Now that some of us have defined "evidence" the next step in the process of looking for "Evidence of a designer" (of anything) is to define "design."

Before we start talking about evidence of a designer of this universe, lets see if we can first outline a method of determining intentional and intelligent design from accidental or natural design.

Also, what is natural design or "nature?"

Define "design."

Is it only a design because we, the observer say it is or are some designs evidence of intelligence?

<----- evidence of a designer

the only design i want to discuss is a beer bottle design to forget how sorry and mean some people are..

anyway......

Just for some sort of starting point...

Definition of "design" from dictionary.com: "an outline, sketch, or plan, as of the form and structure of a work of art, an edifice, or a machine to be executed or constructed."

You will never figure out the answer to this, only the believers believe in "Gods design" and the unbelievers believe it happened naturally, which is utterly absurd Of course, I guess there could be some other "higher power" that did it, like aliens.

We are NOT discussing the designer of the universe in this thread. This is just about defining "design."

design is intention, if nature had a intention it would probably be entropy, but i don't think it does.

Would it be safe to say that "nature" (whatever that is) had the intention of Life?

I have asked a few people to please define "nature" but have not gotten much except "natural processes."

Is Life a "natural process" of the universe? If so, why?

i would assume nature, is tangibility. but in regards to organic nature, and it's intention for life, i would have to say rather than things progress with intent, things that don't progress creates this artificial view of progression in contrast to things that do progress in this pool of all assumed possibilities, i guess its like saying the car isn't going forward just that everything else went back. in this case life, is a "natural process" or at least one that worked. i hope this makes sense lol i know it might be a bit rambling.

Well, technically, if design is taken to mean "That which was created with intent". Then we're kind of stuck with that definition.

However, if we are permitted to offer our own intuitive ideas concerning design, I would suggest that one possibly definition could be "Design is anything which is not happenstance".

Of course, this then leads to the question of "What constitutes happenstance?".

And this bring us to Shakespeare and the monkeys.




Monkeys Accidentally typing Out Hamlet?

It is often said that, given enough time, monkeys typing randomly on typewriters would eventually type out Hamlet purely by accident. However, this mathematical prediction is based on the following two assumptions:

1. The monkeys are truly typing randomly. (that's probably not going to be the case with realm monkeys anyway)

2. The typewriters were indeed designed. (i.e. the typewriters themselves contains the complete alphabet and not just random happenstance symbols).

So here we see that even in this mathematical model, the design of the typewriter is already a paramount factor.

Now let's take this to the universe:



The Universe Accidentally Typing Out Humans

Given enough time, would the universe accidentally involved into humans? Well, before we can ask that question we must ask what the universe is made of? Is it like a typewriter? Does it only contain a limited and specific alphabet?

The answer seems to be a definite, YES!

As far as we can tell this universe if made of only about (approximately) 100 naturally occurring elements. That's a bit more than a 26-letter alphabet, but not much more. Only 4 times more, and still a small enough number that even mere humans can count to 100 easily. If you've every rolled pennies you know that counting to 100 goes really quick.

So in a sense, the universe itself is like a "pre-designed" typewriter. It only contain so many 'characters' to work with. In fact, 100 elements is truly an extremely small number of elements if you stop and think about it. Especially considering that there are over 70 sextillion stars just in the observable part of the universe itself.

Well, does this mean that the universe was designed? Perhaps not. But, for me, it brings up the very serious question of why a happenstance universe would be based on such a very small "alphabet". I would personally not expect that to be the case in a happenstance universe. But I confess that this is merely a personal view.



Well, from my point of view, what we call natural design or "nature" is to simply accept the fact that this universe is only made of about 100 basic elements that connect together in very specific ways. We have recognized this limited pool of recourses and call the study of it "chemistry" and "physics".

Then we simply say that anything these elements would 'naturally do' (even if randomly), would be considered to be a "natural process".

But that whole view just accepts the "Universal Typewriter" without questioning why it only contains the characters that it does. Would it be "natural" for a universe to only contain 100 elements? That's a question we can't answer because we have no clue what 'nature' means outside of the context of this universe. From our point of view, the universe is 'natural' just the way it is simply because we have come to accept that it is what it is without questioning why or how it could be this way.

I like what Stephen Hawking had to say about this.

"Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?" - Stephen Hawking

In a sense he's asking, "Who designed the universal typewriter and where did it come from?"

So anyway, this whole post has been the mere opinion of an random Earthling.

damn abra, pretty much a pro. i completely agree lol

Somthing that's always bothered me about the "natural" workings of the univers is the bi-sexual reproduction thing.

How the heck could evolution develop a system whereby two separate lifeforms had to come together and exchange parts in order to give rise to another lifeform?

It just seems completely backward. Asexual reproduction is simpler, more efficient and more dependable. So how/why could something that simple and efficient evolve into something so random and complex, yet so universal?

Anyway, for me, that is probably the most baffling of all "natural" processes to explain without some sort of "design" involved.

Bisexual reproduction is actaully more efficient for evolution and bio-diversity.



When we find the people responsible for this design we should just hang them immediately without a trial.

I would still like an acceptable and agreed upon (unlikely) definition of "design."

When we see a painting or work of art we call it a design because we know that there is some intent or intelligence behind it.

So why is it that when we see designs in nature and DNA etc. we call it natural or evolution?

Some claim that your thoughts and attitudes and beliefs can effect your health? If that is so why wouldn't these things also effect and even change your DNA?

How does intelligence and creativity arise out of mindless elements?

I think thats a reasonable statement, based on those scientific principles which are currently well established.

I think one day there will be 'laws of information' the same way we have 'laws of thermodynamics'. The 'laws of information' will codify the anti-entropic ability that information can have, when its organized a certain way.

And at that point in our future, someone in your position might look at those laws and say 'if nature had an intention, it would probably be to create organized information, but i don't think it does'.

At first I thought you referred to those organisms that alternative morphologies with each generation - oh, and chromosome count haploid/diploid.

But if you mean simply sexual reproduction - obviously, it offers the opportunity to accelerate evolution, by creating greater variety. Asexual beings also do this, with the exchange of genetic material, but its far more effective amongst the sexual.

The dependability which you site as an advantage for asexual is both an advantage and a disadvantage.

Yes, because we have seen paintings being painted - we understand how paintings are done, and know that the doers are similar to us, and we believe we have intent, so we ascribe intent to the doers, and say there is 'intent' behind painting.

But it would be foolish to assume intent in the case of a tree, simply because we believe there is intent in the case of a picture.



(sigh) JB, why don't you start studying this topic? Get a good book on it! As far as I know, there is no short and simple answer to this question. There are questions out there for which a bit of study is necessary before you can understand the answer.




Very interesting. Personally, I believe that it does. There is no evidence to support this, but it makes sense to me. All of evolution makes a lot more sense to me if you add in the idea that some species may encourage the modification of their genes under certain circumstances.

In order to image a part our bodies on that level and at a reasonable price, we need to isolate it, section it, cause it to cease moving, etc.... we cannot see exactly whats going on in when it comes to the activities of our genes, we have to infer.




I just tried to visualize what I would consider a 'decently complete' answer to that question.... and I saw thousands of books on a shelf.

Some people might think you are being rhetorical... but taking that at face value - that is such a huge question! I think a key part of the answer is the simple fact that enzymes exist which are capable of replicating their own structure. Once you have information with the ability to duplicate itself, the possibility of intelligence deriving from 'mindless elements' is born.

Studying what topic? Nature? Evolution? I have nothing against evolution, but I don't know what people mean when they say "nature did it."

I'm not looking for a short and simple answer to everything. Primarily I want a definition for DESIGN.

How can we look at a thing and determine that it is a DESIGN?

That is the main subject of this thread.

The rest of my questions are just food for thought.

massagetrade said:



So are you saying, that an enzyme has absolutely zero intelligence and yet it can duplicate itself? If this is what you are saying, then why doesn't a rock duplicate itself?

What is it that an enzyme has that a rock does not have that it can duplicate itself; and what do you think drives anything to duplicate itself?

As best I can tell, all definitions of "design" depemd on some sort of intention or purpose to manipulate components. That seems to be the only difference between "design" and "happenstance".

If nobody wanted it to happen, it was just "happenstance". If someone wanted it to happen, it was "designed".

And even then, if what happened was not what was intended, it is not considered "design" but "accident".

There just doesn't seem any way to remove the concept of intention/purpose and still have "design". Once you do, it is no longer design. It's accident or randomity or happenstance.