something like "intentional design" if, as the article seems to
claim, the basic claim is that the universe was designed by an entity
who can make conscious decisions but who isn't very bright by human
standards.
It is very hard to take the author seriously when he comes up with a
sentence like
"Nevertheless, taken strictly as a scientific theory, intelligent design
refuses to speculate about the nature of this designing intelligence."
which fails in two senses. First, I have never seen any evidence that
"intelligent design" proponents accept the scientific method, therefore
it's a bit silly to describe it as a scientific theory. Second, I have
never heard of a supporter of intelligent design who is not a
creationist, and creationists most definitely do speculate about the
nature of the designer.
The remainder of the article seems to wander off the point. It is not at
all clear whether the author is claiming that his God is omnipotent but
evil, or benevolent but limited in power. Bringing that question up
seems a little pointless when he then says essentially nothing about it.
All in all, I found the whole thing a bit wishy-washy, with sloppy
arguments and no real conclusions.
Glaukon
> "intentional". The "intentional" is instead implied by "design".
and what about unintelligent desing then? Does this sounds OK? Perhaps
if we substitute 'intentionally created pattern' for 'design' and
'not-stupid' for 'intelligent' it may work.
HVS
>> I don't really accept that "intelligent" can have the meaning
>> "intentional". The "intentional" is instead implied by
>> "design".
>
> and what about unintelligent design then?
Seems OK to me as a definition of things which are designed with
insufficient intelligence.
As for "intentional", would you consider "unintentional design" or
"inadvertant design" to be an oxymoron? I'm not positive, but I
don't think I would: one encounters unintentionally-created but
useful designs which are recognised as useful.
--
Cheers, Harvey
Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed
For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van
J. J. Lodder
Never seen a honest creationist yet.
BTW, your 'JUST a theory' (your emphasis)
is another give-away,
Jan
J. J. Lodder
It is not surpising that Dembski was taken to pieces
when he appeared as a witness in Dover vs Kitzmiller.
Judge Jones' comments in his verdict
were even more devastating than yours.
BTW, he is perhaps unique in another way too:
he may well be the only professor with tenure
who is not allowed to have a page on his universities website.
Jan
--
"If Dembski doesn't teach ID at his university,
why should it be taught to the kids in school?"
Glaukon
> insufficient intelligence.
I agree to some extent. I see now that this definition doesn't handle
with what scientists mean by 'unintelligent design', i.e. 'somethings
that looks like design but which is not created by any designer'.
Because here they mean 'unintentional' rather than 'with IQ=0' (so to
say). And this is a mess, because if we agree that 'design' is a
pattern that is connected with intentional act of creating this pattern
(which I believe is a good work definition, for the reasons explained
in my other posts), then unintelligent design become an oxymoron. In my
opinion it would be more correct to speak about intelligent patterns
(designs) and unintelligent ones (the rest of them), with 'intelligent'
meaning 'intentional'. speaking about intelligent design would be only
possible if 'intelligent' = 'not stupid'. I'm not sure if in that case,
there would be any point to speak about 'unintelligent design'.
Glaukon
> Never seen a honest creationist yet.
>
> BTW, your 'JUST a theory' (your emphasis)
> is another give-away,
>
> Jan
I'm not sure if I know what do you mean. Could you be more explicit? I
assume that your answer has something to do with both 1) this groups
interests area 2) the topic of our discussion. However some of your
answers may indicate that you are much interested in insulting than in
discussing.
John Dawkins
ar...@iname.com (Murray Arnow) wrote:
> Lars Eighner wrote:
> >In our last episode, the lovely and
> >talented Glaukon broadcast on alt.usage.english:
> >
> >> As a non-native I have some problems with the phrase "Intelligent
> >> Design". Isn't that an pleonasm? I mean, every design is intelligent,
> >> isn't it? If only we can attribute intelligency to entities without
> >> mind and a design certainly is such entity....
> >
> >First, "Intelligent Design" is simply a political code word, used to try to
> >get Biblical teaching into public schools. Religious teachings are not
> >allowed in public (that is, tax-supported) schools in America owing to the
> >First Amendment of the US Constitution.
