INTELLIGENT DESIGN: An Engineer’s Approach

If I had to cite the standard design engineering process to explain our particular make and model of life, I would use the auto industry as a prime example with which to do so.Let’s pretend you manage a single car model for a productive automobile manufacturer. And, let’s say you have been asked to make some changes for next year’s line of your model. Would you commission your staff to start from scratch and redraw the plans for every facet of the current line while incorporating the new changes, or would you just reuse the current design plans and incorporate the required revisions to them?Well, most people would do well to take full advantage of the efficiency, economics, expedience, common sense, reliability, safety, competence, practicality, and overall effectiveness in reusing the existing plans. I might add that it would certainly not be an accident. Your job would depend on your ability to do this. Plans for machinery rely upon intentional activities, and derive most of their utility from older designs.In fact, the genetic designs we find in living things conform to the same business model. Newer designs appear to have originated as modified copies of earlier plans. Not only does this suggest that we were designed, it makes sense from an engineering perspective. Parenthetically, how it gives anyone the notion that DNA lends credibility to the theory of evolution is still beyond me.So, I would suggest that we are simply biological machinery”but, not unlike today’s cars. We have systems contained onboard, a CPU, peripheral devices, means for locomotion, coordinated functions, and so on. As a matter of fact, we share a fair degree of robotism with cars. We consume fuel, and we may have even been imbued with a distinct purpose. Yet, this thing we call our mind may be a by-product, a phenomenon unique to this world or these species of ours. It’s good stuff, though.But, to qualify the purpose itself, we would be asinine not to view it in the context of other animals”mammals, at the very least. So, if we look around at all the mammals on this teal earth, we see that everyone is pretty much doing their own thing. Koalas stare at cameras, whales will jump for food, and people seem to participate in fantasy football. Not much help there.In qualifying a purpose, what we would need to establish is a common thread . something that we all do, as mammals, in providing a service or performing a particular function. We’d need to determine how we help someone go from situation A to situation B. As near as I can tell, we all emit carbon dioxide, methane, ammonia, sounds, heat, water, and more. I could also be convinced that our specie(s) serve as a primary source of food for some other specie(s). But, that would be as far as I go. As humans, we destroy plants among other things, and have been told there is a god. What does it all mean?The only conclusion I would draw from this mess is that our designer does not want to reveal its true nature. Yes, I understand that there may be some things that most of us would not want to know, if given the choice. I, for one, have stepped up to the plate. I’m ready for some chin music. And, I cannot shake the feeling that we’re all being used.I don’t know, maybe all hell would break loose if the truth were discovered. But, that shouldn’t keep us from trying. Let’s be honest, a good god would realize that the need to keep secrets could not possibly outweigh the need to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. We are now at the front doorstep.And with that, we don’t necessarily require specific knowledge as to the nature of the first cause in this universe, especially if all we need to know is why some wizard of Oz doesn’t have the acorns to come out from behind the curtain. I mean, don’t get me wrong. Life is funtastic, to be sure. Yet, I still believe we deserve a better explanation.Won’t you help?

