is there any case for Intelligent design in man made products

I want to raise a topic that seems to be discussed very little by either the ID camp or the Science camp - the issue of intelligent design as it applies to human activities.While there is much debate about whether the universe or the natural world was created by intelligent design it seems to be generally accepted that human beings can design intelligently. An ipod, a scientific theory or a work of Art are routinely accepted as being evidence of mankind's intelligent capabilities.My issue is that surely the same reductionist arguments that apply to ID - i.e that the phenomenon can be better explained by chance and the laws of nature - must also apply to human activity.Hence if we follow this argument to its logical conclusion we are forced to accept that intelligence in any form is a fanciful and unnecessary concept. We are foolish to invoke an intelligent designer in any circumstances whatsoever whether talking about the natural world or other human beings.thoughts?Edited by Admin, : Fix typo.

Thread copied here from the is there any case for Intelligent design in man made products thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

quote:

---

My issue is that surely the same reductionist arguments that apply to ID - i.e that the phenomenon can be better explained by chance and the laws of nature - must also apply to human activity.

---

Assuming you are just discussing the dichotomy of intelligent activity against unguided nature this is far from obviously true. We cannot, for instance, ignore direct evidence of human manufacture, nor can we assume evolution given objects clearly incapable of evolving.I suspect that what you mean is that since ID writings ignore arguments which apply only to human created objects there can be no such arguments. Phrasing it like this, makes the error far more obvious.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

Must it? If there's any doubt about who makes iPods, you can go to the Foxconn factory and see them be made:(Happy to be off the rice farm, or grimacing at the prospect of another 16 hour day assembling our electronic detritus? You decide.) "Reductionist" or not, why should we ignore this direct evidence of "intelligent design" of iPods? Now, on the other hand, the only intelligent agents I've ever seen create life have been human beings. I've never seen a god or an alien or any other "intelligent designer" construct a bacterium. So why should I believe that it happens? We're foolish to invoke an intelligent designer under any circumstances except where it is the best explanation for what we observe.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

But we know for a fact that an ipod was designed by humans.It says so on the ipod.ABE: wow, ninja'd twice Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

You are correct. This arguement should (and is) applied to human activity as well.
It's just that in the case of biological life, the conclusion is obviously that the phenomenon can be better explained by chance and the laws of nature.
However, if the case of human actiity, the conclusion is obviously that the phenomenon can be better explained by the human activity we're observing. That's just silly. Why would you take the same conclusion for two different scenarios just because you're applying the same test?
That's like saying birds don't lay eggs because you tested some bunnies and they have live young. Therefore, if you apply the same test on birds... then the same conclusion must also apply to birds... so birds must also birth live young??? It just doesn't make any sense.Sure, you can run the same test on as many different scenarios as you like (and you should).
But if you're just going to assume the same conclusion because it's the same test... that's just ridiculous.Origin Test on biological life - conclusion is that it is better explained by chance and the laws of nature.
Origin Test on human created devices - conclusion is that it is better explained by human activity.It really seems very simple. Perhaps, if it still exists, you could elaborate your confusion?

Hi Ibm111. Are you trying to state a defense of determinism here: If so, you could have a point, but one I don't thnk anyone would agree with. Intelligence may be deterministic, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.If you're not saying anything about determinism, then I can make absolutely no sense of anything you've said.

Human beings do in fact obey the laws of nature. When we apply out inteligence, we don't do so by doing magic, we're not wizards. No, you're foolish to invoke magic in any circumstances whatsoever. We know that intelligence exists. But on the same basis we know that magic does not.

No we're not. We are foolish to settle on the least evidenced explanation when there are other explanations with more evidence and more explanatory power.It has nothing to do with natural and not natural. We prefer the better explanation, that's all.

When we recognize that an iPod is intelligently designed, what are we really noticing?

• that it is manufactured;
• that it is an artifact;
• or something else?

If pressed, I might agree that a bird's nest, or honey comb are in some sense intelligently designed. But, in general, if asked to distinguish between designed things and natural things, I would put the birds nest and the honey comb in with the natural things.

this is missing the point - Im not saying that ipods aren't manufactured by foxxcon employees or that foxxcon employees aren't human.Im asking by what measure we class this as an 'intelligent' action.Is intelligence something that we can scientifically verify? Can we say how many units of intelligence it takes to create an ipod?of course not."why should we ignore this direct evidence of "intelligent design" of iPods?"There is no direct evidence of "intelligent design" - "intelligent design" does not existWe have direct evidence that an ipod was made that is all. Beyond that is mere conjecture

Dr Adequate "We know that intelligence exists. But on the same basis we know that magic does not."How do you know intelligence exists? How do you know magic does not exist?

"Origin Test on human created devices - conclusion is that it is better explained by human activity"You're going to have to explain that a bit more.Are you trying to suggest that human activity is somehow not governed by chance and laws of nature the same as the rest of the natural world?Yes human activity may be a suitable pseudo-explanation but ultimately any rigorous explanation must come down to scientific fact and the laws of nature.

Because, when we look away from your posts, we see it in abundance.

quote:

---

Because, when we look away from your posts, we see it in abundance.
  —Panda

---

hahahaha you're too funny