Taking ID a step further: IGD

[Beleth]

The main tenet of Intelligent Design is that life is too complex to have just happened, right?

I'd like to propose a new hypothesis: that life is so complex that it is even too complex to have been designed by one entity.

I call this hypothesis Intelligent Group Design.

And I think the evidence (read "common sense") bears me out. Consider:

- We can observe something as minute as a difference in handwriting, and determine that different people wrote different things.
- There are glaring differences between living things. A liver, for instance, looks nothing like a fern.
- People specialize in things. The more of a specialist one is, the better one typically is at doing that thing.
- Living things are, as a rule, well designed. They actually work, and work for quite long periods of time. Barring the occasional faulty unit, even things as complex as brains continue to run adequately for 60-100 years straight.

It is therefore counterintuitive and, indeed, illogical, to think that one designer designed such obviously different, well designed, systems.

So since life couldn't come into existence by itself,
and it couldn't have been designed by just one designer,
the only conclusion is that life was created by a group of designers.


Comments?


(let's see who takes this seriously)

[kmortis]

Well, I for one could see this. I just have some caveats to add:
The Prime contractor farmed it out to multiple subcontractors. All either lowest bidders or friends of the Prime's CEO.
The specifications were never questioned by any of the subcons
Various subcons were given different specs, even when they were doing similar work
If I think of any more, I'll post them too....

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

You are correct, sir:

http://www.newyorker.com/shouts/content/articles/050926sh_shouts

~~ Paul

[CapelDodger]

You are correct, sir:

http://www.newyorker.com/shouts/content/articles/050926sh_shouts

~~ Paul
Love that link. Thanks muchly.

Re the thread : Life is definitely modular, which is another sign of group design.

[ChristineR]

Or why not just speculate that the whole thing was designed by random mutations and natural selection?

[Dr Adequate]

Clearly the marsupials were done by a whole different design team.

"Jeremy, hi -- about the 'pouch' idea. Love it! It's simple, it's robust ... you know we've got the contract to do Australia ... ?"

And Jeremy gets his big moment.

Has anyone else read Michael Frayn's Sweet Dreams?

[Beleth]

Or why not just speculate that the whole thing was designed by random mutations and natural selection?
That's just crazy talk!

[Crazytree]

I'm still sticking with the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

[Angus McPresley]

Well, I for one could see this. I just have some caveats to add:
The Prime contractor farmed it out to multiple subcontractors. All either lowest bidders or friends of the Prime's CEO.
The specifications were never questioned by any of the subcons
Various subcons were given different specs, even when they were doing similar work
If I think of any more, I'll post them too....


Sounds like the Special Theory of Bureaucratic Creation (http://www.skepticfiles.org/evolut/atheory2.htm).

[T'ai Chi]

I'd like to propose a new hypothesis: that life is so complex that it is even too complex to have been designed by one entity.


Some scenarios. --> means "creates"

time, chance--> life

god-->life

god1-->some life
god2-->some life

god1-->god2--> life

Your scenario seems to be the third one if I am understanding correctly.

[BJQ87]

The main tenet of Intelligent Design is that life is too complex to have just happened, right?

I'd like to propose a new hypothesis: that life is so complex that it is even too complex to have been designed by one entity.

I call this hypothesis Intelligent Group Design.

And I think the evidence (read "common sense") bears me out. Consider:

- We can observe something as minute as a difference in handwriting, and determine that different people wrote different things.
- There are glaring differences between living things. A liver, for instance, looks nothing like a fern.
- People specialize in things. The more of a specialist one is, the better one typically is at doing that thing.
- Living things are, as a rule, well designed. They actually work, and work for quite long periods of time. Barring the occasional faulty unit, even things as complex as brains continue to run adequately for 60-100 years straight.

It is therefore counterintuitive and, indeed, illogical, to think that one designer designed such obviously different, well designed, systems.

So since life couldn't come into existence by itself,
and it couldn't have been designed by just one designer,
the only conclusion is that life was created by a group of designers.


Comments?


(let's see who takes this seriously)


Here's the problem I have with this idea.

This is like saying- I look at one apple, and it is different than another apple, they're different, therefore they must be created by a different god.

Why is this parallel to saying that because things in the universe are different there must be more than one god? Because otherwise there is some kind of limit, or borderline of how different things in reality have to be before it is considered to be made by more than one god. It seems absurd that there be a set limit to this.

This could also be saying "Why wouldn't there be a god of each of these two animals, since they are sooooooooo different? On the other hand, these two apples are only soooo different, therefore they don't have different creators."

So being, I suggest that there can either be no god, one god, or an infinite amount of gods. There cannot be 24 gods or 100,008 gods.

[T'ai Chi]

I'd like to propose a new hypothesis: that life is so complex that it is even too complex to have been designed by one entity.


And I know your note at the bottom is there... but in any case :), assuming that natural causes are not the only thing responsible for life, we know that designers have their own 'signature' on things typically.

Being that DNA is present in all life, and not DNA in some life and something else in other life, viewing this as the 'signature', this would point towards one designer, not multiple designers.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Some scenarios. --> means "creates"
You forgot:

god(s) --> natural laws --> evolution --> life

~~ Paul

[Dr Adequate]

Being that DNA is present in all life... This is not true.

[T'ai Chi]

This is not true.

I assume you're talking about some viruses that just contain RNA?

From wikipedia under "viruses"

"Viruses are considered non-living because they do not follow the definition of life."

So your argument wouldn't apply to what I said of DNA being found in all life.

[Mercutio]

I think Dr. A. can probably speak for himself, but I can think of other reasons.

[Wowbagger]

I happen to like this idea! It's not scientifically valid, of course. But, as a philosophy it offers a better model than pure ID. Anything that renders pure ID as less helpful is all right by me!
It's just too bad IGD can't be tested.

