Question about intelligent design theory

[02ranger]

OK, first things first. I'm not trying to get an evolution/creation/intelligent design debate going. I have an honest question that I think could make for a stimulating topic to read up on.

I was reading this thread and thought of something. One of the biggest arguments for intelligent design is that you can look around and see design in the universe, so obviously it had a design/creator. I'm thinking that maybe there actually is no design. Maybe because we evolved in this environment we see the world as having design and thus make things with a design to match. If the world was totally different, if a tree looked like a tangled jumble of limbs similar to a tangled cord, and leaves were not all the same general shape , would we still call that a design because that's what we evolved in? My actual question isn't whether I'm right or not, but I was wondering if this is an actual scientific theory? If it is, what is it called? I'd like to read up on it because I'm nowhere near smart enough to think this idea through completely, but I don't have the first clue where to start looking for information on this. I'm not looking for proofs on evolution or intelligent design, just what my "idea" may be called. I could also be a total moron here and have it completely wrong. Either way, I'm all ears.

Please don't post any proofs on why evolution is fact or creationism is fact, because we all know where that will lead. Please only post if you can contribute in the spirit of my question. Thanks.

 

[OCGuy]

OK, first things first. I'm not trying to get an evolution/creation/intelligent design debate going.

Yes you are.

 

[Brainonska511]

Lawn chair? Check.
Beer? Check
Popcorn? Check.

 

[dawp]

Lawn chair? Check.
Beer? Check
Popcorn? Check.

pretzels go better with beer.

 

[sandorski]

In order for something Complex to exist it must have Order. Order looks like Design to the feeble minded.

 

[destrekor]

I believe what you may be looking for, is called the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy.

In this instance, it's the idea that you take the final product, and deduce this final product is 100% exactly as intended by whatever means... without witnessing the event unfold.

But in reality, it's merely the application of philosophy to Chaos Theory. We, here and now, see the world as we have always seen it... roughly 14 billion years after all of the fun started in the universe.
We see it this way, and some have deduced it must be this way for a reason... when on the other side of thought, we can only see it the way it is, because it is likely if anything else happened differently, we wouldn't exist to even ponder the question of design.
We can only ponder this question, because whatever events lead to our existence... possibly all-inclusive of a 14 billion year chain reaction... were absolutely necessary to even make it possible to ponder.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

Here's an interesting website for you.

http://designanduniverse.com/

 

[02ranger]

Yes you are.

Sorry about what I said before the edit, I think I worded the first segment of my OP wrong. The "stimulating discussion" bit makes it sound like I am looking for an argument. I'll change that. In all seriousness, all I want to do is find out a name for this theory if there is one. I don't want a debate on it's validity, and if this turns into an argument, I'll ask the mods to lock it. I'd just like to be pointed in the right direction to see if "my idea" (i don't even like calling it that because I'm sure it's been thought of before) has a name so I can learn more. I saw the last debate unfold most of the way through, about 2/3, and could've gotten in the middle of that thread if I wanted a debate. I just thought of this.

I believe what you may be looking for, is called the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy.

In this instance, it's the idea that you take the final product, and deduce this final product is 100% exactly as intended by whatever means... without witnessing the event unfold.

But in reality, it's merely the application of philosophy to Chaos Theory. We, here and now, see the world as we have always seen it... roughly 14 billion years after all of the fun started in the universe.
We see it this way, and some have deduced it must be this way for a reason... when on the other side of thought, we can only see it the way it is, because it is likely if anything else happened differently, we wouldn't exist to even ponder the question of design.
We can only ponder this question, because whatever events lead to our existence... possibly all-inclusive of a 14 billion year chain reaction... were absolutely necessary to even make it possible to ponder.

Thanks for that. It sounds like what I was asking. I'm gonna read up on it more but that's closer than I was getting on my own. Like I said, I'm not smart enough to get that on my own. lol. Thank you sandorski too.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

If the world was totally different, if a tree looked like a tangled jumble of limbs similar to a tangled cord, and leaves were not all the same general shape , would we still call that a design because that's what we evolved in?

Yes. That seems to be the case. It's weird how people think about probabilities.

