Design with no designer?

[coolduude]

Is it possible?

 

[tonyrey]

No! Not if it is design with a goal, intention, plan or purpose. Patterns occur in inanimate nature but they are not designs in the usual sense of the term. The significant feature of design is that it is functional like a purposive, living cell rather than mechanistic like a purposeless, chemical reaction. Machines are designed by human designers but biological organisms are not designed by nature!

That is why the best explanation of the universe is that it is designed by God. Otherwise it would be an undesigned, purposeless system which produces purposeful designers!

 

[JerryS]

Is it possible?

Of course it is, although improbable.

 

[coolduude]

Of course it is, although improbable.

Can you think of any examples?

 

[HelenaMT]

Can you think of any examples?

I can’t think of any examples of designed objects with no designer (and I know this question was addressed to someone else), but that’s because you can’t have designed objects without a designer. You can,however, have something that might appear designed but is not necessarily so.

One of the main problems with the argument from design (and I assume addressing this is the aim of the OP)is that no one is clear on what constitutes proof of purposeful design. It is next to impossible to detect design without first understanding purpose, or knowing what the end result is supposed to be. The watchmaker sort of analogy fails with respect to God because we know the purpose of a watch, and we understand it is an end product. Objects designed by man are not at all like the vast and dynamic universe we inhabit.

Further, even if we didn’t know what a watch was, we would theoretically be able to hunt down the human watchmaker and ask him if he made it and why.

I think there needs to be more inquiry into what would constitute evidence of *purposeful *design as opposed to what we might only perceive as design.

 

[tonyrey]

One of the main problems with the argument from design (and I assume addressing this is the aim of the OP)is that no one is clear on what constitutes proof of purposeful design. It is next to impossible to detect design without first understanding purpose, or knowing what the end result is supposed to be.

Overwhelming evidence for purposeful design exists in the immense value of existence and the inadequacy of materialism when confronted with the existence of persons, truth, beauty, goodness, justice, freedom and love.

The watchmaker sort of analogy fails with respect to God because we know the purpose of a watch, and we understand it is an end product. Objects designed by man are not at all like the vast and dynamic universe we inhabit.

Objects designed by man are far inferior to the living organisms in the universe but it is not true that they ** not at all **like them. They are immensely complex structures which function successfully. The probability that the DNA code, for example, has emerged by chance is negligible.

Further, even if we didn’t know what a watch was, we would theoretically be able to hunt down the human watchmaker and ask him if he made it and why.

Do you base your interpretation of reality solely on human testimony?

I think there needs to be more inquiry into what would constitute evidence of *purposeful *design as opposed to what we might only perceive as design.

You have to choose between design and non-design. There is no other alternative… Which is the more rational explanation? By their fruits you shall know them…

 

[Bob_Crowley]

I can’t think of any examples of designed objects with no designer (and I know this question was addressed to someone else), but that’s because you can’t have designed objects without a designer. You can,however, have something that might appear designed but is not necessarily so.

One of the main problems with the argument from design (and I assume addressing this is the aim of the OP)is that no one is clear on what constitutes proof of purposeful design. It is next to impossible to detect design without first understanding purpose, or knowing what the end result is supposed to be. The watchmaker sort of analogy fails with respect to God because we know the purpose of a watch, and we understand it is an end product. Objects designed by man are not at all like the vast and dynamic universe we inhabit.

Further, even if we didn’t know what a watch was, we would theoretically be able to hunt down the human watchmaker and ask him if he made it and why.

I think there needs to be more inquiry into what would constitute evidence of *purposeful *design as opposed to what we might only perceive as design.

The universe is mathematical. To argue away the concept of a designer, then one has to blindly accept that both mathematical theory and application appeared together without a designer. Sure.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Is it possible?

It depends, what you mean by “design”. There are different kinds of teleological arguments that some people are not aware of, or do not understand. If Behes popular type of argument, that complex structures and operations cannot develop from natural interactions without the hand of designer, is the standard of teleology, then i think that design is struggling to disprove the blind watch maker. Since, however small ah chance there might be, i think there is still a chance that what we see now, including our selves, is merely a product of natural design. But, that does not mean that it is more reasonable to believe that something with such a low probability actually happened. It just means that in principle, nature does not need a designer to produce design.

