5

When analyzing an unknown object, one of the first things to consider is: "Is this natural or artificial (intelligently designed)?" As a scientist/engineer it is difficult to imagine a design that has absolutely no purpose. Does purpose provide a clear distinction between intelligent design and evolution? If the purpose is completely unknown, is it possible to deduce design with confidence?

  • What about art? Or, at least, flourishes in art, little sections of paintings that are tacked on "just for the hell of it" or background chords in songs that show up once without adding much structure to the overall sample of music? – Kristian Berry Jul 10 '23 at 18:01
  • Do you mean fabricating an object purposefully which has no practical purpose and no intent to inspire any particular emotional response from anyone except for the designer? I don't think the definition of "design" is compatible with non-purposeful (accidental) fabrication. – g s Jul 10 '23 at 18:02
  • 2
    Of course it is. I’m going to splatter a tomato on the wall right now. – thinkingman Jul 10 '23 at 18:05
  • 8
    @thinkingman But your splattered tomato has a practical purpose: serving as a counter-example to this question! – g s Jul 10 '23 at 18:05
  • @KristianBerry The art itself may have no purpose but the technology use to create the paints, brushes, canvas, etc have purpose tied to art. So I can deduce that there is intelligent design. –  Jul 10 '23 at 18:09
  • @thinkingman Without knowing that you splattered that tomato to make a point, how could I look at a given tomato splatter and deduce: Aha thinkingman is making a point. –  Jul 10 '23 at 18:15
  • 1
    @gs As is common with many topics in philosophy, this would come down to semantics and what purpose means. Technically, everything we do has a reason. In fact, everything in the universe occurs for a reason. One may call that a purpose as well but it doesn’t seem to match with how most see the term purpose to mean. If I was bored today and splattered a tomato today, one may still argue that the practical purpose was to remove boredom. – thinkingman Jul 10 '23 at 18:18
  • 1
    @StevanV.Saban I was interpreting the problem biconditionally, as a need to prove both, "If it's designed, it's purposeful," and, "If it's purposeful, it's designed." If there are things that are designed but not for some purpose, the biconditional does not hold. Now, moreover, there might be thinks made on purpose but without design, perhaps actions with no temporal parts say (if we would speak of "making an action"). E.g. I could blink on purpose but this reveals no design (if design means intricacy, anyway). – Kristian Berry Jul 10 '23 at 18:32
  • 1
    Even if purpose provided a distinction between the intelligent design and evolution, there is no reason to think that there is any purpose in human existence. – Roger Vadim Jul 10 '23 at 19:33
  • 3
    This answer is relevant: 'Is there a general theory of intelligence and design that would allow us to detect the presence of design in an object based solely on its properties?' https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/99762/is-there-a-general-theory-of-intelligence-and-design-that-would-allow-us-to-dete/99767#99767 – CriglCragl Jul 10 '23 at 19:51
  • 2
    @StevanV.Saban It sounds like you have your question backwards. As stated, your question is about the presence of design implying purpose, but I get the sense you really want to ask about the presence of (observed) purpose implying design. Throw in some equivocation on "purpose" being "accomplishes a function" versus "deliberate intent of an intelligence", and you have a recipe for confusion. – R.M. Jul 11 '23 at 16:23
  • @R.M. You are right. Although it wasn't intentional. I believe the link that CriglCragl covers most of what I am trying to understand. –  Jul 11 '23 at 16:33
  • 1
    @CriglCragl Thanks for the link. This covers much of what I'm attempting to understand: Can a scientist truly distinguish between a product of evolution and product of intelligent design by observation alone? –  Jul 11 '23 at 16:35
  • We must narrow our search space. Perhaps we can ask members of certain professions to help sort this out for us. A specif word pops to mind. Is anyone else getting this vibe? A particular paradox flashes - for a split second - across the screen! – Agent Smith Jul 15 '23 at 13:51
  • 1
    HERE are two answers that try to address your motivating question -- how to refute Intelligent Design: https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/99684/does-intelligent-design-fulfill-the-necessary-criteria-to-be-recognized-as-a-sci/99688#99688 and https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/99488/do-the-defenses-that-science-has-implemented-against-a-political-attack-undercut/99517#99517 – Dcleve Jul 15 '23 at 15:38
  • Thank @Dcleve. I'm not really trying to refute intelligent design. Intelligent Design is not just about God. It encompasses artificial intelligence and extraterrestrial intelligence and it seems to me that determining the products of two drastically different processes (natural and designed) may be possible but not with any real reliability or confidence. Is there a clear cut way to distinguish between natural and artificial design by observation alone (no prior blueprints or plans). –  Jul 15 '23 at 16:07
  • @StevanV.Saban -- empiricism is never a closed form methodology -- it intrinsically involves judgement. The criteria for distinguishing something is the USEFULLNESS of a hypothesis that does this distinguishing, which is also not definable in closed form! So no, there is no definitive answer to your question. BUT, for any practical question, there are likely practical answers that can do this sorting. Getting there is not as easy as falling off a log, though. I tried to outline how that was done on ID and creationism on the Talk Origins site, to provide an example of how to do this right. – Dcleve Jul 15 '23 at 16:32
  • @Dcleve The only criteria I have at moment is that the products of evolution are far more interesting, suprising, and baffling than the products of Intelligent Design. Lol –  Jul 15 '23 at 16:57
  • 1
    Sometimes design is the more interesting. The natural stages of my mug of coffee are not surprising nor particularly interesting. It gradually gets cold, then grows a mold layer, then over great time, turns into a scum layer on the bottom of the mug. The inventiveness of humans in coming up with devices to MAKE a mug of coffee, THOSE are interesting and surprising. ;-) – Dcleve Jul 15 '23 at 17:19
  • @Dcleve The Pet Rock from the seventies leaps to mind: Take a rock, put it in a box and sell it as a pet and it worked! –  Jul 15 '23 at 19:24

6 Answers6

3

With respect to another characteristic, a characteristic may be necessary, sufficient, neither, or both.

