![[tmbchr]™](/journal/popocculture-blog-logo.jpg){kind=logo}
Who Designed the Designer?
A reader alerted me to a conversation that recently took place on Larry King about Intelligent Design. Pop spirituality guru Deepak Chopra was one of several guests at the round table, and he has elaborated his position under two separate blog posts on his site. I’m still reading through the transcript of it, Chopra’s elaborations and some Christian commentary. But I already found something very worth discussing.
Apparently Larry King asked Dr. Jay Richards of the Discovery Institute the following question: “Who designed the intelligent designer?” A perfectly fair question, right? Richards dodged it though:
We can tell that Mt. Rushmore is sculpted, right? You can tell that there was an intelligence behind it. The fact that you can ask a follow-up question about the origin of the designer doesn’t contradict the initial claim we can detect intelligence. That’s all design theory does, it focuses on these clear indicators of intelligent agency, just like a detective does or anyone would do, in which you’re detecting the activities of intelligent agents.
It’s an almost clever rhetorical trick which unravels if you’ve ever watched any crime dramas. If you were a detective, you’d just as likely follow the trails all the way up and try to catch the kingpin of the crime syndicate, or whoever is ultimately responsible. You would only catch the petty criminals to bleed them for information about who sent them and why. So I think it’s an entirely fair and appropriate question to ask of ID folks: who designed the designer?
A Christian blogger however argues in favor of Richards’ non-answer:
ID is not some sort of “Christian science” that is in place to prove that God created the universe. ID merely looks at the evidence in nature and sees samples of highly complex systems which are organized only with the aid of the massive amounts of information found in DNA strands, and says that Darwinian evolution cannot account for this (not “has not” but “cannot” account for this). These complex systems show evidence of design, and science should not be bonded to a precommitment to philosophical naturalism in understanding these issues. It really is that straightforward.
I’ll tell you what I think though. I actually really like the fact that so many Christians are making such a big deal about Intelligent Design. It doesn’t matter if I necessarily agree or disagree with them. The thing that I like is that they are starting a conversation, and it’s a conversation that’s catching on. That’s extremely hard to do on a large scale and the questions they are asking really are good questions. You can try to answer them however you want, but the point is that it’s gotten people thinking, talking and asking even more questions.
Really, my biggest problem with Intelligent Design advocates is that they are stopping short with their questions. If they want to get started asking questions, they shouldn’t be upset when people become inspired to ask questions that go beyond theirs. They should either welcome it, or stop inviting people to ask questions altogether. One thing I’ve learned working on my site is that it’s a gigantic waste of time to ask people to react to something, and then get upset with their reactions. The best thing you can do is simply start the conversation, ask the questions, and openly and honestly share your own experiences, ideas and feelings.
So let’s talk about it, if they don’t want to. Let’s talk about it until they are forced to answer that question themselves. Who designed the Designer?
September 14th, 2005 at 2:51 pm
well the ID advocates claims that living systems have something called “irreducible complexity” so that means they must have been designed.
So they follow inductive reasoning and say well then we can account for the irreducible complexity by positing a designer. B
ut you are correct, the clear logical progression would show that the deisgner itself must then be irreducibly complex and so that implies an infinite regression of designers.
Unless the original designer created life through a computer simulation as nick bostrom argues. In which case the buck may stop there. But then we are not talking about a god but an advanced civilization of some sort.
September 14th, 2005 at 2:54 pm
Who designed the designer?
That’s easy: The Flying Spaghetti Monster did it on a dare from J.R. “Bob” Dobbs.
Next question.
September 14th, 2005 at 2:56 pm
The problem of course though is that they are operating from a standpoint of belief. Belief allows them to simply plant a flag wherever they want and say “We’re done exploring”. They can say, these things were designed by a designer, and then just stop if they want to. They don’t have to follow logical precepts, and their doing so in these early stages seems like a bait-and-switch tactic.
Here’s Wikipedia on Irreducible Complexity
September 14th, 2005 at 3:41 pm
Well the ID movement is so fraught with these weird sorts of hidden assumptions that it is very difficult to disentagle them.
For example they claim that scientists have a bias towards “methodological naturalism” and so ID is just expanding the frontiers of inquiry a bit. But methodological naturalism really just means the assumption that a given hypothesis is based on and in the natural world, physical laws, etc. - something that can be experimentally tested and verified. That’s the scientific method.
So once you get rid of methodological naturalism and start positing supernatural intervention than the scientific method becomes useless - there is no coherence to the proccess anymore and it isn’t science, at least according to Karl Popper.
So if the IDers want to remian underneath the umbrella of science then of course there are alternatives that can be tested. For example, ID theory doesn’t necessarily implicate a “God” - by definition a being who can bend or suspend the laws of physics at a whim. ID theory as Behe, Dembski et a readily admit could just as easily imply panspermia, eg aliens.
