Back to the Future

If you were to find a computer monitor in the woods, would you conclude that you've come across something that was produced by chance? Or would you conclude that this is a computer monitor that someone built and you just happened to come across?

Now if you came across something like a frog in the woods, would you conclude that someone designed it, or that it came about by a product of chance? A frog is far more complex than a computer monitor. If a computer monitor required someone to design and build it, wouldn't a frog have required someone to design and build it?

Thank you for your response Bd...

It resembles Liebnitz' Cosmological Argument...

Your argument has a fatal flaw. There is ample evidence that supports an evolving path for life. So much so that it is easy enough to show this progression through time.

This has no bearing to the idea that the universe could have been conceived by intelligence. However, given all we know about life on this planet, the fact that a frog exists in the woods by no means supports the argument that it must have been designed by some higher intelligence.

Furthermore, most (if not all) of the argument for intelligence design rests on the premiss that because we can not explain something (either completely or at a level the average uninformed person can understand) it must be magic or by divine providence.

That argument is a total fallacy because:

1. there is no evidence that our understanding of the universe is anything close to being complete.

2. it was not but a 200 years ago that the idea of man flying was considered impossible, let alone walking on the Moon. Things that we technologically take for granted today would have been considered magic or the work of gods (or devil) a few centuries ago. To believe that we have all the answers or a significant grasp on all there is to know is patently naive.

So, to think that just because something is extraordinarily complex it must therefore be designed by God or some other intelligence is an absolutely unfounded argument.

Is the origin of the universe due to intelligent design or chance?

This particular question is subjective and logically 'provable' (through the use of arguments, logic, etc) by both camps, just not definitively.

The interesting thing is the more we learn about the universe around us the more we realise the universe is so much more than than we realised.

Who's to say that the universe was not just plain inevitable. Who's to say that people in the distant future might look back on us and think what a bunch of primitives we were and how obvious the answer was (Galileo anyone).

We still have not learned from our mistakes (and probably never will).

Thanks for your response Jack

However, I missed your position....

Design or chance?

Best Regards,

K

Really had to have a think about this one as I am sort of in both camps to varying degrees.

If I had to make a choice then given all available data I would have to say the origin of the universe was caused by chance. However this does not mean intelligent design doesn't exist in some form.

_{Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic - Arthur C. Clarke}

_{Any sufficiently advanced concept is indistinguishable from religion - Jack}

I am not am intelligent designer. The term now has more than one meaning. I don't believe those words should be capitalized in any case, as you have done.

I believe your question has religious overtones.

Good luck.

Lyn

Thank you for your reply...

You are most probably the most prolific contributor to this forum, and I respect your opinion immensly.

I must however take offense to your statement that my question signifies "religious overtones"

Did a superior intelligence design "gravity" or is it the product of chance?

I would never impose my religious beliefs or affiliations upon this forum, I wish only to have your thoughts and opinions..

Warmest Personal Regards,

K

I take exception to the term Intelligent Design, nothing else.

If you had referred to the members as intelligent designers, in the lower case, I would not have responded.

Maybe I'm too sensitive.

Cheers.

I gave a musical example in which design and chance could coexist nicely. But, like you, I do not think this applies to biology or evolution. In that realm, I don't think there is any real design at all. But as I also said, chance does not act alone; the facts of biochemistry include the fortuitous "finding" of chemically stable arrangements, which can then be preserved and propagated. In that regard, you might think of pop beads. There are some kinds that push together quite easily, but are harder to pull apart. Not a bad analogy for chemical stability.

A full development of this would be too lengthy for a blog context like this. Many of the issues are covered nicely by various works of Richard Dawkins. Unfortunately, it takes several of his books (or those of other biologists) even to begin to get a comprehensive picture. Thus I hesitate to make any single recommendation.

That is also one of the problems with a quickie poll of A versus B; the whole issue is much more complex and subtle than that. Trying to oversimplify things just throws a monkey wrench into suitable discussion. You might not have intended that, but it is pretty much what happened.

Dear Tornado, Thank you for your response.

