From: Ivar Ylvisaker <ylvisaki@erols.com>
>> 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?
I was trying to separate the questions of what we mean by design and how we
detect it. The fact that we may be unable to find a way of detecting design
given a particular definition does not necessarily indicate a flaw in the
definition. (Though I'm certainly not claiming that this definition is
perfect!)
In the case of human artifacts, it is generally obvious that the creator was
looking ahead, and considering the uses to which the artifact would be put.
>> 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).
What do you mean by "in nature"? What if any objects that we consider
"natural" were actually designed by a deity or alien engineer? If, by "in
nature" you mean objects that were not created by an intelligent creator,
then your definition approaches circularity.
>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.
I would say that this definition is a subset of mine. If something was
created for a function, then the creator must have been looking ahead,
thinking of the uses to which it would be put. However, the problem with
your definition is that it could be taken to include objects produced by a
genetic algorithm, including naturally evolved structures (e.g. the function
of a heart is to pump blood).
>Examples of some things that create problems for these definitions are:
>
>diamonds
This is no problem for my definition.
>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.
Well, a major aim of my definition was to *exclude* naturalistic evolution
from being "design". I would agree with Dawkins that biological organisms
are "apparently designed" but not actually designed. If you want to consider
naturalistic evolution to be design, then you and I are obviously going to
come up with very different definitions!
In the case of nests, etc, I would say that, if the animal's brain contains
an algorithm which looks ahead (in some sense) to what it's trying to
achieve, then these are designed, and the designer is the animal. Otherwise,
I would say they're not. In the latter case, they're only "apparently
designed".
As to whether these animals *do* use a look-ahead algorithm, I don't know.
(a) I don't know enough about the workings of the animals' minds. (b) I
haven't given a clear definition of what I mean by an algorithm that "looks
ahead". However, I very much doubt that wasps look ahead in any meaningful
sense, so I would not consider a wasp nest to be designed. To look at it
another way, a wasp nest could be considered part of the phenotype of the
wasp. (Perhaps this is what Dawkins means by "the extended phenotype",
though I'm not sure--I haven' read his book of that title.)
Anyway, I suspect that whatever definition we come up with, there is going
to be a gray area on the border between design and non-design, just as there
is a gray area on the border between life and non-life.
>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?
I certainly wouldn't call apes "unintelligent". When a chimpanzee strips the
leaves off a twig to make a tool (for getting termites out of their nest),
I'm sure it's looking ahead, thinking of the tasty termites, and so this
would be considered design by my definition.
The degree of elaborateness (or complexity) is not the issue here. Naturally
evolved organisms are more elaborate than any man-made artifact, but I would
not consider naturalistic evolution to be design. The chimpanzee's tool is
about as simple as you can get, but I would consider it design.
>DNA is commonly observed in nature (at least, by sophisticated observers)
>and, hence, is not a designed object by the above definition.
I don't think you've yet made up your mind whether you consider the products
of naturalistic evolution to be designed. ;-)
Richard Wein (Tich)
--------------------------------
"Do the calculation. Take the numbers seriously. See if the underlying
probabilities really are small enough to yield design."
-- W. A. Dembski, who has never presented any calculation to back up his
claim to have detected Intelligent Design in life.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 07 2000 - 12:40:50 EST