> >
> >But your question seems to go to whether there can be a "design" without a
> >"designer." And the answer is, in general speech "design" is sometimes used
> >when the implication of a designer is not intended. It would be less
> >confusing if people would say "pattern" in such cases, but people are not
> >always so careful in their expressions. If you say you perceive a pattern
> >in a natural crystal, you are not taking a position on whether the crystal
> >or the rules of chemistry which made it grow as it did were "designed" or
> >not. "Pattern," in other words, can be merely a matter of perception. Some
> >people who mention the "design" of a crystal will mean that they think some
> >willful entity is responsible, but other people will not mean to imply that
> >at all.
> >
>
> "Pattern" used as above is still flawed. A pattern assumes a method, and
> methods just don't appear spontaneously.
Euler's number e (irrational, even transcendental), whose seemingly
random decimal expansion begins
e = 2.7182818284590452353602874713526624977...
contains within it a remarkable pattern, but the "method" behind this
pattern is elusive. Namely, the "continued fraction" expansion of e
is: [2,1,2,1,1,4,1,1,6,1,1,8,1,1,10,...]. That is,
e = 2 + 1/(1 + 1/(2 + 1/(1+ 1/(1 + 1/(4 + 1/(1 + ...))))))
Who can say whether this pattern appeared spontaneously.
--
J.
HVS
-snip-
> In my opinion it would be more correct to speak
> about intelligent patterns (designs) and unintelligent ones
> (the rest of them), with 'intelligent' meaning 'intentional'.
If you want to speak about "intentional" design, then why not speak
of "intentional design".
I fail to see point of calling it "intelligent" -- what is gained
by using a surrogate word for "intentional"?
> speaking about intelligent design would be only possible if
> 'intelligent' = 'not stupid'. I'm not sure if in that case,
> there would be any point to speak about 'unintelligent
> design'.
Sure there would -- there are lots of stupid designs about; not all
of them are unintentional.
Peter Duncanson
wrote:
>I am interested in hearing from anyone who will show
>me that a pattern cannot imply a method.
In one sense a pattern is something that is perceived as a pattern.
The method can be in the perception rather than in the creation of
the "pattern".
So a "pattern" implies either method in the creation, or method in
the perception, or of course, both.
Sometimes randomly positioned marks or randomly occurring shapes can
be perceived as representations of something: the face of Christ on
a Danish pastry, the face of Satan in the smoke rising from the Twin
Towers on 9/11, etc.
See "pareidolia":
http://www.skepdic.com/pareidol.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia
{This word is not in the Online OED as available free at the
moment.}
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Peter Duncanson
wrote:
>On 08 Oct 2006, Glaukon wrote
>
>-snip-
>
>> In my opinion it would be more correct to speak
>> about intelligent patterns (designs) and unintelligent ones
>> (the rest of them), with 'intelligent' meaning 'intentional'.
>
>If you want to speak about "intentional" design, then why not speak
>of "intentional design".
>
>I fail to see point of calling it "intelligent" -- what is gained
>by using a surrogate word for "intentional"?
>
Rightly or wrongly I've always assumed that "intelligent design"
meant design by an "intelligence" or by an "intelligent being".
>> speaking about intelligent design would be only possible if
>> 'intelligent' = 'not stupid'. I'm not sure if in that case,
>> there would be any point to speak about 'unintelligent
>> design'.
>
>Sure there would -- there are lots of stupid designs about; not all
>of them are unintentional.
--
Glaukon
> If you want to speak about "intentional" design, then why not speak
> of "intentional design".
>
> I fail to see point of calling it "intelligent" -- what is gained
> by using a surrogate word for "intentional"?
