Even if there was a Designer, does it matter?

YES! Of course it matters!All of science, its entire purpose and the reason it's so useful is that it's about being less wrong than we were yesterday about the world around us.Scientific investigation is not just about stopping curiosity. It's about finding a more accurate model, even when the current model works well enough.Newtonian mechanics are sufficient to put men on the moon...but they're wrong. Newton;s model of gravity was inherently flawed and inaccurate - we simply lacked the precise measurements to see the inaccuracies at first. Einstein's model is far more accurate, and accounts for the anomalies that we detected in the behavior of stellar bodies. It didn't change your life or mine at the time, but it proved to be hugely important for larger-scale cosmology...even though the Newtonian model still works just fine for slingshotting probes around planets and inserting them into orbit around Saturn. We don't know what new ramifications a designer would carry. The existence of one means as it is that all of our evolutionary models are wrong, even if they retain some degree of accuracy, exactly like Newton was wrong, even if his models were accurate enough for most tasks. The specific mechanisms the designer uses to produce mutations or guide the selection of subpopulations for the creation of new species or even the mechanisms for creating the Universe such that it evolves as planned from the beginning would be unfathomably significant. Who cares who the designer is - I want his toolbox!Just as with Newtonian gravity, the discovery of the existence of a new, better set of tools does not take away from the abilities of the less accurate model. It does, however, add new tools to our toolbox. That's how we find new ways to fight diseases or put rovers on Mars...or do other things that we haven't even conceived of because we didn't realize a tool existed for such a purpose.The identity of a designer would be a footnote, significant only for theologians. The existence of a designer is hugely significant for science.

Hi Rahvin, You said this several times now, but can you explain why this is so? If the first life form was designed and then left to itself to evolve due to random mutation, natural selection etc, it still means that there was a designer, and evolutionary theory would still be (sort of) correct. In fact, a designer could even have planned it that way. So, why must evolutionary theory be wrong if a designer exists?Edited by Dirk, : No reason given.

There's an old controversy about who wrote the Shakespeare plays. Shakespeare authorship question - Wikipedia
My attitude is that it doesn't matter. I value the plays, and it isn't important who actually wrote them. Of course some scholars still see it as an interesting question.I think jar is raising the same question about the designer. Isn't it what we see in the world and in the biosphere that matters? The question of whether designed and designed by whom is of only minor academic interest, and the important question is about what we find in the world regardless of whether it was designed.

It depends on the level of interference the designer exerts. If he's designing specific species like humans, then our mechanisms are wrong - the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection et al are secondary to whatever primary mechanisms the designer is using.Remember, even being proven wrong can never take away the current level of usefulness of a theoretical model. Newtonian gravity was shown to be wrong in favor of the more accurate Einsteinian model...but Newtonian gravity still works just fine for predicting the trajectory of a ballistic shell, or the orbit of a satellite. The modern theory of evolution can't lose accuracy, but it can be supplanted by a more accurate model that observes the real mechanisms behind the variation of life.Part of what I'm getting at is how unlikely a designer is to exist given that the mechanisms we currently use are so observably accurate, and that the mechanisms used by a constant-interference designer would be expected to be different and make our current predictions inaccurate.If the proposed designer only designed the initial proto-life on Earth and then let the chips fall where they may, then yes - modern evolutionary theory and all of the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection etc would remain intact and there would be no immediate reason to replace them.In that case, however, the existence or absence of a designer is still more relevant than a mere historical footnote, because it completely alters the field of abiogenesis by pushing the first lifeform back to the designer at least - a lifeform that may or may not have any similarity to life on Earth itself. It may be that Earth-like life is impossible to form spontaneously and requires a designer based on an entirely different life model.A life-clockmaker has less of an effect on evolution and more of an effect on abiogenesis. A constant-interference designer has a larger effect on evolution, and may or may not have an effect on abiogenesis. In both cases, the identity of the designer is a historical footnote, but the existence of a designer changes the whole ballgame when it comes to Earth-bound life and its origins.

Who wrote Shakespeare is a historical bit of trivia of no real importance beyond the sentimental. Whether Shakespeare's plays were written or occurred naturally without intelligent interference is, clearly, a bit different.The identity of a designer is important only to theology. The existence of a designer is of massive scientific importance.Jar's question,a nd the way you're treating it, pretends that the identity of the designer is of equivalent significance to whether a designer exists at all. Could you honestly say that the identity of the author of Shakespeare's plays is of equal significance to whether the plays had an author at all?

