Talk About Intelligent Design
Kinetic scultpor Theo Jansen uses the principles of evolution to refine and design creatures that walk the beach.
Jansen is dedicated to creating artificial life through the use of genetic algorithms. These programs simulate evolution inside their code. Genetic algorithms can be modified to solve a variety of problems including circuit design, and in the case of Theo Jansen’s creations, complex systems. Some measure of “fitness” is introduced into the algorithm; in Theo’s case it is to survive on the beach while moving around within two enclosing lines on the wet sand near the ocean, and the dry sand at the edge of the beach.
Note the use of the term ‘fitness’. Fitness here is being defined as a set of parameter to direct or guide the procession of creature design. I point it out only because it makes salient just how much direction is inferred by evolution. Several days ago I was laughed at when I suggested that evolution sets a path in how things are designed. In a very real sense evolution is short hand not necessarily for intelligent design but certainly survival design. Meaning that evolution directs design that survive.
I’m sure I’m being sloppy with my working so correct me so we can get to the interesting part of this position.
February 25th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
It’s true that evolution makes things that survive better, but I think people get the idea of a uni-directional approach when you use terms like ‘direct’, ‘guide’ or ‘design’. Enhanced survival can come about through any number of routes- becoming poisonous OR becoming camouflaged to avoid predators, decreasing body mass to require less food OR getting a new type of beak that allows you to catch more food, etc.
The relevant part is that variations are random, and most mutations are NOT adaptive; those die out, and the ones that happen to convey a survival advantage continue to be passed down. This is why the term ’selection’ is better than ‘design’; ‘design’ seems to imply that only a single, superior adaptation is created, whereas in reality many many different variations occur randomly, and only those that are beneficial are naturally selected to be passed on to future generations.
Obviously this is just a question of linguistic precision rather than facts, but I don’t see what’s wrong with trying to be precise when talking about complex and important concepts.
February 26th, 2008 at 12:15 am
one interesting question is whether the use of a genetic algorithm really counts as “design” at all. After all, when a lot of people talk about God and evolution, many associate the word “design” with something other than evolution. Just food for thought.
February 26th, 2008 at 2:56 am
Evolution designs things to survive.
February 26th, 2008 at 6:28 am
Glad to see you’re staying true to your search for the interesting part of the question. Let me know if you find anything.
February 26th, 2008 at 11:42 am
So thats not a valid response to what you wrote?
February 26th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Well, the point of my post was that the word ‘design’ describes the process more innacurately than the word ’selection’. I’d think that you either have to present an argument for why that’s not true, or acknowledge that you’re intentionally being imprecise with your language.
February 26th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
You can look at this process at two different points. You can look at on the front end, when mutations occurs which leads to variation, or you can look at on the back end when those variations are tested.
You want to emphasize the front end, I want to emphasize the back end. Since I’m simply attempting to show that evolution shares with intelligent design intentionality as explanation, I think its perfectly valid for me to use the back end of theory to show that relationship.
Randomness may dictate variability, and ultimately take away the argument that evolution intends to design creatures a certain way. However, evolution most certainly has intentional impact on design even if its not direct. It sets the threshold for what designs can and can’t pass. To argue that intentionality is not being brought to bear on this filtering process seems silly.
It’s a bit like a graduate committee deciding to increase the minimal quant GRE score and then saying they do not intend to bring in students with higher gre scores.
Evolution sets the threshold for survival which certainly implies intentionally to allow only those design which meet is criteria for survival.
February 26th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
I’m pretty sure you can’t use the term ‘intentionally’ without invoking a real, non-metaphorical entity which consciously experiences that intent. I take your point that the end results of evolution are systematic, but by the way you’re using the word ‘intentionally’, it seems like you would also say that rain clouds ‘intend’ to water my garden or that forest fires ‘intend’ to clear the way for new undergrowth. yes these are the natural and systematic outcomes of comlpex naturalistic systems, and yes our anthropocentric world-view makes it easier to understand some complex systems in animistic terms, but I still feel that using terms like ‘intentionality’ is an imprecise and problematic way of talking about these concepts.
February 26th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
Since you bring it up…. It’s time for a summary judgment.
Intelligent Design has merit as a “scientific theory.”
Yes or no, summary judgment guy.
February 26th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
Are you kidding?
On the whole, Intelligent design has no merit as a scientific theory.
February 27th, 2008 at 11:19 am
Intelligent design is the only theory that makes sense. Evolution doesn’t exist.
-anonymous
February 27th, 2008 at 11:45 am
I feel, like darwin, that this is largely a linguistic argument rather than anything of substance. Your view is that evolution guides design. My view is that evolution is the process of trial and error, and that the designer is the environmental and other external influences on a particular organism or population. Evolution does not guide anything, it is simply the name we give to this process of selection and generational change. It is the surrounding environment and other organisms that direct evolution.