The Design Inference Game

03/03/03 | Moi

[general_re]

I thought a new thread was a good idea, and here seems to be a good place to put it, so as not to clutter up "News". The only topic available was "heated discussion", though. ;)

If any clarification about the pictures is needed, just say so, and I will try to at least highlight the part that I am interested in for you. Remember that I'm interested in the objects or structures or artifacts being represented, so don't be thrown off if the illustrations seem abstract.

[general_re]

Very good, then. I would ask you to elaborate at your convenience so that we know more fully how you arrived at that conclusion, but in the meantime, an answer has been posted. With that being said, let's update the scorecard and ping the peanut gallery, with the usual disclaimers...

[js1138]

How doth the little crocodile
Improve his shining tail,
And pour the waters of the Nile
On every golden scale!

How cheerfully he seems to grin,
How neatly spreads his claws,
And welcomes little fishes in,
With gently smiling jaws!

[Diamond]

Simosuchus clarki

Cordially,

[js1138]

I think Lewis Carrol's parody is more famous than the original.

[PatrickHenry]

I don't want to be a pest, but as soon as you post the updated full set of links, I'll ping my list.

[js1138]

1. Diamond's answer in post 7
2. Diamond's answer in post 33 and 62
3. Answer at post 111 and 124
4. Answer at 166 and 173-175
5. Answer at 181
6. Answer at 257 and 310
7. Answer at324
8. Answer at 365
9. Answer at 391
10. Answer at 440

[PatrickHenry]

The great "nature vs. design" debate is ready to begin. See the post above this one for details.

[RightWhale]

Some things in nature apparently favor and follow some basic math such as spirals of various kinds, intersecting triangles, Fibonacci numbers, squaring the circle, the golden mean to a degree. The same math sequences and figures have been used to lay out systems for deciphering nature including the evolved intelligence of man. There are a limitless number of such systems, some used in teaching basic principles, which in turn are an attempt to being conceptual order to the chaos of variety in nature. Wolframs recursive formulae are a very recent attempt along these lines, but others have developed very similar schemes to explain the nature of intelligence and the psychology of mental functioning. Computers are being used to crunch numbers and view the emerging pictures in ever-increasing variety; some of the images so produced look as natural and of biological origin as leaves and fly's eyes.

[ThinkPlease]

Thanks for the heads up, I'll have to grab a box of popcorn and watch, could be interesting. Don't have time for much else, moving into a new house this weekend...

[PatrickHenry]

Repeat of what I asked back in #397, now that all the answers are in:

Me:
Are you definitely saying that there are cases -- such as #9 -- where nature could look so much like design that it's impossible to distinguish between the two?

You:
Yes, but only for the specific reason that an intelligent agency can mimic chance and necessity.

So -- I want to be sure I understand your position -- are you saying that although intelligence can mimic nature, nature can't produce something that looks as if it were designed by intelligence?

[longshadow]

placemarker of great patience

[CobaltBlue]

Cobblestones or brick pavers.

My own home improvement fantasies come true.

Who will help me lay them?

[CobaltBlue]

Beehive. Easy for me as I keep bees.

I don't understand the game.

[CobaltBlue]

I don't get it. They are discussing naturally occuring items, some of them made by intelligent agents, e.g., basketball, brick pavers, beehives (arguably not using intelligence but maybe instinct, but still, bees have a version of intelligence), and some made by physical processes that don't involve intelligent thought.

I came in at the middle or end of the conversation and don't really feel like starting at the beginning, if it has something to do with creationism vs. evolution. The creationists haven't been interesting enough to justify my attention yet.

[CobaltBlue]

I shouldn't have categorized the items as naturally occuring, that doesn't seem the proper term to use for basketballs and cobblestones.

[CobaltBlue]

More precisely, what you see isn't a bee hive but drawn comb.

[general_re]

I don't understand the game.

Here's the short version. The creationists tell us that there is a process by which we can reliably tell whether or not things were designed by some agent. So, the name of the game is to look at the various things and deduce whether they show signs of being designed or not. If this process proves accurate or useful in telling us about things we already know, then we can start to infer its usefulness for things that we don't already know to be designed or undesigned.

So, since you have an idea about what the last one is, is it designed or undesigned?

[CobaltBlue]

The last one is drawn comb. I keep bees. It looks like it was drawn on foundation, on a Langenstroth type frame.

But all that aside, the bees did it, using wax which they excreted from their wax glands, which they formed from honey and pollen they ingested.

Bees certainly have a form of intelligence, but my own perception is that they don't have higher consciousness.

They are able to adapt to changes in their environment in ways which I find quite extraordinary.

Does the queen bee educate the worker bees in bee knowledge, who in turn educate the baby bees, or is it instinctive?

Both. Some of it they are born with, some of it they learn from each other.

[CobaltBlue]

The last one is drawn comb. I keep bees. It looks like it was drawn on foundation, on a Langenstroth type frame.

But all that aside, the bees did it, using wax which they excreted from their wax glands, which they formed from honey and pollen they ingested.

Bees certainly have a form of intelligence, but my own perception is that they don't have higher consciousness.

They are able to adapt to changes in their environment in ways which I find quite extraordinary.

Does the queen bee educate the worker bees in bee knowledge, who in turn educate the baby bees, or is it instinctive?

Both. Some of it they are born with, some of it they learn from each other.

[CobaltBlue]

Sorry about the double post.