Perhaps I have given a "Have you stopped beating your Wife" dillemna..[sic]

This was not my intent, as I remain of the position that Design And Random Happenstance are most usually ,mutally exclusive..

I can most definitely agree with your postulations regarding "chance influencing design" but does Design influence chance? this is a much more bitter pill for me to swallow,

In any event,

Best Wishes and I welcome and respect your thoughts and opinions,

K

Not by design.

Nor by chance alone (that is a false dichotomy spawned by deceivers).

But, chance plus the fact that some combinations of molecules can "lock together" in stable ways that can result in copies. There is no brief way to explain all details, even if they were known, which they aren't yet.

Technically that is the same way I feel. Chance within the limiting boundaries of the universe (that have a tendency to create rather than destroy).

Hooray for the concept of gravity which makes it all possible when you really think about it.

Chance it is, but I do envy SOBs that "believe" otherwise. S.M.

Is the origin of the universe due to intelligent design or chance?

Probably.

Both.

Easy. Imagine a music composer using dice or the I Ching to pick the next note of a piece, listening to hear if it "works" or not, and then either accepting it or trying again. The result would combine elements of chance and elements of choice.

I specifically do NOT suggest that both positions are accurate; but I did give a non-biological scenario that could involve both randomness and design.

Ketchikan does not usually get much snow (lots of rain, though). This winter was about avarage for us, maybe a foot or so total, including a dusting in the last few days. Some areas northwest of us (e.g., Cordova) got about 20 feet this year.

I did not say that chance and design are mutually exclusive; on the contrary, I gave a musical example combining both.

It might be conceivable that biology involves both, also, but I have never seen any decent evidence for design, especially "Intelligent Design," in biology. Plenty of evidence otherwise, though.

You did not respond to post 6. Instead, you have only been babbling. Maybe you are not from the U.S., but here the term "Intelligent Design" is just loaded to the gills with religious implications. For you to be "offended" by Lyn's pointing this out is unspeakably naive. Are you trying to play Sergeant Schultz, or what?

I am not looking for "obedient servants"; that implication is offensive. Instead, you need to follow cogent evidence and arguments, and respond cogently. You may also need to select better reading materials.

I appologiize for any offense I have given you or lyn..

It has not been my intention to offend by my posting..

I posited what one COULD consider a simple question.

If I have offended you in any way,please accept my sincerest apologies

I merely sought your opinion, which is yours and yours alone and is sacred to you, if you choose to express it,fine, if you choose to withold it,fine ...

Best Regards,

K

Please stop apologizing, you have as much right to post your question in your terms as we have of answering it in our terms.

We have theme parks here that illustrate Intelligent Design, they have dinosaurs coexisting with humans:

This will give you an idea of why the reaction Admittedly, that is Creation, but it's the same thing under an alias.

That may be an attempt to be ingratiating or obsequious, but is it not cogent.

Given the laden context of the original question, it cannot be considered "simple."

No one is interested in apologies or servants; it is all about evidence and argument, but you keep beating around the bush. I'm beginning to think that the OP is just a troll question. Or a mere poll, which is useless.

All of this has already been explained, but it seems that you don't actually read what I write, nor do you respond appropriately.

1. Your original question is uncogent because it ignores critical context.

2. Whether you mean to be obsequious, etc., is irrelevant; it is how you actually behave that counts.

3. As I said before, your question is not simple.

4. Thank you for your permission to withhold my response; but I will not avail myself of that offer.

5. Given the context, your original question is monumentally silly, and well worth demeaning. If you have a problem with that, ask better questions, and provide better answers. So far you are still only babbling.

Because of your lack of appropriate responses (whether to agree, challenge, or request useful clarification), I now consider your questions to be offensively silly. I refuse to explain further, because you have ignored all explanations thus far.

what responses do you await?

why do you require informatiion from me? i posited a question to CR4 you did not answer it you did nothing other than engage in argunentum ad hominem

I asked for CR 4 members to merely state their opinion on intelligent design or random chance.... I did not assume a judgemental role in this ...

You are making no sense with me ...

I don t Know how to respond

I posited a question which you are free to reply to or ignore...