Well then that opens up a whole different kettle of fish. Was this panspermia (the spread of life to earth from space) accidental or directed as Hoyle and Crick believed?
Was there one alien or many? Certainly no reason to think that ID implies monotheism, if anything polytheism or multiple designers seem more likely.
Look at all of the “design vs. design” biological arms races in nature, e.g., male vs. female, predator vs. prey, host vs. parasite, etc. Plus then we return to the original question, well if aliens planted life here, where di t hey come from?
ID’ reliance on inductive reasoning stems from an inability to comfortably contemplate open systems. They need, want resolution. But when they use indictive reasoning like this they take the cork out of the bottle and release the genie and then there is no particular reason to say that this line of speculation needs to stop anywhere! In fact if you follow it long enough it really does resemble gnosticism more than anything else.
You tricked me, Tim.
September 14th, 2005 at 3:43 pm
I keep seeing this argument coming from ID proponents. Please take a look at the page about genetic algorithms on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithms
These are mechanical processes where an initially random set of solutions is subjected to transformations inspired from the mechanisms of Darwinian evolution. The goal is to evolve efficient solutions to complex problems which cannot be solved analytically.
The results of these algorithms are as good as or better than those of more traditional algorithms. IMHO it is patent that the “genes” of the solutions acquire information through Darwinian evolution.
ID proponents keep saying that “random” mutations cannot produce information, but they overlook the role of the environment. Evolution theory is based on the interplay between “random” mutations and the environment. Organisms acquire information from their environment through mutation AND selection.
September 14th, 2005 at 4:41 pm
Tim, I honestly don’t think that “Intelligent Design” is “starting a conversation.” It’s a sigil, a media virus, much the same way that the “Red State/Blue State” thing was, it’s meant to conceal stupidity and further an agenda while simplifying the debate to the point of absurdity and therefore curtail debate: it’s poor logic but good propaganda. If you ask me, it’s in the same place as “Fair and Balanced” journalism: it enables a specious arguement to gain equal time because, under “Fair and Balanced,” calling a clear wrong a wrong is “unfair.” It’s a meme-plex, it’s meant to alter but ultimately reinforce consensus. By no means do I support the True Nonbeliever camp of skeptics, but I’m cynical towards ID–it’s more aphid shit from the Archons.
In a courtroom situation, the reason one calls witnesses to the stand is to introduce exhibits like documents, recordings, etc., as evidence. In most cases–I work as a paralegal–it’s not Law & Order, it’s a counsel only calls a witness to the stand to introduce exhibits. In the same way, the only reason these ID activists have made noise is to pass legislation demanding the teaching of a shitty theory and where possible eliminationg a much more workable theory.
Now, Max has made a good point, Intelligent Design, having come from a group not the most skilled at logic or, for that matter, policy, contains the seeds of its own destruction. I’m going to post a form letter to my site addressing the need to teach “competeing theories” like Flying Spagetti Monster, and I will be sending it to my representatives.
September 14th, 2005 at 4:49 pm
if one insists on naming processes and things the beauty of really stunning questions are lost. like why would a chimpanzee leave the canopy of the jungle where he is fed, protected and able to multiply, to run the savannah in competition with carnivorous predators and expose themselves to the sun all the while hoping the evolution of grains,fruits and tools-making technology would be quick enough to make supper? laughable. forget irreduceable complexity. you needn`t go any where near that far. just fail to find the gene labs available to stone age man to make corn and wheat. it`s not just the evolution of one species we need to explain here. it`s the whole ecosystem. darwin himself called the appearance of flowering plants an abominable mystery. he didn`t really comment on food grains that appeared out of grasses.
September 14th, 2005 at 5:34 pm
the problem with id is that it’s so fraught with politics that people don’t think you can be a ‘liberal’ and oppose the bush administration and still get behind id. it’s like how people don’t think you can be all cool and radical and leftist if you’re pro-life, or on the flip side you can’t talk positively about id unless you’re a crazy republican hell-bent on converting all our kids to horrible, horrible protestantism. now *that’s* binary thinking for you.
the issue is WAY grayer than anyone on either (illusory) side wants to admit. there most certainly are idiots out there who are hijacking id theory for political reasons, just as there are idiots out there who want to just toss the baby into the trash with the bathwater instead of actually looking into it. it’s become one of those stupid rhetorical cesspools where people can barely discuss it without their brains turning into reactive mush, sort of like the conspiracy theorists immediately after katrina or any bulletin board featuring posts about ‘zionism.’
as for me, a diehard gnostic, i personally go for “UD,” *unintelligent* design. i think that’s a far more logical and provable approach to the question.
as to who created the creator, that’s a question that will *never* be answered. when it comes down to it, the whole issue is moot, really. all we can do to make a stab at explaining it is to create myth, but then folks start taking myth too seriously and we all know what happens then.