That being the case, i feel that the popular arguments for design, that base themselves around the problem of getting huge complexity form simpler elements, are all missing the point. Evolution does not disprove teleology, even if it shows that complex structures with functions can derive from simpler elements.

Mature approaches to teleology do not work on the premise of an irreducible complexity in physics; but rather, it focuses purely on “information”. Teleologists point out there is in fact irreducibly complex and purposeful “meaning” throughout the objectivity of nature that must exist somehow before they can be utilized by evolutionary biology and that the “meaning” is not caused by the presence of complex structures, but is rather actualized by the presence and functionality of complex structures. Much like how a meaningful computer program would be given functionality by the operations of a computer system. So that, while the universe can certainly activate and naturally arrange and rearrange the potentiality and meaning it has inherited, it cannot truly create the potentiality or the meaning it requires in order to function and exist. From this basis, real teleologists go on to produce cogent arguments that in my opinion provide a far more intelligent and mature proof that there is a purpose behind nature. Also, such arguments avoid conflict with the sciences; since this kind of teleology does not deny the universes ability to function as a blind-watch-maker. It merely proves that an intelligence designed the blind-watch-maker Therefore both truths can co exist. There needn’t be a conflict between teleology and evolution. The Blind Watch Maker and the Intelligent Designer can both exist without contradiction.

 

[edwest2]

I can’t think of any examples of designed objects with no designer (and I know this question was addressed to someone else), but that’s because you can’t have designed objects without a designer. You can,however, have something that might appear designed but is not necessarily so.

One of the main problems with the argument from design (and I assume addressing this is the aim of the OP)is that no one is clear on what constitutes proof of purposeful design. It is next to impossible to detect design without first understanding purpose, or knowing what the end result is supposed to be. The watchmaker sort of analogy fails with respect to God because we know the purpose of a watch, and we understand it is an end product. Objects designed by man are not at all like the vast and dynamic universe we inhabit.

Further, even if we didn’t know what a watch was, we would theoretically be able to hunt down the human watchmaker and ask him if he made it and why.

I think there needs to be more inquiry into what would constitute evidence of *purposeful *design as opposed to what we might only perceive as design.

Archaeologists define design all the time. They can tell the difference between a dried piece of clay and a clay shard from pottery.

If an obviously manufactured object was found on Mars, it would not be assumed to be natural, even if the designer could not be found.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

It depends, what you mean by “design”. There are different kinds of teleological arguments that some people are not aware of, or do not understand. If Behes popular type of argument, that complex structures and operations cannot develop from natural interactions without the hand of designer, is the standard of teleology, then i think that design is struggling to disprove the blind watch maker. Since, however small ah chance there might be, i think there is still a chance that what we see now, including our selves, is merely a product of natural design. But, that does not mean that it is more reasonable to believe that something with such a low probability actually happened. It just means that in principle, nature does not need a designer to produce design.

That being the case, i feel that the popular arguments for design, that base themselves around the problem of getting huge complexity form simpler elements, are all missing the point. Evolution does not disprove teleology, even if it shows that complex structures with functions can derive from simpler elements.

Mature approaches to teleology do not work on the premise of an irreducible complexity in physics; but rather, it focuses purely on “information”. Teleologists point out there is in fact irreducibly complex and purposeful “meaning” throughout the objectivity of nature that must exist somehow before they can be utilized by evolutionary biology and that the “meaning” is not caused by the presence of complex structures, but is rather actualized by the presence and functionality of complex structures. Much like how a meaningful computer program would be given functionality by the operations of a computer system. So that, while the universe can certainly activate and naturally arrange and rearrange the potentiality and meaning it has inherited, it cannot truly create the potentiality or the meaning it requires in order to function and exist. From this basis, real teleologists go on to produce cogent arguments that in my opinion provide a far more intelligent and mature proof that there is a purpose behind nature. Also, such arguments avoid conflict with the sciences; since this kind of teleology does not deny the universes ability to function as a blind-watch-maker. It merely proves that an intelligence designed the blind-watch-maker Therefore both truths can co exist. There needn’t be a conflict between teleology and evolution. The Blind Watch Maker and the Intelligent Designer can both exist without contradiction.