Your question is a road to nowhere.

Random or design? I hope this helps to clear up my response of "both".

Quartz crytals and snowflakes are the simplest illustration I can present.

Good luck on your quest.

"Is the origin of the universe due to intelligent design or chance?

There is no need to defend your opinions or thoughts on this question."

Sorry, this is not of interest, the reasoning behind the answer is of infinitely more importance (and interest) than the answer itself.

Here is my difficulty: The universe happened, we don't know if it is a one-off or cyclical but it doesn't matter which. The circumstances that allowed for the initial appearance must have existed prior to the appearance. That leaves open the chance that the universe might not have appeared so let us say:

Chance

But, whether time was being measured or not, in an infinity of time, surely anything that could happen, must happen eventually. So let's say it was bound to happen:

Design

Now, who or what set up the circumstances that permitted...

I've had other streams of thought wherein I wonder if the universe does exist, or if it just me and my imagination telling a story. Perhaps it is in between, like Schrödinger's cat.

p.s. I agree with lyn, "Intelligent Designers" carries so much baggage that I don't want to be associated with that label.

"....in an infinity of time, surely anything that could happen, must happen eventually....."

Passingtongreen: This is argument is flawed in that it ignores (or misunderstands) the role of possibilities that have an infinitesimal chance of occurring.

An event that has an infinitesimal chance of occurring cannot be guaranteed with certainty to occur, even over an infinite amount of time, and yet it cannot be guaranteed not to occur either.

I don't think this distinction weighs noticeably on your excellent points.

Any event that does not happen over an infinite amount of times must have a zero percent chance of happening.

I think it is kind of silly to rationalize chance looking back from one hypothetical outcome. Once you know that outcome it isn't really chance anymore....

Let's consider it from this side....

A coin with 50:50 odds of heads or tails is flipped. What are the chances that it only lands on heads for 1000 flips? 1,000,000 flips? As the number of flips increases toward the infinite, does chance of continuing to land only on heads actually get to zero, or does it just approach zero.

If it actually gets to zero, at what number of flips does it occur?

If it merely approaches zero (leaving an infinitesimally small chance of only flipping heads) then that leaves the possibility that tails might never be flipped, and yet I doubt you would argue that there was no chance of tails ever.

If you still have trouble with the idea that the chance only approaches zero, simply imagine an infinite number of coins being flipped at the same time. How likely is it that one out of all those coins will always land on heads? Remember, an infinite number of coins.

It only approaches an asymptote. For example, take the number one and divide by 2. Will it ever become zero? No, but it gets very close.

My point was, anything that has the probability of happening, no matter how remote, will happen if given an infinite number of chances to happen. That could be over time or iterations.

You originally stated it as having a very small chance of an event happening over the course of infinity. Infinity is a little longer than simply a long time.

The exact quote is, "An event that has an infinitesimal chance of occurring cannot be guaranteed with certainty to occur, even over an infinite amount of time, and yet it cannot be guaranteed not to occur either."

That means the best we can say is we can not predict when it will happen, but it will happen given an infinite amount of time because it has a probability greater than zero.

I know you are smart enough to understand this.

There are numerous situation where the sum of an infinite set of nonzero possibilities approaches a limit that is less than 100%.

Consider something that can be accurately modeled as having 1/2^n chance of occurring where n is the number of the iteration..... starting with 1 on the initial, 2 on the next.....

so... 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32 + 1/64...... you never reach 100%

if that is too close for you to call, then consider the model as 1/5^n... that should be easy.

It doesn't need to be 100%.

A coin toss has a 50% chance of ending up heads, well, assuming it doesn't stand on edge. Given enough flips it will end up heads, statistically.

Each time it is flipped it still has a 50% chance of it ending up heads. Those odds never change with each flip.

If the probability of an event is 1 in 10^-1000, given enough iterations it will happen.

While we can predict the likelihood of that event to happen over the course of 10^1000 iterations we can not say when that will happen.

In the example you originally cited, the probability was non-zero and the number of iterations or time was infinite.