>
To summarize my standpoint:
1. design =_df intended pattern
1a. this means that there are unintended patterns (the rest of them)
2. intelligent design = pattern intended by a being (with some level of
intelligency)
for many reasons the phrase 'id' ,even conceived that way, is deeply
flawed and should be replaced (if we want to be more precise in what we
are saying), by the following:
3. intelligent pattern = intended pattern (intelligent is used to
indicate that the act of designing has some level of sophisitication --
e.g. natural beings created by supernatural superintelligent being or
just by not-as-sophisitcated Spaghetti Monster)
4. unintelligent pattern = pattern which is not intended (e.g. natural
beings created by nature in accordance with the "blind" laws of
evolution)
speaking about unintelligent design does not make sense since desing is
connected with intentionality and unintelligent is connected with the
lack of intentionality. So, Unintelligent Design refers to a class of
things which are intended patterns BUT without any connection with the
notion of intentionality, that is an empty set.
This standpoint has evolved during the discussion (at the beginning I
was just looking for that answer) and as the debate is still alive my
views can evolve further on (so those defs are tentative).
HVS
> On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 16:14:08 GMT, HVS
> <harve...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>> On 08 Oct 2006, Glaukon wrote
>>
>> -snip-
>>
>>> In my opinion it would be more correct to speak
>>> about intelligent patterns (designs) and unintelligent ones
>>> (the rest of them), with 'intelligent' meaning
>>> 'intentional'.
>>
>> If you want to speak about "intentional" design, then why not
>> speak of "intentional design".
>>
>> I fail to see point of calling it "intelligent" -- what is
>> gained by using a surrogate word for "intentional"?
>>
> Rightly or wrongly I've always assumed that "intelligent
> design" meant design by an "intelligence" or by an
> "intelligent being".
That's reasonable, but do you think that the concept of "design"
implies intention as well as intelligence (and therefore that
"intelligent design" is redundant)?
If you do, we'll have to agree to disagree; I see no inherent
philosophical problem in the concept of unintentional design.
If you don't think that design is necessarily intentional,though,
what analytical term is best used for "design that is not by an
intelligence"?
I'd say "intentional/unintentional" are better terms than
"intelligent/unintelligent", as the latter carry too much baggage
to be of much use.
HVS
>
>> If you want to speak about "intentional" design, then why not
>> speak of "intentional design".
>>
>> I fail to see point of calling it "intelligent" -- what is
>> gained by using a surrogate word for "intentional"?
> To summarize my standpoint:
>
> 1. design =_df intended pattern
>
> 1a. this means that there are unintended patterns (the rest of
> them)
>
> 2. intelligent design = pattern intended by a being (with some
> level of intelligency)
>
> for many reasons the phrase 'id' ,even conceived that way, is
> deeply flawed and should be replaced (if we want to be more
> precise in what we are saying), by the following:
>
> 3. intelligent pattern = intended pattern (intelligent is
> used to indicate that the act of designing has some level of
> sophisitication -- e.g. natural beings created by supernatural
> superintelligent being or just by not-as-sophisitcated
> Spaghetti Monster)
>
> 4. unintelligent pattern = pattern which is not intended (e.g.
> natural beings created by nature in accordance with the
> "blind" laws of evolution)
-snip-
I guess I'm being thick here, but I still fail to see the point
of using the terms "intelligent pattern" and "unintelligent
pattern" if the core differentiation is intent.
What would be wrong with "intentional patterns" and
"unintentional patterns"?
Glaukon
> of using the terms "intelligent pattern" and "unintelligent
> pattern" if the core differentiation is intent.
>
> What would be wrong with "intentional patterns" and
> "unintentional patterns"?
You're right. The problem is that we also want to differentiate between
the levels of sophistication of different designers (i.e their
intelligence). Consider the following:
Every intentional pattern is a result of intelligent acts. -- that is
why the term 'ID' seems redundant
BUT
Not every intelligent act is a cause of intentional patterns (however
I'm not sure about that)-- that is why 'intelligent pattern' does not
equal 'intentional pattern' (and that is why you're right) if this
statement is false then speaking about intelligent pattern instead of
intentional would be more informative.
It seems for me that all we can do to stay linguistically correct is to
speak about intentional pattern which was caused by a designer with
such and such level of intelligence.
Linz
>I'm not sure if I know what do you mean. Could you be more explicit? I
>assume that your answer has something to do with both 1) this groups
group's
>interests area 2) the topic of our discussion. However some of your
interest areas However,
>answers may indicate that you are much interested in insulting than in
more
>discussing.