[Beleth]

This is like saying- I look at one apple, and it is different than another apple, they're different, therefore they must be created by a different god. No it isn't. It isn't anything like that at all. Your example is like saying- here's Beethoven's First Symphony, and here's Beethoven's Ninth Symphony; they are different pieces of music, therefore they must be created by different composers.

There is a difference between the difference between "this apple" and "that apple" and the difference between "an apple" and "a gazelle".

Why is this parallel to saying that because things in the universe are different there must be more than one god? Because otherwise there is some kind of limit, or borderline of how different things in reality have to be before it is considered to be made by more than one god. It seems absurd that there be a set limit to this. Of course there's a limit, and its existence is directly observable. There are lots of composers who have written more than one song. On the other hand, there are no composers who are also space station designers, brain surgeons, and multinational television personalities.

Where the limit is exactly may be unknown, but its existence is undisputable.

So being, I suggest that there can either be no god, one god, or an infinite amount of gods. There cannot be 24 gods or 100,008 gods. Sure there can.

[BJQ87]

There is a difference between the difference between "this apple" and "that apple" and the difference between "an apple" and "a gazelle".

Therefore based on this idea there would have to be different gods for the gorilla and the ape. Since you seem to be saying here that the limit is within the species? Why is this the limit then?

Why not a god of mammals, and a god of fishies, and a god of reptiles, and a god of birds? These are different, yet have things in common. Why wouldn't there be a god of each molecule? Of each atom? Of each proton? Of whatever it is that makes up the proton?

[Roboramma]

Therefore based on this idea there would have to be different gods for the gorilla and the ape. Since you seem to be saying here that the limit is within the species? Why is this the limit then?

Why not a god of mammals, and a god of fishies, and a god of reptiles, and a god of birds? These are different, yet have things in common. Why wouldn't there be a god of each molecule? Of each atom? Of each proton? Of whatever it is that makes up the proton?

I don't know, why wouldn't there be?

[Beleth]

Therefore based on this idea there would have to be different gods for the gorilla and the ape. Since you seem to be saying here that the limit is within the species? Why is this the limit then? Um, actually if you read what I wrote you're realize that that's not what I'm saying. I am leaving the exact dividing line unspecified.

Why not a god of mammals, and a god of fishies, and a god of reptiles, and a god of birds? These are different, yet have things in common. This is a great example of my hypothesis.

Why wouldn't there be a god of each molecule? Of each atom? Of each proton? Of whatever it is that makes up the proton? Two reasons:

1) At a certain level (subatomic particles for sure, atoms and simple molecules arguably), everything is identical. Not just similar; identical. There would be no need to hypothesize a different creator for identical things.

2) According to my understanding of ID, such things are not complex enough to be unexplainable by chance.

[meg]

Yup. I think you've really hit on something. It really is the only explanation for some of this stuff. For instance, why can't any of the animal species communicate with each other? Obviously, because the project manager wasn't paying much attention or thinking ahead. We've got legacy systems unable to talk to the newer modules. There's no coherent bind for any of it. And geesh.. talk about poor planning. Any project manager with half a brain would have seen that some things, like digestive systems, for example, should be open source. If we all had the same digestive system it would be SO much simpler and easier to get along. Why have some species eat only grass while others only eat meat and still others living off plankton or even dirt. Obviously, these designers were more interested in protecting their intellectual property than creating a really good stable ecosystem. I'll bet you $100 the meat eater designers were more interested in protecting their grasseater production contract than anything else, there.

And some ideas really should have been carried over to all the other species. Opposable thumbs, prehensile tails, gills and pouches come immediately to mind. Who wouldn't want those? Nobody, that's who. I know I sure do. Great ideas, those. Should have been carried forth in *all* the species.

Obviously there were some real stinkers, too. I would love to see the business requirement docs that asked for ticks. Who came up with that one? Did they even vote? Or maybe nobody showed up for that meeting.

Yep. I think you're totally right, Beleth. Our planet is most definitely the result of an ill formed unfocused committee.

Maybe even a class project. A lesson showing the dangers of anarchy, perhaps.

Meg

[Dr Adequate]

So the old joke about a mouse being an elephant designed by a committee ...

Many a true word, eh?

[Dr Adequate]

From wikipedia under "viruses"

"Viruses are considered non-living because they do not follow the definition of life." That depends entirely on who's doing the considering and the defining.

[Dr Adequate]

On the other hand, there are no composers who are also space station designers, brain surgeons, and multinational television personalities. Maybe we're just too modest to mention it ...

[Beleth]

Maybe we're just too modest to mention it ... Yeah, that's why I included "multinational television personality" in that list -- to eliminate that possibility.

[BJQ87]

Two reasons:

1) At a certain level (subatomic particles for sure, atoms and simple molecules arguably), everything is identical. Not just similar; identical. There would be no need to hypothesize a different creator for identical things.

2) According to my understanding of ID, such things are not complex enough to be unexplainable by chance.
--
Being that DNA is present in all life, and not DNA in some life and something else in other life, viewing this as the 'signature', this would point towards one designer, not multiple designers.

[Dcdrac]

Oh here we again the quantum level being applied where it really ahs no place or meaning.

[Beleth]

Going back to the original source:
Being that DNA is present in all life, and not DNA in some life and something else in other life, viewing this as the 'signature', this would point towards one designer, not multiple designers. But viewing DNA as the canvas, and not the signature, points toward multiple designers.

Let me couch the argument in different terms:
Being that oil paint is present in all oil paintings, this would point towards one painter, not multiple painters.
Beng that all computer programs are written on computers, this would point towards one programmer, not multiple programmers.

See?