Since the time and/or iterations was open ended (infinite) the likelihood of the event happening must be 100%. We just can't predict when.

Maybe you intended something different in your post, but the way it was worded mandates that the event will happen.

I guess I did not make obvious enough the point of my first example. My original example provides two mutually exclusive non zero probabilities for the same event(s).

You chose correctly stating the chance of never flipping a certain side of the coin does no reach zero but merely approaches zero.

To make it easy, assume an infinite number of coins is flipped each time.

One of those infinite coins, according to your logic (any non-zero chance over infinite iterations, in this case coins), should always land on the same side.

Now if this is possible with an infinite number of coins, it is also possible with a smaller number of coins. In fact it is possible with just one coin, even if highly improbable.

And that coin disproves your argument because it means the other side of the coin which certainly had a non-zero probability of occurring would not occur over an infinite number of iteration, which is exactly what you said could not occur.

You cannot have it both ways.

Let me state this a little simpler.

The likelihood of an event over time or iteration is directly proportional to the probability of that event.

Therefore, if the probability is non-zero the likelihood must also be non-zero.

With an infinite number of coins flipping an infinite number of times all possible combinations would have be possible, but I wouldn't wait around for it to happen. :)

May I make the remark that being a probability it could happen at the 1st (first) trial.

It is more "probable" it will not be the case but this possibility should NOT be neglected.

This is not very well understood that when we deal with probabilities the phenomenon can happen at any moment it is not necessary to make 10.000 tosses to obtain the other side if the probability is 1/10000!

True. That is why I selected the words likelihood and probability carefully.

In this context the probability applies to a single event and likelihood applies to the whole sequence of events bounded by time, in this case infinity.

The comment was not in fact for you but for those who misunderstand the notion of "probable".

I hat to bond it to some other comment and yours was the best choice.

Okay. I am honored. :)

I'm sorry but you are wrong. If we wait long enough for any better-than-zero probability event, it will happen. An infinity of time is long enough.

Some strictly defined event X has one chance of occurring each year accurately modeled as 1 chance in 10^y where y is 1 the first year and increase by one each successive year.

So, 10% chance the first year + 1% chance the second year + 0.1% chance the third year + 0.01% chance the fourth year + .......

Carry that out as far as it takes you to understand that the total chance of occurrence starting from the beginning over an infinite period will never even get to 12% much less become a certainty.

Your model has nothing in common with the proposition:

Any event with a non-zero probability of occurrence, will occur in an infinity of time.

Are you suggesting that the probability I outlined is something other than non-zero?

I'm not even asking you to look it up. Just look at the example I have laid out for you and assess what occurs as the number of years gets very large.

For your statement to be true, you need constraints besides just 'non-zero'. 'Non-infinitesimal' and 'non-diminishing' might work.

Just so long as the sum of the chances does not approach some a limit that is less than 100%, otherwise you cannot say it is certain to occur even over an infinite time.

Remember studying Limits?

You introduced "non-diminishing" and, in doing so, took the problem into a different realm. My statement was to a certain probability; I don't need to specify non-diminishing because any change would produce a probability other than the "certain probability" under consideration. Your ball game is played to different rules.

I am "lost" in this coin toss argument. My understanding is that the probable outcome of a coin toss is ALWAYS 50/50 irrespective of what the previous tosses outcomes have delivered. ( and discarding the possibility that the coin lands on its edge, as stated by Anonymous Hero on an earlier post)

Is it reasonable to assume that regardless of the number of previous tosses, and their outcomes that the next toss will be uninfluenced by past events.. each time we toss the coin we have a 50/50 probabilty of heads or tails.

It doesn t matter if it came up tails 2,000,000 consecutively on previous tosses...

we are no more closer to a heads out come than we were at the initial toss

Right or Wrong?

Not sure,just asking

I have responded to Passingtongreen's Post merely out of convenience

Correct.

However, when discussing probability trends or patterns in a sequence run, that is another matter. For instance, predicting the likelihood for the number of times that heads will appear sequentially without a tails is not a 50/50 chance, but dependent on the total number of tosses and the number for target heads strait runs.