I don’t think so. Either there is a watchmaker or there isn’t. Or, you can demonstrate that living things can spontaneously arise from non-living things.

Peace,
Ed

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I don’t think so. Either there is a watchmaker or there isn’t. Or, you can demonstrate that living things can spontaneously arise from non-living things.

Peace,
Ed

Ahhh… I see that my arch nemesis has arisen from his slumber. How you doing pal?

You seem to be saying here that you do not think that the two concepts can co-exist. All i can say here, is that i cannot do much with a meager assertion on your part. If you think that am wrong, why not throw a couple of grenades my way? I will see if i can outrun the explosions.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Archaeologists define design all the time. They can tell the difference between a dried piece of clay and a clay shard from pottery.

If an obviously manufactured object was found on Mars, it would not be assumed to be natural, even if the designer could not be found.

Peace,
Ed

Ah… Dude…You really think there’s a face on mars?

 

[HelenaMT]

Overwhelming evidence for purposeful design exists in the immense value of existence and the inadequacy of materialism when confronted with the existence of persons, truth, beauty, goodness, justice, freedom and love.

Materialism may be inadequate, but that does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that there is purposeful design. How can you define or defend purposeful without knowing the purpose? You can posit that the design could be purposeful, but other than appealing to the odds (which is often called the appeal to incredulity), there doesn’t seem to be a good working theory on how to actually demonstrate that what we *perceive *as purposeful design actually is.

Objects designed by man are far inferior to the living organisms in the universe but it is not true that they ** not at all **like them. They are immensely complex structures which function successfully. The probability that the DNA code, for example, has emerged by chance is negligible.

Just because they function successfully does not mean that they were purposefully designed. Without knowing the goal of the designer, how can we point to evidence of that purpose? If you splatter some paint, without any thought, and you recognize the pattern of a face in it just by chance, the appearance of a face isn’t evidence of design, but it might look like it if the observer didn’t know it was accidental. And just because something is highly unlikely doesn’t mean it is impossible. It is one thing to say it’s highly implausible that the processes we know of so far do not explain how the universe came to exist, or how such complex things as DNA could have come to be on their own. But the idea of purposeful design does not automatically win because of the unlikelyhood of the other explanations.

Do you base your interpretation of reality solely on human testimony?
You have to choose between design and non-design. There is no other alternative… Which is the more rational explanation? By their fruits you shall know them…

The problem is , there are fruits that seem to point to a designer that is not the one we want. I don’t rule out design at all, in fact I believe in it, but I don’t believe any evidence we have so far backs up the God we believe in as Catholics. That doesn’t mean that I think I am correct, and actually hope I am not, but the design argument need to go further to tie what is observed with a possible intention. With no clue as to intent, there is little we can do to convince anyone who expects objective evidence that there is a point to inferring design. And if we use our theological view as the intent while making a design argument, we better have something in the natural world that can rationally back that up.

So far, I haven’t seen any evidence that the natural world was designed by an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient God, or that that utter benevolence and love (which are human emotions supposedly not emotions God can feel, since we’re not supposed to anthropomorphize Him) went into the design. Instead the universe looks pretty ruthless and efficient, and mankind seems to believe and act according to their environmental conditions rather than the free will of a divine soul.

 

[HelenaMT]

Archaeologists define design all the time. They can tell the difference between a dried piece of clay and a clay shard from pottery.

If an obviously manufactured object was found on Mars, it would not be assumed to be natural, even if the designer could not be found.

Peace,
Ed

Because we know what something manufactured by a sentient mind would look like, since we are also sentient. And we see evidence in tool marks, or remnants of a known process, or depictions of things we recognize. We see evidence of assembly, a piece that has had a beginning and an end and is a finished product. When we look at something in the natural world, like a tree, or an insect, or a person, we are only seeing one piece of an ongoing self sustaining process. We don’t know what the “finished” product should look like, nor what materials were used to set the whole thing up.