My actual question isn't whether I'm right or not, but I was wondering if this is an actual scientific theory? If it is, what is it called?

It's not really a scientific theory. However, it is kind of a fallacy; that of retrospective determinism.

 

[hans030390]

"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?" - Douglas Adams

 

[Kadarin]

My actual question isn't whether I'm right or not, but I was wondering if this is an actual scientific theory? If it is, what is it called?

To clear this up right away: Intelligent Design is NOT, never has been, and never will be a scientific theory. It was not arrived at via the Scientific Method, which is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

The idea behind the creation of Intelligent Design was to come up with pseudo-scientific nonsense detailed enough to convince religious nutcases to mandate its teaching in school science classes as an effort to push a Christian religious agenda and indoctrination upon our children.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

To clear this up right away: Intelligent Design is NOT, never has been, and never will be a scientific theory. It was not arrived at via the Scientific Method, which is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

The idea behind the creation of Intelligent Design was to come up with pseudo-scientific nonsense detailed enough to convince religious nutcases to mandate its teaching in school science classes as an effort to push a Christian religious agenda and indoctrination upon our children.

"To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable...evidence".

I don't know anyone that observed the creation of the universe, do you?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

The sharpshooter fallacy explained (a bit better )

If you randomly shoot an arrow into the air, it will have to land somewhere. Nobody might be able to predict where it would land, but when it comes down, there it will be.

If you hurriedly ran over to the arrow in the ground and painted a target around it, it would appear that the randomly fired arrow somehow, against all odds, hit the bullseye.

That's what intelligent design proponents are doing. The current state of the universe is where the arrow happened to land. ID'ers are painting a target around this arrow and then trying to argue that the arrow must've been magically guided in order for it to hit the bullseye so perfectly. In reality, the arrow could've landed in an infinitely many different places. Hell, in a Many Worlds universe, the arrow lands in every place, and in a great many of those worlds there'd probably still be a bunch of religious nuts painting targets and screaming about the magical hand guiding the arrow.

 

[02ranger]

To clear this up right away: Intelligent Design is NOT, never has been, and never will be a scientific theory. It was not arrived at via the Scientific Method, which is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

The idea behind the creation of Intelligent Design was to come up with pseudo-scientific nonsense detailed enough to convince religious nutcases to mandate its teaching in school science classes as an effort to push a Christian religious agenda and indoctrination upon our children.

I'm not asking if intelligent design is a scientific theory. I'm asking if the idea that people see design in the universe because we evolved in this environment is a scientific theory. Destrekor came up with some theories that seem to fit my question fairly well.

 

[02ranger]

"To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable...evidence".

I don't know anyone that observed the creation of the universe, do you?

OK, if we start this up again I'm going to ask the mods to lock this right away. I'm not trying to be the one that starts this same argument again. I was hoping my little disclaimer in the OP would be enough but maybe not.

 

[Pardus]

 

[02ranger]

The sharpshooter fallacy explained (a bit better )

If you randomly shoot an arrow into the air, it will have to land somewhere. Nobody might be able to predict where it would land, but when it comes down, there it will be.

If you hurriedly ran over to the arrow in the ground and painted a target around it, it would appear that the randomly fired arrow somehow, against all odds, hit the bullseye.

That's what intelligent design proponents are doing. The current state of the universe is where the arrow happened to land. ID'ers are painting a target around this arrow and then trying to argue that the arrow must've been magically guided in order for it to hit the bullseye so perfectly. In reality, the arrow could've landed in an infinitely many different places. Hell, in a Many Worlds universe, the arrow lands in every place, and in a great many of those worlds there'd probably still be a bunch of religious nuts painting targets and screaming about the magical hand guiding the arrow.

This sounds like exactly what I was trying to say. Just explained much better. haha. Thanks for that. Basically people see the world as designed because it's the only way they've ever seen the world. It's like having only ever seen abstract art so you assume that's how art is supposed to be. Then one day you see a "normal" painting and it looks like the oddball without a design. Thanks. :thumbsup:

hahahahahaha. That picture is awesome. And too true. hahaha.:thumbsup:

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

"To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable...evidence".

"PhineasJWhoopee abuses small animals and has sexual fantasies about moderately priced kitchen appliances."