September 14th, 2005 at 5:36 pm
Like I said, we don’t need to agree. We simply need to have the conversation. The problem is not that they started the conversation in too limited of a fashion. They did what they did for their reasons. Now it’s our responsibility to take the conversation in new directions and expand it beyond to suit our purposes.
You’re utilizing the same tactics that you’re accusing them of, you realize. You suggest they are trying to curtail debate, while simultaneously doing so yourself by refusing to entertain anything beyond your already set opinion. What separates you from them now?
September 14th, 2005 at 6:39 pm
I like intelligent design personally because where it goes when you follow it all out to the very end is super radical. It leads fortean gnosticism.
I am frustrated with it at the same time because I am trying to write an article about it and trying to disentangle all of the bait-and switch political maneuvering from the implications when the agenda is built right into the theory is like trying to separate water droplets from mist.
I really wish it wasn’t so politicized, so Christian. The Christians frankly admit they want to do away with the scientific method and win back the culture for Jesus. OK.
WHat gives them a monopoly on this idea though? No damn fair. They’re ruining great pataphysics by turning it into an evangelical cultural pressure point. That’s the part that pisses me off.
I agree with tim that that what began as a bait-and-switch could well lead into x-files territory according to the law of unintended consequences which the christians will not be able to control.
Also I agree w. Jeremy - ID ultimnately points to incompetent deisgn by multiple designers who were themselves created.
WHat about Panspermia? Or the Fermi Paradox. Or the simulation argument. Or multiverse theory. All of these things are implied strongly by ID once you get past the Christain politicized thumbnail sketch short version of it. That’s where the insanity is, IMHO. And I mean that in a good way.
September 14th, 2005 at 6:55 pm
Einstein can be seen as an early advancer of an “intelligent design” advocate. He believed in God and found evidence of some sort of “divine engineer” (to use Vonnegut’s phrase) in nature. But, it was also revealed a few years back that he deliberately fudged some of his later research, stuff that would eventually lead to quantum mechanics and physics, out of fear of accidentally disproving God’s existence. After seeing the applications of theoretical his innovations used to destroy entire cities at the end of WWII, I can see why he balked on it.
I think people have a fear of Intelligent Design because George W. has recommended the theory being taught in schools. This is a knee-jerk reaction, of course: I hate Bush just as much as anyone, but not everything he says needs to be attacked. I have a news clipping of Bush saying that Islam is a peaceful religion and that even though we were at war with fanatical Muslims sects, Islam itself should not be maligned.
Maybe he made this statement about Islam to appease his Saudi allies, or as a political tactic, but I clipped the item because (1) it was buried in the Religion section of the L.A. Times when I felt it should’ve been front page news, and (2) I wanted evidence that Bush actually said something worthwhile for once, just in case nobody believed me.
Anyway, so who designed the Designer? My answer: he (or she, or it) didn’t need to be designed or created. The idea of creation and origins is a human one, and if there really is a God, he (or she or it) has always been, and will always be. There is no beginning or end to God/The Creator/Designer, and it’s useless for humans to try and wrap our heads around it.
One can argue that the Designer designed itself, which is alright by me.
September 14th, 2005 at 7:12 pm
Well therin lies the rub, my friend. WHen I first started researching ID I thought it was just another interesting fringe theory like the strong antrhopic principle - a non-falsifiable metaphysical argument with fascinating theological implications.
But when you research it you find out that this has been a well-funded attack on the scientific method from the outset. The IDers are all culturally conservative christians who really do see ID as a wedge they can use to overthrow darwinism and thus materialistic atheism.
And when they discovered that no professional scientists would go for it, they launched the “teach the controversy” campaign which basically is a cynical ploy to sell ID theory directly to the scientifically illterate public and do an end-run around the academy altogether.
Problem being, kids are already confused by science, I’m all for ID having an actual research program but so far they have nothing to research. Its just a hypothesis.
SO there is no reason to introduce it alongside evolution in science classes yet, unless you want to get into other speculative scenarios like panspermia or simulation which actually do make predictions and don’t rely on inexplicable and unpredictable supernatural interventions to bridge the gap.
September 14th, 2005 at 7:13 pm
thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
September 14th, 2005 at 7:14 pm
Actually, I think that’s probably close to what mainstream Christian theologians would argue.
September 14th, 2005 at 7:31 pm
Rev: I don’t think kids are confused by science. I think it’s the culturally conservative Christians who are confused.