Anonymos,

I am not convinced of your thought process...

the outcome of the next coin toss, occurs, completetly and irrespectfully of what ocurred in the past. ie previous coin tosses, agree or disagree?

Anonymous,

Your postulation sounds good!

but is the outcome of a coin toss influenced by the result of previous coin tosses

For some reason, I think not!!

This represents the Gambler's Dilemna !

It's funny that we deny intelligent design, and yet borrow designs from nature all the time, at which point, the design becomes intelligent...............................so I guess the answer is, intelligence cannot exist unless it is run through human consciousness. At least according to us...................it's only intelligent when it becomes our idea.

It's also funny that this thread is going to make the monthly "most popular" blog. Which may have been your intention from the start.

Kramarat;

Your opinion on this matter is far more important to me than making the" monthly most popular blog". I care little of " popularity", and even less, if it is on a "monthly" scale.

Best Regards,

K

I did not say that (or mean that).

Each toss by itself is a 50% chance.

However, if you would like to know what is the probability of heads coming up three times in a row depends on the total number of tosses made.

If only three tosses are made in total the probability that the three tosses would result in heads all three times is going to be 1 in 2^3 or 1 in 8.

the possible outcomes would be (0=tails):

000
001
010
100
011
110
101
111

Here is a challenge question for you. You make a total of 9 tosses. What are the odds of flipping a coin and getting all heads 9 times in a row (a total of 9 tosses)?

I agree with you to some extent...albeit the coin you are tossing has no memory and the outcome of its toss results remains 50/50 irregardless of any previous outcomes...

correct or incorrect, only our hairdresser knows for sure....

my greater concern is how this is all germain to my post!?!?!

You wrote, "my greater concern is how this is all germain to my post!?!?!"

Then I invite you to read my next post below. :)

I must admit, you may be noncommittal, but you are a somewhat " cool customer"

You wrote, "but is the outcome of a coin toss influenced by the result of previous coin tosses"

Let's go far down the rabbit hole for a minute.

Up until now we have been explaining things in the realm of pure mathematics and probability.

Would you be shocked to know that pure probability does not work in the real world? How might you ask can this be?

Well, enter the world of quantum physics. One thing that we know and have proved is that the act of observing an event will actually affect the event.

From Wikipedia:

"This is demonstrated in a common thought experiment using the double slit setup. Imagine a double slit experiment where quantum particles are fired towards the two slits. The quantum particles pass through the slits and hit a momentum sensor a distance of D behind the slits. The momentum sensor has the ability to be turned off and on via a pin which stops the movement of the sensor when it is hit by a quantum particle. When the pin is in place, no measurement of the momentum can take place. When the pin is removed, the sensor can recoil when struck by a quantum particle and by measuring the recoil determine from which slit the quantum particle came. If the pin is removed and we can detect from which slit the particle came, then the wave-like passage through both slits cannot occur and no interference pattern will develop. However if we put the pin in place, and can no longer determine from which slit the particle passes through, then an interference pattern can develop."

What this says that the act of observation changes the perceived outcome. Wow, that was weird!

This video may seem daffy, but it is very good at explaining this graphically.

Dr. Quantum

Now, going beyond this effect we could talk about how the observer can also influence the outcome based on what they are thinking, which renders pure probability somewhat incorrect. This is a little more abstract, but there is something to this beyond pure faith.

Wow! Here we are back to the original question of whether the universe has unfolded by chance or design. If consciousness can impact the outcome of events in the universe (at least to some small way that may not be easily measure), does that hint at an answer to your original question (I have been holding this card up my sleeve just to see what happens first).

You have all been most wonderful in contributing your thoughts and beliefs...

But I am merely asking you to make a statement, based on your own conclusions and assessments of the data... Is the Universe the product of inteligent design or chance occurences?

Thus far only Lyn has given a definitive response.. JD and Tornado provided "qualified responses" YET FEW OTHERS HAVE TAKEN A STANCE.. as I posted there is no need to support or defend your positions...

why have so many posters( and please believe me, I admire your responses... refrained from stating their position ) This post will run out of gas ,as all do,but it was set in motion only as a medium to set forth your opinions and beliefs,without the requirement to defend or support such..