 

[HelenaMT]

The universe is mathematical. To argue away the concept of a designer, then one has to blindly accept that both mathematical theory and application appeared together without a designer. Sure.

Which I don’t. However, there is a big leap between believing that and demonstrating it with evidence, which is what those who argue for design hope to do. A design requires a “why” answer, not just a “how”, doesn’t it? Yes, the universe is mathematical. Why? What sort of designer does that point to? Can you know the designer by the fruits of His design? And can we honestly go where the evidence might lead us without relying on what we accept from faith? If the answer is no, then there doesn’t seem much point in looking.

 

[Ahimsa]

Design with several designers?

Who designed the designer?

 

[coolduude]

Design with several designers?

Who designed the designer?

No one.

The Ultimate Designer (God) does not need a designer. Only dependent creations need a designer; God is independent of everything and thus does not need a designer.

On another note, I’ve been thinking. Everything has a designer- my house, my bed, my pillows, my clothes, even the carpeting had to be designed! Every single item in my house has a designer which I could probably track down with enough research.

So why should humans (or the universe for that matter) be any different? I guess the odds of everything coming about with no design are quite slim… And I can not think of one example of something that has been designed with no designer.

Can anyone?

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Which I don’t. However, there is a big leap between believing that and demonstrating it with evidence, which is what those who argue for design hope to do. A design requires a “why” answer, not just a “how”, doesn’t it? Yes, the universe is mathematical. Why? What sort of designer does that point to? Can you know the designer by the fruits of His design? And can we honestly go where the evidence might lead us without relying on what we accept from faith? If the answer is no, then there doesn’t seem much point in looking.

The argument from design is not going to prove the Christian God by itself. It does however prove atheists are wrong.

It also points to a single or at least unified Mind, with every natural inanimate object (and I include in that the atoms that make up our bodies) having a precise mathematical relationship with everything else. There are no exceptions as far as we can observe.

We depend for our faith on revelation, not philosophical pondering of this universe. It’s a gift, not something we can find out for ourselves.

Nevertheless God searches our minds, and draws close to those who are trying to draw close to Him. But if we’re not even searching for Him, and show not the least interest in whether He is or not, then He’ll reciprocate with the same courtesy. He’ll just ignore us.

 

[tonyrey]

Design with several designers?
Who designed the designer?

You might as well ask who created the Creator? Do you believe everything came from nothing? How could nothing produce something?!

It is a mistake to think everything is entirely the result of what happened in the past. We can’t understand anything fully unless we know the reason why it exists, i.e. its purpose. And we won’t find purpose in the past. The word is derived from pro-pose - looking forwards. We are very “backward” if our explanations are limited to what has already happened!

The ultimate explanation of reality lies beyond space and time… In the most powerful agent we know - that is responsible for the amazing success of science. The mind which understands - not matter which knows nothing.

The most important things in life cannot be detected by our senses - they are all intangible. Materialists argue that goodness, justice, freedom, beauty and love are only human concepts but if they deny that the truth is real they are contradicting themselves! How can anything be true if there is no such thing as truth?! That is the starting point:

the power of the mind

to understand, design and create. Any other explanation is self-destructive…

 

[tonyrey]

Design with several designers?

Who designed the designer?

Design with several designers?
Who designed the designer?

You might as well ask who created the Creator? Do you believe everything came from nothing? How could nothing produce something?!

It is a mistake to think everything is entirely the result of what happened in the past. We can’t understand anything fully unless we know the reason why it exists, i.e. its purpose. And we won’t find purpose in the past. The word is derived from pro-pose - looking forwards. We are very “backward” if our explanations are limited to what has already happened!

The ultimate explanation of reality lies beyond space and time… In the most powerful agent we know - that is responsible for the amazing success of science. The conscious mind which understands - not inanimate matter which knows nothing.

The most important things in life cannot be detected by our senses - they are all intangible. Materialists argue that goodness, justice, freedom, beauty and love are only human concepts but if they deny that the truth is real they are contradicting themselves! How can anything be true if there is no such thing as truth?! That is the starting point: the power of the mind to know, understand, design and create. Any other explanation is self-destructive…