Since you're posting to a usage group, I've pointed out some of your
errors.
--
Hooray for the differently sane.
Mike Lyle
Robert Bannister wrote:
> Glaukon wrote:
>
> > As a non-native I have some problems with the phrase "Intelligent
> > Design". Isn't that an pleonasm? I mean, every design is intelligent,
> > isn't it? If only we can attribute intelligency to entities without
> > mind and a design certainly is such entity....
>
> no need for anyone to study engineering, and even qualified engineers
> can come up with some surprisingly unintelligent designs.
But that's another meaning of "intelligent", equivalent to something
like "good". In the creationist's sense of "intelligent design", the
design is simply the product of an intelligence. Intelligent^1 design
may therefore very well result in design which is not intelligent^2 --
as, indeed, it seems to. Glaukon remains right, and I'm sure he'll tell
Adeimantus.
--
Mike.
Don Phillipson
news:1160325937.2...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> To summarize my standpoint:
>
> 1. design =_df intended pattern
>
> 1a. this means that there are unintended patterns (the rest of them)
This does not logically follow. The opposite of
intended patterns may be either intended randomness
(the opposite of pattern) or unintended randomness
(the opposite of intention.)
> 4. unintelligent pattern = pattern which is not intended (e.g. natural
> beings created by nature in accordance with the "blind" laws of
> evolution)
This is not the language scientists actually use.
> speaking about unintelligent design does not make sense since desing is
> connected with intentionality and unintelligent is connected with the
> lack of intentionality. So, Unintelligent Design refers to a class of
> things which are intended patterns BUT without any connection with the
> notion of intentionality, that is an empty set.
>
> This standpoint has evolved during the discussion (at the beginning I
> was just looking for that answer) and as the debate is still alive my
> views can evolve further on (so those defs are tentative).
Glaucon also posted earlier:
> I see now that this definition doesn't handle
> with what scientists mean by 'unintelligent design', i.e. 'somethings
> that looks like design but which is not created by any designer'.
I suggest this is a null class, i.e. I suggest no
scientist ever uses the phrase "unintelligent design."
Several concepts actually used by scientists may
illuminate the inquiry, e.g.:
Contingency, abundantly explained in Stephen
Jay Gould's popular articles. The course of evolution
has produced (a) both apes and (tailed) monkeys in
Africa and Asia, and (b) only monkeys (and no apes)
in the Americas. This did not happen by "design"
but by accident (and might not happen again if the
same processes of natural selection were repeated.)
The result is 100 per cent factual but not designed
or determined in advance: it is contingent: and so
are many events in our lives . . .
"Satisficing": "As Herbert Simon, the 1978 Nobel laureate in economics,
observed, any firm that tried to make decisions that would
"maximize" its returns would bankrupt itself in a never-ending
search for the best option. What firms do instead is "satisfice,"
to use Simon's term: they content themselves with results
that are "good enough."" (Christopher Caudwell, New Yorker,
2004.)
and "sub-optimisation," a related coinage of economist
Kenneth Boulding. Economic equilibrium theory assumes
that every economic actor estimates future returns as
accurately as possible, and then does what would maximise
returns. But this is not how people actually behave. They
choose what will do the job in hand, at affordable cost, and
thus (often) choose what turns out to be second-best or
"sub-optimal." This would obviously not be "intelligent
design" but is not "unitelligent designn" either: it is the
way real people really behave.
It would be similarly prudent for philosophers to
concentrate their attention on what people actually
believe and the reasons they offer for their beliefs.
Plenty of professional scientists are Christians (i.e.
theists) and plenty more are religious but atheist
(like Buddhists.) Those that find religious value
in the grandeur of the universe or the beauty of
this world impute no scientific cogency to this beauty.
So the general relationship between religion and
science seems asymmetric. We can count the
numbers of scientists who say they abandoned
religious belief because it was undermined by
science; and we can identify scientist believers;
but we find none who became religious because
he was a scientist. This fact appears also to be
contingent (i.e. factual but undesigned.)
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)