Best Regards and Thank all of you for contributing,

k

Ah, Grasshopper. Is it really important what I (or anyone) thinks? When you consider your question who more does it matter to than you, yourself?

If it is truly unimpotant what you think....

Than why do you bother to do so?

To shine the light on the path.

Sometimes it is better to give someone a compass and let them chart their own course rather than simply drive them there and drop them off at the door.

I like to see the spark of inspiration in people and in turn the inspiration that gives me.

Kay, he is, I think, referring to forecasts made ahead of time, not affecting the individual coins.

If I have two dice (Sorry Mr. Richards, I know I should use ""two die"), they each have six faces. If I cast them together, there are thirty six possible combinations. I would forecast that over a series of thirty six cast test groups, snake eyes would occur ,on average, once per test group. I could say nothing about where they would occur within any of the test groups. I can also forecast that the number "six" will come up five times per test group but not say where in the test group.

Yes.

My dear friend,

I just feel that all of this flipping of coins and casting of die, is not germain to my question... random probabilities as the result of tossing coins or dice is a matter which all of us have some familiarity, granted...

My question is whether or not chance or design is the basis for the universe..

I used the can opener and automatic automobile transmission as simple analogies..

The designer of the mechanical can opener was not considering the outcome of tossed dice when he set about his work

nor were the dice considering the can opener when they were cast...

I simply asked the members of this forum to express their opions and or beliefs on the subject

Getting folks to say what they think is far more difficult than getting them to say why they think it...

All My Best

K

The thing is, you are asking a collection of rational people, the Asperger crowd, the Meyer-Briggs masterminds etc., to offer an opinion of something they know to be unknowable. You need to ask the question of managers, they are used to making decisions based on the information that they do have and not tear their hair out over the information they don't have.

Is the origin of the universe due to intelligent design or chance?

After all this it seems to boil down to Luck. That was so easy. God could do it

If it boils down to luck

then "chance " is your reasonable response...

however, if it boils down to design...

your answer must take a different encapsulation..

Let us put the problem in a slightly different way. In fact we do not deal with ONLY one combination (right or wrong as in the coin flip where one side is "right" and the other "wrong") but with the combination of MANY parameters which could lead to a STABLE or NOT STABLE system. If the system is not stable it will not survive which leads to a selection i.e. only STABLE systems will participate to further "toss". Even if the toss is not influenced by previous, systems still in the game depend on history.

In fact for all possible combinations the probability is 1 if the time is long enough. This is the point I wanted to stress in my 1st comment: influence of TIME.

What is "design" ? It is equivalent to say that all was planned before the start and then the question is why did the designer plan the failures ?

Here we come to religious aspects which are NOT object of this site.

You wrote, "What is "design" ? It is equivalent to say that all was planned before the start and then the question is why did the designer plan the failures ?"

That is but one definition. As humans we have, and often do, plan something and then sit back and see where it goes.

I submit to you that this is much more valuable (if not entertaining) than simply planning everything start to finish. Have you ever done something impulsively?

Additionally, if you knew every detail of how your life would unfold from start to finish, would you be satisfied with your life? Where do you want to be; on the leading edge of creation or following, step by step, some cookie cutter recipe for life?

The jewel of anticipation is not just knowing that there is a chance for something to happen, but to acknowledge that it may also not happen.

I agree but I wanted to exaggerate.

When one speaks about intelligent design then it is understood that the goal was known from the start. this was the reason for my exaggeration.

Do you agree with the rest of the comment ?

You wrote, "When one speaks about intelligent design then it is understood that the goal was known from the start."

Why is that so? What religiously preludes a simple roll of the dice from the start?

You wrote, "Do you agree with the rest of the comment ?"

I think I do.

To answer the OP, and the reason I said "both" way back when in the thread. Yes, I believe that intelligence is behind everything that we see......................in fact, everything that is.

As we humans create computer programs and artificial intelligence that is able to learn, adapt and evolve on it's own, I really don't understand why this concept is so far fetched.

