Question 3: Detecting Design

[Simon]

The search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) is a scientific research program that looks for signs of intelligence from distant space.

[1] Should biologists likewise be looking for signs of intelligence in biological systems?

[2] Why or why not?

[3] Could actual intelligent design in biological systems be scientifically detectable?

[2 and 92]

The search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) is a scientific research program that looks for signs of intelligence from distant space.

[1] Should biologists likewise be looking for signs of intelligence in biological systems?

[2] Why or why not?

[3] Could actual intelligent design in biological systems be scientifically detectable?

They have looked, no sign on intelligent design has yet to be found.

[Simon]

You didn't answer any of the questions... yet you quoted what is directly above your post. Curious.

[Lotan]

Please be aware that the argument put forth on this thread belongs to William Dembski.

[The Hungry Atheist]

[1] Should biologists likewise be looking for signs of intelligence in biological systems?

I'm not sure quite how one would decide what biologists "should" be looking for, but I imagine that if they consider this to be something worth investigating, possibly because they've found some evidence which might suggest it, or maybe just on a hunch, they'll go ahead and follow it up, and I have no objection to that.

[2] Why or why not?

It's worth looking into if anybody cares to do so, sure, but constantly repeating the investigation just because it hasn't turned up any positive results yet would soon become a waste of time. They might look for these signs and decide there probably are none, in short.

[3] Could actual intelligent design in biological systems be scientifically detectable?

If it's not detectable, then it would be most reasonable to assume that it's not there, whatever the case may be. I don't know, though, whether it would be detectable, because I'm not sure what we'd expect it to look like, and at what point it's reasonable to decide that something is unlikely to have come about by chance, and is more likely to have been designed.

[2 and 92]

You didn't answer any of the questions... yet you quoted what is directly above your post. Curious.

I answered them, you just have to read and think a little. Here I will break it down for you.

You asked if they should look. I tell you they have and some are still doing so.

Why is of no importance since someone has already decided to look.

You ask if such a system would be detectable, since some one is looking someone must think they are detectable.

I answer your questions, you turn around and tell me that I have not and try to insinuate something with your "curious" remark. How Christian of you.

[perfessor]

The search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) is a scientific research program that looks for signs of intelligence from distant space.

[1] Should biologists likewise be looking for signs of intelligence in biological systems?

[2] Why or why not?

[3] Could actual intelligent design in biological systems be scientifically detectable?

Tip-toeing in on eggshells, to add my $.02: What is intelligence? How would you determine whether a system was intelligent or not? If anyone were to go looking for signs of intelligence in biological systems, one would have to know what one was looking for, wouldn't one?

I think of intelligence, speaking very generally, as an ability to modify behavior in response to circumstances. An intelligent creature can assimilate new ideas or information; while less intelligent ones will reject, or not notice, changing situations. If we think beyond the individual level - even beyond the species level - perhaps, just maybe, evolution itself might be the sign of intelligence you seek.

Okay, so maybe that was $.03 worth.

[Dilettante]

Funny, when we say that the universe appears designed, we almost always mean "designed to have us in it" or "designed for us". If the universe turned out to have been designed for some other beings, and we happened to be living on this marginal planet because we were considered too stupid, what a surprise would that be...
Now seriously, how on earth could we detect design, supposing it existed?
If the designer or designers possess a much superior intelligence, could we ever tell? Can my dog tell that my watch is designed while a rock isn't?
Designed or not, could the universe appear any different to us? I doubt it.

[Jose]

Designed or not, could the universe appear any different to us? I doubt it.

Oooh. That's deep. And, of course, correct.

Of course it looks to us like everything was designed just for us. We're here, and things work pretty well to support us. If we weren't so self-centered, we might recognize that there are other possibilities than having everything prepared Just For Me.

It's partly a problem of hubris. It's also partly the result of looking backwards, rather than forwards. Did Ol' Sue, the T. rex, stand there thinking, "Yep, I'm here just to mark time until the real Lords of the World show up" and then Whammo, the meteor did her in? No. She was the Carnivore Supreme, and to her, the entire universe was designed just for her.

So, let's look at it from Sue's standpoint. What's going to happen next? No one knows. It all depends on the vagaries of environmental conditions (in this case, including that darned meteor), and chemical thermodynamics, and probably chaos as well. Some cosmic rays damaged some DNA molecules. Some individual organisms were born with mutations that made them just a little bit different from their siblings. Selection happened to favor some individuals and not others. The things that are alive today are the ones that made it through the gauntlet of history. Of course they're pretty well adapted to where they live.

So, yeah...evolution produces things that look kinda like they might have been designed. What the ID folks overlook is the nutty stuff that would make you fire the designer--like the prostate that wraps around the urethra, making it harder and harder to pee as the prostate enlarges with age. ...like the female cycle, which makes sense if we think of it as a rapid-fire version of the much slower "normal" mammalian cycle, but is really strange for an "intelligent" designer. ...like eyeballs that stretch with use, so that we can induce ourselves to become nearsighted (a pretty dumb thing if you need to see the lion before it gets close enough to eat you). ...like being born with our brains only partly developed, so we're totally incompetent for the first years. ...and, of course, like peanuts, which happily flower and start to develop seeds, and then have the seeds dive into the ground and hide as if they'd been designed by the team at Mad Magazine.

But surely, the criterion for "intelligent design" can't possibly be that we don't currently understand something's history. That just shows that we don't know everything...which brings us back to hubris. "If I, personally, don't know everything about X, then it must be that X was designed by God." Now there's a theory we should teach in our schools instead of science!