Thanks for all your input. I was hoping for "miscellaneous topics" but this is fine, as long as my original post isn't taken to suggest anything divine, necessarily, about a would-be designer.Let's see, Chiroptera, you wrote: I am not assuming that a god would be omnipotent nor omniscient. You likely believe that idea, because it is one of many things we've been told. I am not talking about those things.You also said: Those are simply not realistic. I'd like to stick to things that lead us to a potential conclusion. Inventing as many possibilities as possible does't do anybody any good (as far as I know).RickJB, you said: Believe me, I have. And, I've never even ruled out a certain scenario where we could've been designed as well as remain subject to an arbitrary drive for relevant beautification within a given species. But, that scenario would seem to lead away from mutation at almost any reasonable cost. More to the point, though, speciation in its accepted constraints appears to be logically impossible.If a species is defined as the set of potential breeders, then how would ONE outbreed ever come about, let alone another one who just happens to posess the same mutation (in a period where they are both fertile, of opposite sex, etc.)?PaulK: Yes exactly. I agree with you. That would sometimes be the case. I believe that one would use copies of some of the same subroutines, right? That's a good point. This is also making the assumption, though, that the nature of programming DNA is the same as programming software, in terms of a "compiler". I don't know if we have enough knowledge to evaluate that yet.Ringo wrote: I'm talking about every life form on earth. I mean, they had to come from somewhere. Not if he figured out out a way to make them reproduce themselves.Crashfrog... Let's just say it's cars. Thanks, I should know that.Now, where have I listed ideas that there doesn't appear to be a designer?You're exactly right, though. I don't know what I'd expect, but the world would have to look like SOMETHING no matter what.Jar: That's assuming that they are either necessary or practical. Would you install an airabag if you couldn't reconfigure the processor to activate it? See, we should keep in mind that it would depend on the purpose of any given model.Hi, PJ. You said Right. There's no reason to do so. Remember now, there would also be no need to assume that there is a single designer.Jazzns: Yes, I agree. We could call that the fundamental difference. That also means that if we find a way for machinery or programming to spawn, it would then become fundamental.Iceage Yes, I am suggesting there may be a god that has to work like Edison in his lab trying 1000's of designs and material to find what works. Yes, a good god would need to avoid appearances of impropriety. Would that be too much to ask?Why does a "good god" need to keep secrets? Hhyeah. That's what I'd like to know.1.61803... Brilliant! Go with that, I'm serious.And, do you mind if I patent that?RAZD: Thanks. I'm not sure what limbosis is, it just sounded cool. We could all MAKE it a dance troupe.I was going for the clinical terminology...a condition of being in a state of limbo. But, I did google it, and I had the top 2 results out of 495 matches for a single coherent word search. So, YEAH baby! (I still have the printout.)But, Wikipedia didn't even have it yet. So, C'mon people! Let's give'em a word they won't soon forget! Wow, that was an awesome post.Again, I don't know that certain designs don't meet certain specific needs, like slithering into and out of underwater crevices and such. Yes, I am ready to be wrong. I welcome everything, because the truth is we DON'T know. I've found an approach that seems to hold up. But, it needs to be tested. I guess that's why I'm here.I'll have to get back to you on the eyeball thing, though. Nice work.Dr Adequate also wrote I...think...you have the picture. You're clearly onto something, though.fallacycop: Complexity doesn't necessarily correlate to anything. But, you raise a decent question. I don't know if you are aware of it.What is the basis that should be used to determine complexity to begin with? Does it not depend on relevance?Is a mountain complex because irregular features, jagged edges and disorder would require more data to fully describe it? Is it complex because it is the simple product of a complex agenda? Or is it just plain simple? Hmm.What then is the pyramid, and why?

If one could consider a finite designer, wouldn't one want to characterize it before assuming that it got bored and left? Wouldn't one also consider that designer irresponsible if it left without checking on its creation?In fair consideration of that possibility, one would not need to initially assume that the designer would have died, or never existed in the first place. That part of your reasoning doesn't make sense to me. Although I don't believe in a benevolent god, I would remind you that many creationists would insist that there are signs all over the place. There are also indications of alien life here, as reported all over the world by millions of people who do not know each other. Are you going to say they're all either lying or mistaken? It wouldn't be your place to.But, what I'd also like to know is, when is everyone who believes in evolution going to express a fair amount of rage, for being publicly deceived with messages about some god that's supposed to be worth a darn. Don't you think that's in order?

I'll answer that, if you don't mind.There is no logical reason to assume that any designer would not be concerned with economics. We do it here on earth. So, for the sake of discussion, why would we assume that a designer, as limited as ours would appear to be, did not concern itself with economics?

No yes, let's DO say that. The reason is, like you say, cars serve the purpose of getting from point A to point B. What I contend is that ALL forms of life may be here for the same purpose. So, in that way, we can use cars as an analogy. If we stick to that, for the sake of discussion, we can simplify the reasoning process.(Besides, it's my post.)

Yes, every creature. I would agree about the stock, unless the designer had to take things like population control or intended prevalence into account. That's difficult to comment on. Yes, in the brainstorming or workshop process, ideas are welcome. But, when a design is agreed upon, the implementor would need to faithfully stick to that. That's true, sometimes, even when some better design presents itself too far along into the "prototype" stage. I wouldn't pretend to know of some other economic consideration that might have been in play at the time we were spawned. Yet, there may very well have been some constraints that we could not even fathom well, much less discuss.

Another good point.Just let me add that we are all the product of a fairly remarkable design. I wouldn't take anything away from that. Earlier, I wrote to someone that we would have to look like something. This happens to be it. I wouldn't know how to evaluate humans without an appropriate, unguarded context. Sure we can all nitpick. But, my focus is more on clandestine behavior.

Thank you, that's pretty helpful. In the context of DNA, would you deny that there may be rules for syntax and command that would need to be strictly obeyed?That's not to mention the big assumption that the designer would have an ability to withdraw a particular version. Nothing wrong with assumptions at times, if they can be backed up with some logic. In this case, what if you had to give any design a standing chance to respond to its environment and stabilize before you could reliably evaluate its merit? In a Jurassic Parky sense, retracting designs may never be an option.