Intelligence, design, evolution, et. al., do not, in my mind, have to be mutually exclusive. I think in some respects, both religion, and the total lack of religion, (belief), only serve to muddy the waters.

From your last sentence, can we take it that you equate religion to belief?

Yes and no. Religion, in my mind, takes the concept of outside intelligence, runs it through the human psyche, and attempts to take ownership of the entire concept......................................it's mine!!!!!

Only my religion knows the truth. It's the taking of a universal concept, and using it to divide.

Humans can take the most simple, beautiful concept, and twist it beyond recognition.....................it's what we do.

"... it's what we do" - please don't include me in that.

Maybe I'm not a proper 'Uman Bean.

I would object (vehemently) to me, mine, my friends or the defenceless being hurt in the name of some belief (or for any other reason), but otherwise I don't give a bugger what anyone believes.

My dear Kramarat,

Thank you so much for your response

My thread asks contributors to state their opinion without supporting or defending it..

I care not why you believe a thing to be true or false... the reasoning behind your conclusion is not germain to this post.. I was merely seeking opinions, beliefs, etc.

providing proofs or reasons to support yourself or your position are unneccesary...

This question, as I view it has but 4 possible answers,viz...

Is the Universe the product of Intelligent Design or Chance events?

1. Intelligent Design

2. Chance/ probability

3. Some combination of both

4. Neither

My question to you is simply "What position do you take?"

What is "design" ? It is equivalent to say that all was planned before the start and then the question is why did the designer plan the failures ?

This statement seems to put far more responsibility on the "Designer" than he is required to shoulder.

Should the designer of your zipper bear the responsibilty of its failure after you urinate and must attend an importatnt meeting?

Should the designer of the mechanicxal can opener be responsible for it failing to produce the desired result?

Anxiously Awaiting your reply,

All My Best,
K

You seem to be going much further than your original "intelligent design or chance?".

Do you have a hidden agenda?

No, not to my knowledge...

I hold firm to my initial post...

however "Tornado" has somewhat convinced me to offer 4 answers rather than 2

1. Intelligent Design

2. Chance/ Random Happenstance

3. Some Combination of both.

4, Neither

Thank you for your input, it is most appreciated

All My Best,

K

I am now intrigued by the different takes on what is an Intelligent Design or Designer.

I had assumed we were referring to the one invented to replace Creationism, but some are interpreting it more loosely. In the religious model, the Creator designed and made a complete universe, nothing more to be done. In human experience, a crude model is designed and built, and then improved on, as with the can opener. There have been few things that just had to be right the first time, the space shuttle, perhaps.

There is the creation of an experiment, setting up an ant farm with two rival species to see what developed, to see if one just took control or wiped the others out. Does the design of such an experiment constitute intelligent design (deliberately lower case) as seen by the OP?

If not the designer then who ? The user ? Did he get the "manual" with a limit prescription ?

As far as I know and learned over many projects and developments a design has to consider, as far as possible, all possible failure reasons and make the design such that it can fulfill the function even if such a "stress" occurs.

A good example is the Fukushima accident. The "designer" thought that a wall 5m high would be enough since over centuries the waves were not higher. He made an error not considering the possibility of a higher wave due to the tectonics in that region. Based on this assumption DG for emergency cooling pumps were at ground level "protected" by the wall.

And the wave which came was about twice as big went over the wall and disabled the DG so that cooling was not any more possible and the chain of events went on.

Who is responsible ? The wall, the wave, the tectonics or the choice made by the designer ?

Now my comments were related more to the notion of "life" than of "universe". I am not so clever to think about which was the origin of the universe, I can only on a very modest level discuss about forms of life and how they could probably appear. This is my limit in such almost esoteric discussions.

When I wrote about failures I thought about sicknesses, about weaknesses and similar aspects. So that if we accept the idea of an "intelligent design" then we have to accept as well that the designer did not think at that time about all consequences of its designs and their interactions. Of course one can immediately answer that all this is part of the original plan. I would not contest this argument since as I already wrote this is on another plane which is not part of the CR4 discussion.