Putting something in quotes is rather meaningless unless the quote is given attribution, numbnuts.

I don't know anyone that observed the creation of the universe, do you?

Why do creationists insist that there must've been one, then?

We have observed the existence of a singularity in the past of our local patch of space-time into which the past world lines of every observable object appear to converge. We call that singularity the "Big Bang."

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

This sounds like exactly what I was trying to say. Just explained much better. haha. Thanks for that. Basically people see the world as designed because it's the only way they've ever seen the world. It's like having only ever seen abstract art so you assume that's how art is supposed to be. Then one day you see a "normal" painting and it looks like the oddball without a design. Thanks. :thumbsup:

hahahahahaha. That picture is awesome. And too true. hahaha.:thumbsup:

So what's the conclusion here, there is no such thing as design becuase design is in the eye of the beholder?

 

[darkswordsman17]

So what's the conclusion here, there is no such thing as design becuase design is in the eye of the beholder?

You never cease to amaze with your inability to use logic.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

You never cease to amaze with your inability to use logic.

Excellent non answer.

 

[02ranger]

So what's the conclusion here, there is no such thing as design becuase design is in the eye of the beholder?

To an extent. Obviously there are such things as design, but saying there is design in the universe is a little different from saying there's design in how you built a house. All we know is the universe and it was around before us, so I believe we evolved to see what's around us as aesthetically pleasing and how things should be. Eventually, the world became our basis for what a design is. Just because we see it as having order doesn't mean it was designed, it just means we see it as being designed because it's our only point of reference. An entirely different world may still look designed to us if we evolved there and where we live now could look random and without order. Of course, I'm not as smart as a lot of the people on here so my examples may very well be crap.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

"To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable...evidence".

I don't know anyone that observed the creation of the universe, do you?

Are you saying that all astronomy is not science? Because in astronomy all that can be done is observation of a single moment in time. Most astronomical phenomena happen on such time scales that they are impossible to observe. We have a single slice of time to work with. Same with big bang theory - can we only observe the universe in its current state, and we make inferences from that.


(before anyone starts, yes the above is a gross simplification, but posted for the sake of argument)

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Are you saying that all astronomy is not science? Because in astronomy all that can be done is observation of a single moment in time. Most astronomical phenomena happen on such time scales that they are impossible to observe. We have a single slice of time to work with. Same with big bang theory - can we only observe the universe in its current state, and we make inferences from that.

Most creationists/ID'ers/idiots make a false distinction between "direct" and "indirect" observation, insisting that we do not observe events like the big bang or the evolution of species because we infer facts about them without "directly" observing them. Being that they're all a bunch of ignorant numbskulls, they almost universally fail to realize that as much as we infer the existence of the Big Bang from the converging world lines of astronomical objects, we also infer the status of our immediate environments from the photons which form patterns on our retinas and the sound waves that impinge upon our eardrums.

All observations are inferential, therefore, and the reliability of those inferences depends absolutely on the absence of supernatural interference along that chain of inference. That's what makes them such hypocrites. The blithely go about their day assuming the absence of supernatural disconnections between their senses and reality at every waking moment, but as soon as someone suggests something that contradicts their religious dogma, that person is an evil materialist who's religion is naturalism and who hates god, etc, etc, etc...

I say, it's almost enough to drive a man to drink.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

To an extent. Obviously there are such things as design, but saying there is design in the universe is a little different from saying there's design in how you built a house. All we know is the universe and it was around before us, so I believe we evolved to see what's around us as aesthetically pleasing and how things should be. Eventually, the world became our basis for what a design is. Just because we see it as having order doesn't mean it was designed, it just means we see it as being designed because it's our only point of reference. An entirely different world may still look designed to us if we evolved there and where we live now could look random and without order. Of course, I'm not as smart as a lot of the people on here so my examples may very well be crap.

I'm not sure there is an inherent difference in the design of a house vs the design of the universe other than the complexity. I don't believe he we needed to "evolve" to perceive what is aesthetically pleasing; I think that's it's inherent in our makeup. When you see a sunset, or a mountain range, or hear the roar of the ocean, you have an intuitive sense of beauty and awe.