[Rishaad Moosa]

Rishaad Moosa  asked the Naked Scientists:

Hi there
 
Well Chris I'm going through an internal personal debate.  Just 1 Question in all your research and studding do you somehow believe in a 'Creator as such' more of an 'intelligent designer'. Please answer honestly as possible, without any spec of doubt. Could there perhaps be a possibility that there is an intelligent designer out there?  Or are we as a result today just as a result of Evolution?
 
regards
 
Rishaad Moosa

What do you think?

[blakestyger]

Any philosopher will say that it's logically possible that there is an intelligent designer - but that doesn't mean there is one or that it's even probable.

[Don_1]

In a word, no.

[that mad man]

An intelligent designer of the universe or planet, I think not. An intelligent designer of the human, I think possible.

Whatever the case I believe evolution came first.

[BenV]

There's no evidence for an intelligent designer, in fact, just considering an intelligent designer creates more questions than it answers (who created the creator, why create things like parasites, why create such inefficient systems, if creating at all, why not create the checks and controls that would have stopped humans from ravaging the planet, or failing to have enough food...).  Intelligent design is so fraught with these sorts of pit traps, that when thinking scientifically, one would be forced to reject it even one knew nothing of genetics and evolution.

There's plenty of evidence for evolution, and evolution doesn't kick up a storm of unanswerable questions.

All in all, I would have to reject the designer hypothesis and accept the evolution theory.

[_Stefan_]

I agree with BenV.

To add to that, even if there were a designer, he most certainly would be stupid, lazy, or both. The designer would fail a course in design technology. There are so many basic design flaws in natural systems, including the human body, that any human designer would be ashamed if they were responsible for such errors.

[Don_1]

Quite so BenV & Stefan.

There are too many errors in the design of life on this planet. The 'designer' want's sacking along with the bankers...... AND NO SEVERENCE REMUNERATION!!!

If Earth is the only planet which supports life, what is the purpose of all the rest of the universe? We only need our planet, the Sun & Moon; the others are surplus to requirements.

If there is life elsewhere in the universe, why is it not close enough for us to pop round for a cuppa & a chin wag, or borrow a cup of sugar?

If the universe is by design (which it isn't), it was certainly not designed by anyone or anything with intelligence.

[Bored chemist]

The designer could be inteligent, but incompetent. Perhaps we are made in the image of a "teenage" God who hasn't really got the hang of it yet. That would explain a lot.

[_Stefan_]

Funny, BC
The designer has had about 13.7 billion years to learn from its mistakes in that case... can't be very bright if it hasn't learned how to fix the universe after all that time :p

[Bored chemist]

I thought it up while watching an old episode of star trek (TOS).

[dentstudent]

A thing that bugs me is the vocabulary used by narrators in, for example, some wildlife programmes - an example of this was from a trip to the forests of (I think) Guyana, South America, were the narrator was disussing how well a particular animal was "designed" to fit its environment, where he in fact meant "evolved". I'm sure that it was unintentional, but this use of language does not, in my opinion, help to distinguish evolution from ID, and if anything, may lend weight to the ID lobby.

[_Stefan_]

I agree, the colloquial use of the word can be misleading to people not familiar with the science. But in some sense organisms have been "designed" - it's just that there was no designer other than Natural Selection.

[Don_1]

I agree, the colloquial use of the word can be misleading to people not familiar with the science. But in some sense organisms have been "designed" - it's just that there was no designer other than Natural Selection.

I can agree with that. Certain plants have 'designed' their flowers to be accessible only to certain pollinators. Or vicy vercy. Take your pick.

[rosalind dna]

I don't believe in Creationism or Intelligent Design for the
basic reasons that the world is too much of a mess to have
ever been DESIGNED by anything.

After all, who would want to DESIGN  war, famine, drought, floods
and so on. No one unless they are completely *****

Yes, Chris I agree with you, there is no proof of this one.

[dentstudent]

I agree, the colloquial use of the word can be misleading to people not familiar with the science. But in some sense organisms have been "designed" - it's just that there was no designer other than Natural Selection.

