Re: Design & Imperfection 2/2 (was NTSE #11)

Pim van Meurs (entheta@eskimo.com)
Fri, 18 Apr 1997 17:18:47 -0400

Pim van Meurs wrote:
> A design need no purpose.

Adrian:
"A design without a purpose sounds like an oxymoron to me. Perhaps then
you would want to use a different descriptive word rather than design
for that which has no purpose."

Indeed the word design might not be appropiate but I used it to clarify
that design could be a subjective rather than an objective word.

> The bible is not scientific in any sense so should not be used as
evidence
> of the existance of such a supernatural force. It is very well possible
> that a designer acts through random acts which is the only viable
> hypothesis of intelligent design.

Adrian: Again, this sounds like a contradiction to me - a designer acting
in
random.

Not necessarily if one accepts the idea that the experiment was design
through random acts. Although random is not the only part, a deterministic
component of natural selection needs to be added.

> That a designer created the cosmos
> through a big bang and let naturalistic forces take its turn. Sort of a
> giant experiment.

Adrian: Sort of a deistic position.

If that is what you want to call it, sure.

> SJ: An Intelligent Designer may have designed all the laws and initial
> conditions of the universe in such a way that the design of living
> creatures is *real* not apparent:

> True but then again chance could have done this as well through
> naturalistic forces so this explanation would fail under the Occam razor.

Adrian: Actually, chance cannot be used as a causal mechanism. I think the
use
of chance is to explain something is a major violation of the Razor. How
different is it from using the "God did it" explanation?

It does not require a supernatural entity. Chance can surely be used as a
causal explanation. For instance the hypothesis that this universe is
merely an example of a random quantum fluctuation. Or the formation of the
steps leading to 'life' for instance.

When looking at design, the apparant design could point to an intelligent
designer or to a confusion in interpretation of the 'design'. That at a
biological level, organisms tend to show systems which appear to be
well-suited for their task need not point to a designer but could, as
hypothesized, also be caused by a combination of random variation and a
deterministic force like natural selection.