Chiroptera, I do see where you're coming form, and I can empathize. And, at no surprise to me, the position I take seems to be ambiguous to some. So, let me outline my argument as pragmatically as I can.I believe that there are one or more designers, call them gods if you like. But, I believe our designers are evil. More specifically, I believe that most humans would find them to be evil, once the true circumstances were revealed. It's an unpleasant argument, and one that doesn't have a place to go in most people's heads. However, if given enough time, one begins to see that it makes more and more sense when one considers the things that go on in this world. One would not be expected to immediately appreciate the value of this POV, especially since it seems so negative at the outset. Nevertheless, there are a number of ways to group premises that lead to this conclusion. Here's one example:1) The god to which the bible refers could be one of at least three permutations, a hoax, an honest god, or a deceptive god.2) We see that referenced god pitting three of its religions against each other, without direction or apparent regard.Conclusion: That referenced god is either a hoax or a deceptive god.So, when you say things like this: I would say that characterizing our designer wouldn't be hard to do.And, when you say I would say, not if it was self-serving, malicious to us, and almost entirely corrupt as we would see it. I can see the death part. But, whether you're talking about our death or its death, it doesn't seem to follow because newer generations live on.And, that non-existence thing, I still don't get what you mean with that. Is there something more to the thought that you're not offering?With the remainder of your remarks, it's clear that you reject the claims of religion. And I say, maybe that's ultimately because the idea of a benevolent god is a great deception, one way or another.Now let the onslaught begin.

I'm wouldn't doubt that a lot of people in this age, have considered it. It struck me when I first got a sense of the magnitude of corruption in this world. I know that alone doesn't prove the existence of an evil god. But, it certainly suggests the possibility.I had heard of H.P. Lovecraft, but have not read or listened to anything by him or her. Is there a story you would recommend? Is there a main theme, or a common thread in his/her writing? Heh, I don't imagine it would anything for us. But, don't be mistaken into believing that any explanation is likelier if it is simpler, more mundane, or easier to swallow. That is simply not true. Or, should I say, that is complicatedly not true. By the way, in this world, the lack or scarcity of evidence doesn't have much to do with things either.

Yes, we couldn't rule that out? Because, once a design has been finalized, there is usually nothing more to do but evaluate the prototype after it has been completed. In building a prototype, one would want to ensure quality and physical integrity by sticking to the "blueprints" as faithfully and as dilligently as one could. YES, I'm talking about design by trial-and-error, if necessary.BTW, how do you bold and italicize? That doesn't bother me in the slightest.

Thanks for the welcome, Platypus.This god(s) would need to be intelligent enough to produce us. Now, given that humans are on the precipice of at least duplicating life, it shouldn't be difficult to postulate the feasibility. I mean, we can't deny that life happens.What is meant by intelligence? That's a very good question. Is it having the wherewithall to avoid being detected? Because, then I would say that the designer in question has failed miserably.I don't know how the species were created originally. I would guess that it's done in a lab just like we do out here. I don't know when either, or even if it was all at once. I don't buy the crap about six thousand years, though. But then, I wasn't here (I don't think). Thank you for that. That was well said. I get it, now. Science is benign. But, I would agree that it's absolutely necessary, albeit imperfect. this modification happens from TIME TO TIME is what I'm suggesting--not slowly through the means of natural selection--from time to time. How would anyone know that? I imagine the Ford Model A would be a protist of some kind.

Or evil.Or evil AND stupid.But, given the things that this designer would be condoning on this planet, I would say definitely evil, if nothing else.

Exactly.

Yes, I know. That was my first question about religion as a kid. I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting to explain the world, either. It's obvious that humans are naturally inquisitive, and prone to making errors.But, here's the thing. I don't believe humans are stupid. They're programmed to believe what they're told, maybe. And, I have to concede that all humans could be what we would call good, if given enough time. What we often fail to consider is the likelihood that something else is driving the madness we all see, something global.The more intelligent people recognize the presence of unbridled corruption that goes as far as the very top of our food chain. If you don't agree with me then read any book by David Icke, even for fiction. (Just don't stop in the middle of it.) This seems to have been going on for a very long time, maybe all the way back to any practical beginning.Again, that doesn't prove the existence of a designer. Yet, you cannot escape the apparent contradiction. In the face of such corruption, war, genocide and self-prescribed eradication of competing religions, why on earth would anyone identify with the presence of a benevolent god. Not only that, but you would be hypothetically indicating that whatever drive that imposed the idea of religion itself, has been instilled with an intent to precipitate a simplistic rationale for what we see. It would also have been in control of us all along. That seems very unlikely. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it would lead to the conclusion that a benevolent god is a hoax, anyway.Furthermore, you don't see any creationists coming to my aid with their blind faith right now, do you? I guess, as they say in church, I'm relatively f#@ked! Typical creationists, all they care about are themselves.