The question is not whether it's important who exactly wrote the plays (Shakespeare, or another man with the same name), but whether it's important that they were written by someone at all, or came about by a different process (typewriting monkeys for example).I maintain that it's far more important to know how nature's oeuvre came to be, whether by author or by evolution, than who's behind it. We'll worry about who if and when we find out there is a who to worry about.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

But it is not preposterous, in fact it is exactly what does happen.Once the knowledge of the methods is available, who the designer is becomes pretty much irrelevant. Just about anyone that knows the methodology and has urge can become a dog breeder. Nope. That is NOT what I'm saying.As I point out in the OP, it could well be interesting that Harley Earl was the designer of the tail fin on cars, but other than that small historical footnote, is the designer of any significance?If there was some designer regarding life, then the question is "how does the designer effect change?"Once the process is known, it would be no different than the discovery of the double helix, just another factoid and question resolved. No, the new Theory of Evolution would be that change happened by whatever the new processes and methodology that was discovered. The model, the mechanics, how the designer effected change might be of significance but the designer itself, just a note that says Harley Eal designed tailfins.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Rahvin, need I say that I agree?

Another question might be: "Can we influence him as to what changes he will make in the future by the pious sacrifice of goats?"

Or determine the actual model and methodology and do what we have always done.If someone can design something then so can others.Patents exist for a reason.The reason is that once something is known to exist and be possible, humans have shown themselves to be very good at figuring out how it was done and how it could be done better.If there really was a designer, then the issue is to figure out what the model and methods are that allow the designer to effect change.Questions like those are grist for the Scientific Mill.Once those processes are known then the designer itself becomes just a historical footnote or something to sue in Product Liability cases.And this is actually the dilemma that the ID proponents face.For ID to be taken seriously, the model, the method of how the designer effects change needs to be presented, and then tested.BUT, if those tests do show support, if the method and model is supported, the actual designer becomes nearly irrelevant.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

That's my point exactly. It doesn't matter who the designer is or if there is a designer. If we discover some new tools, it doesn't matter who they belong to. All that matters is what use we can make of them. And if we find out that there is a designer but we don't gain any new tools, knowing that he exists is of no value to us.It's all about the tools. The designer is irrelevant.

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

The problem here is, of course, that ID is not interested in showing the method, but only in the identity of the designer. I wonder what would happen if they ever would be able to prove ID, and that it turns out that it was not god who did it, but Thor or Zeus...

The bible says it was not them but their god so it cant be true, and if the data shows them then the data is wrong.

Once again, jar, you're pretending that the identity of the designer is just as important as whether there was a designer at all. You;re pretending that the identity of the author of Romeo and Juliet is just as significant as whether there was an author at all, or whether the play wrote itself spontaneously.Those are different things, not equivalent at all. The identity of a designer would be unimportant. Whether there is a designer at all is massively significant. You're shifting the goal posts, jar. Your OP said, and I quote (with bolding added):

quote:

---

"Even if ID was true, is there any value to the concept of a Designer beyond a historical footnote or in the case of Product Liability suits?"

​

Yeah, it's interesting to point out the tail fins were designed by Harley Earl and that Bill Mitchell had an entirely different point of view, or in the case of obviously piss poor design having an individual that can be held responsible for compensation.

​

But other than those two specific areas, historical footnotes and product liability, is there any other value to Intelligent Design?

---

If you want to continue your tail fin design analogy:whether Earl or Mitchell designed the tail fin is relatively unimportant and changes nothing of significance.Whether the tail fin was designed at all or simply came into existence naturally on its own is of massive significance and has potential to compeltely rewrite the mechanisms of automotive design.You did not ask whtehr the identity of the designer held value beyond a historical footnote or a liability lawsuit. You asked, specifically, if the very concept of a designer, that is, whether a designer exists or not, has any value beyond a historical footnote.Dont pretend that those are the same thing for even a moment. Once it's known, whatever new mechanisms involved would indeed supplant the currently used mechanisms as the new ones would be more accurate. But that supplanting means that, obviously, the discovery that there is a designer at all (the concept of a designer, as specifically mentioned in your OP) must be of great significance, since it would force us to change our current models. The fact that we would need a new theory of evolution means that, obviously, the discovery of a designer would be pretty significant jar.The identity of the designer is a historical footnote, but again, that's not what your OP was about. It might be what you're asking now, but in that case you're just shifting the goalposts.Obviously, there is more value to the concept of a designer than just a historical footnote, as the existence of a designer completely changes our models for the variation and origin of life. Obviously, there is a great deal of value in Intelligent Design.The problem lies not with the concept itself, but in the manner it is investigated, the manner in which it is pitched to the public, and the refusal of proponents to acknowledge that it's unlikely given that so far any extant "design" has appeared identical to what we would predict if evolution were a completely unguided and natural process.

I agree that it is likely you are expressing your opinion and that it is even likely that I did not word my OP in a way that allowed you to understand what I was discussing or asking.However, I have tried throughout this discussion to reword, try different approaches, in order that you might understand what I have been saying.If I have failed, then I'm sorry.May you have a nice day.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!