Tim: Not just Christians… most world religions make no account for their God’s creation. There’s an African creation myth that only states that there was a drop of milk, then God showed up and made the rest of the world. There’s also an old Gypsy creation theory about God baking humans in an oven: the burnt ones were black, the undercooked ones were white, and the perfectly cooked ones were the Gypsies. The Norse myths say that the world was a “yawning gap” with two lands– one of fire, one of ice –either co-existing with or springing from the gap.
btw: Himmler was into the “fire and ice” theory and it may have contributed to the Nazis’ faulty invasion of Russia during WWII.
September 14th, 2005 at 7:55 pm
If I can interpret what Max is saying… most education doesn’t teach kids how science works. They don’t teach the philosophy or the method. They just teach facts as irrefutable. That to me is the real problem here, and the source of confusion.
September 14th, 2005 at 8:25 pm
that’s what I meant. yes.
September 14th, 2005 at 8:26 pm
I see that point. I must admit that I had an extremely open-ended public education which has spoiled me. But I also learned with extremely curious classmates who went out of their way to investigate science and its properties because they actually enjoyed it. These kids are known around the world universally as ‘nerds’.
Since you’re all talking about this, you all should really be watching “The Daily Show” this week. The theme this week is “Evolution Schmevolution: A Daily Show Special Report” and it’s where I heard Vonnegut’s comments.
Plus, the show is so fucking funny!
September 14th, 2005 at 8:27 pm
People like Dembski and Behe aren’t confused at all, they know what the scientific method is they just don’t like it. And he realize they can’t compete with their message on those terms so they try to disguise it. It very disingenuous.
September 14th, 2005 at 9:16 pm
Ive been thinking about this issue for months. What the scientific method does is shows you how to ask questions of everything. When you really apply this wholeheartedly, you find that there’s really no certainty. Hence doubt, anxiety, existential angst and atheism. For me, I reached a point of realizing that there are certain questions worth asking and ones that are not worth it. I think Christians understand this same thing intuitively if not explicitly. Certain questions lead you to places that aren’t worth going. And you have the ability to put your foot down and make that call. I think that’s what they are doing. They want to guard against the creeping uncertainty by saying: Yes! Life does have purpose and design! It’s not simply random bullshit! It’s worth living and it’s worth living by certain rules.
September 14th, 2005 at 9:28 pm
Well I have to say that I can certainly see the irony, I mean on one thread I’m holding forth on the varieties of spirit possession and on another I’m critiquing the ID movement’s stealth assualt on methodological naturalism. Jeez, I mean sometimes I dont really know why I believe what I do about certain things except for that I must just believe what I want to, because it makes my life more interestng or fun to do so.
September 15th, 2005 at 12:10 am
Is this true? I learned scientific method in, like, the seventh grade. They’re not teaching that any more?
I agree with that, but I disagree with this:
Proponents of ID are not asking good questions. They’re substituting a political (and often religious) agenda for science.
September 15th, 2005 at 1:12 am
rev, i think you’re reading god’s mind.
what if “random bullshit” is the purpose? if the purpose (like belief) is ours to choose, then from what array of options shall we choose? ideally, from an optimal diversity of emergent phenomena. now take a look around.
without random bullshit there is no free will. without free will there is no random bullshit. that is god’s purpose.
the “conflict” between intelligent design and evolution is artificial and stupid. it doesn’t matter which side you pick, just pick one already so we can control you.
we’re a self-organizing system, a fractal hologram. that is god / intelligence / design. we’re alive! ain’t no mystery on acid.
September 15th, 2005 at 11:15 am
As the Christian Commentator you quote in your original blog (thanks for the link, by the way), I have answered both the question of who designed the designer in light of ID and whether ID requires an infinite regress of designers. The answer to the first can be found in my blog titled “Who Designed the Designer?” and other ID Questions, where I basically say that in terms of ID, the answer is we don’t know because ID is about examining the evidence for design, not identifying the designer.
My answer to the question of whether ID requires an infinite regress can be found in my blog titled Does ID require an Infinite Regress? where I show that this question requires certain assumptions that are not necessarily true.
September 15th, 2005 at 11:37 am
Thanks BK!
September 15th, 2005 at 11:47 am
Design
–Robert Frost
I found a dimpled spider, fat and white,
On a white heal-all, holding up a moth
Like a white piece of rigid satin cloth –
Assorted characters of death and blight
Mixed ready to begin the morning right,
Like the ingredients of a witches’ broth –
A snow-drop spider, a flower like a froth,
And dead wings carried like a paper kite.
What had that flower to do with being white,
The wayside blue and innocent heal-all?
What brought the kindred spider to that height,
Then steered the white moth thither in the night?
What but design of darkness to appall?–
If design govern in a thing so small.
September 24th, 2005 at 3:23 pm
[…]
The Vatican Loves Science!
A couple weeks back when we were talking about Intelligent Design, somebody brought up that the Catholic C […]