I can agree with that. Certain plants have 'designed' their flowers to be accessible only to certain pollinators. Or vicy vercy. Take your pick.

No, I don't agree. Design implies that there is a pattern to follow - all that has really happened is that those plants that did not provide access to those pollinators were less successful, and were out-competed by the more successful ones, or evolved into something else. This is a random flux to provide the variation then supported by successful propogation. This is evolution, not design.

How can there be design without a designer? Design in my mind (and off the cuff) is an anthropogenic process with a particular means to an end. Evolution is the process of evolving. Design is a more static, one off methodology. Hence I would say that the word "design" does not fit at all into the natural process of evolution.

Wouldn't you say?

[_Stefan_]

Hmm, I think the only sense in which the word design can be applied to organisms is that they have been shaped by nature to produce a "combination of details or features", http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/design?r=75

Beyond that, I agree with you Dentstudent.

[Don_1]

I agree, the colloquial use of the word can be misleading to people not familiar with the science. But in some sense organisms have been "designed" - it's just that there was no designer other than Natural Selection.

I can agree with that. Certain plants have 'designed' their flowers to be accessible only to certain pollinators. Or vicy vercy. Take your pick.

No, I don't agree. Design implies that there is a pattern to follow - all that has really happened is that those plants that did not provide access to those pollinators were less successful, and were out-competed by the more successful ones, or evolved into something else. This is a random flux to provide the variation then supported by successful propogation. This is evolution, not design.

How can there be design without a designer? Design in my mind (and off the cuff) is an anthropogenic process with a particular means to an end. Evolution is the process of evolving. Design is a more static, one off methodology. Hence I would say that the word "design" does not fit at all into the natural process of evolution.

Wouldn't you say?

Yes I do totally agree with you. When I said a plant 'designed' it's flower for a particular pollinator, or the pollinator 'designed' itself for the flower, I did, as I have here, put the word in quotation marks. The word 'design' refers to natural selection and adaption of one to the other and was meant to be tounge-in-cheek.

[dentstudent]

OK, I didn't get the tongue-in-cheek bit - obviously way too subtle for me!!!

OK, so no more of this nonsense! Design is for Germans who make very good cars - that's it. Evolution is for, well, pretty much everything else, actually!

[einsteinium252]

Indeed much evidence supports evolution via natural selection.  However, the evidence also supports ID if one so chooses to agree with the theory.
Calling the debate of evolution and ID closed without even the mention and discussion of problems such as: "why are the fundamental laws of nature the way they are?" or "Where did the information of DNA or even atomic structure come from?"

Both can be explained by ID (an omnipotent creator) and evolution (anthropic principle, natural selection).

ID and Natural Selection are, in the least, at odds.

[BenV]

Indeed much evidence supports evolution via natural selection.  However, the evidence also supports ID if one so chooses to agree with the theory.
Calling the debate of evolution and ID closed without even the mention and discussion of problems such as: "why are the fundamental laws of nature the way they are?" or "Where did the information of DNA or even atomic structure come from?"

Both can be explained by ID (an omnipotent creator) and evolution (anthropic principle, natural selection).

ID and Natural Selection are, in the least, at odds.

Neither of those are questions that evolution addresses, so I fail to see how they are relevant.  Also, I know of no evidence whatsoever that supports ID.  It's not, for example, acceptable to claim that examples where we don't have a full understanding of how an individual species, organ or system evolved are evidence for ID - They're not.  Evidence for ID would be evidence for the designer, and as god is a concept, rather than a provable physical entity, this evidence does not, and can not exist.

"If one so chooses to accept the theory"? - well in that case, there's evidence for the tooth fairy, santa, hobbits, goblins, elves, harry potter...

Besides, ID is not a theory in the scientific sense.  It's not even a hypothesis, as it isn't testable.  It's a philosophy.

I've said a few times on this forum that these are examples of considering the world from different paradigms.  There is no sensible debate between ID and evolution.