Richard Wein wrote:
> The best definition I can think of at the moment is that design is a process
> that looks ahead (in some sense). (Thanks to Chris!)
If this is the definition, how do we determine that something is
designed in cases where we are unable to question the designer?
> Given this definition, the only processes that we know of so far which can
> perform design are conscious beings and machines constructed by conscious
> beings. Thus, barring some unfamiliar type of phenomenon, we could say that
> design necessarily involves the action of a conscious being, directly or
> indirectly. One example of a potential exception would be an intelligent
> organism which evolved naturally without developing consciousness.
Here is another definition that also is not fully satisfactory.
Something is designed if it is made of ordinary materials that are
combined in ways that are not ordinarily observed (in nature).
I'm thinking of things like automobiles on earth or buildings observed
by the first earth visitors to a new planet.
A searcher for design might also ask if the object in question appears
to have some function such as shelter.
Examples of some things that create problems for these definitions are:
diamonds
wasp nests
Actually, animals build a number of structures that do useful things,
e.g., bird nests, spider webs, various kinds of burrows, etc. This
implies that evolution is a design process though not one that looks
ahead.
On another planet, an unintelligent animal that assembles some fairly
elaborate buildings is not totally unreasonable. If a wasp can
construct a wasp nest, why can't an unintelligent ape-like creature
construct something like the pueblos of the southwestern US?
DNA is commonly observed in nature (at least, by sophisticated observers)
and, hence, is not a designed object by the above definition.
Ivar
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 07 2000 - 01:12:32 EST