Necessity: the antecedent is true whenever the consequent is true, the antecedent is true (A if C). One can remember using the mnemonic: The Necessary antecedent has a Name whenever the consequent is called Socrates.

Sufficiency: whenever the antecedent is true, the consequent is true. (C if A). One can remember using the mnemonic: Whenever the Sufficient antecedent is called Socrates, the consequent has a Name.

Necessity and sufficiency is if and only if: the antecedent is only true when the consequent is true, and the consequent is only true when the antecedent is true. (A iff C).

Taking purpose as synonymous with intentionality, not practicality:

Purpose is necessary for design, as expressed in Pertti Ruismäki's and Davide Gudeman's answers.

Purpose is not sufficient for design, as anyone who has attempted to compose a work of art or argument and found it much more difficult than expected can attest.

Neither purpose nor design are sufficient for the appearance of design: "Without knowing that you splattered that tomato to make a point, how could I look at a given tomato splatter and deduce: Aha, you are making a point?"

Neither purpose nor design are necessary for the appearance of design, see e.g. crystal formation, which can create stones that appear to have been cut by a jeweler.

g s
  • 2,868
  • 1
  • 4
  • 16
2

It depends on the context. If one takes design to mean happening by humans vs. chance, yes. If one takes design to mean happening as intended by humans, then no, since that requires purpose by definition.

For example, a human may cause rocks to scatter about in a particular configuration after driving in a car even though the configuration may look like it was scattered by other natural elements such as the wind. This would technically be an example of human “design” in that it was created by humans. An example of purposeful design is a watch.

thinkingman
  • 6,354
  • 19
  • 53
  • i agree, but can think of a better example, maybe. purposefully throwing a rock at a tree and it accidentally - not on purpose - hitting a bird. the shot was aimed and on purpose, and its trajectory was by design. its end was not purposeful! what's missing from end = purpose is not design but intent, imvho. i designed a time machine but not for this purpose! –  Jul 11 '23 at 01:53
  • You are correct about context and I like your answer and this leads to my follow up: If the product of evolution produces a behavior or visual change that scientists observe as having a purpose, then how can observations alone provide evidence for or against intelligent design? –  Jul 12 '23 at 17:52
  • The problem with evolution being supposedly designed is that in order to design it, one needs a designer. But without direct observation of a mechanism of this design, and direct evidence of this designer creating evolutionary processes, one cannot conclude design. As long as evolution can be explained without design (which it has been), there is no need to postulate a designer. Even if a certain observation was very improbable under a blind process, it STILL wouldn’t count as evidence for design. Since it doesn’t increase the probability of the designer’s existence – thinkingman Jul 12 '23 at 18:43
1

There is no accidentally on purpose

Can you dream up a design, design something by accident? Dreams need serve no purpose to you, let alone anyone else. My chemistry teacher at school told us that the double helix design of their Watson and Crick model for DNA was thought up in a dream.

According to Dr. Watson's alma mater, Indiana University, in his dream, he stumbled upon the double helix image for the DNA chain through his dream of a spiral staircase

I don't think creativity is always deliberate! Anyway, the unconscious is out of our conscious control, and not purposeful ('Freudian slip').

I think we can accidentally follow - not just create - a design too: it's not trivial that no-one means to defy God's plan (not saying there is any such thing), whether or not anyone can

I think you can drive a car somewhere, fix the mind on it, a planned intent to drive that you act on, but without a purpose.

What about sleepwalking?

  • anyway, depends what you mean "do or plan (something) with a specific purpose in mind" in this sense OFC it is impossible –  Jul 13 '23 at 06:06
0

All design is made for a purpose by definition. Purposeless configurations are not designed, they are formed randomly.

If you don't know the purpose or the designer, you cannot say with confidence whether the object is designed or not. Some deeper analysis of the structure may reveal that the object is artificially manufactured and thus designed, but this is not always the case.

Pertti Ruismäki
  • 1,625
  • 3
  • 11
  • Do you believe this provides an important distinction between intelligent design and evolution? –  Jul 10 '23 at 18:17
  • 2
    @StevanV.Saban If you have no purpose, no designer, no signs of artificial manufacturing, then you have no reason to even suspect that the object has been designed. In the context of intelligent design the object in question is the whole Universe minus the designer. Who designed the designer? If no-one, if he evolved naturally, then you have no reason to doubt the natural evolution of the Universe. The designer is a useless concept that doesn't answer any questions. – Pertti Ruismäki Jul 10 '23 at 19:24
  • If we consider the quote by Max Tegmark, "*Intelligence is the ability to accomplish goals*", and no goal is being accomplished by something, then it is not the result of intelligence. – Scott Rowe Jul 10 '23 at 19:38
  • Are leopard spots random? The notion of configurations is a good start, but the next step is to note that configurations don't change randomly over time, but according to statistical mechanics. – Corbin Jul 11 '23 at 04:32
  • @Corbin Leopard spots are random. No-one has designed them. – Pertti Ruismäki Jul 11 '23 at 05:02
  • @Corbin But Leopard spots have a purpose: camouflage, mating display. So products of evolution (13 billion years of trial and error) can have purpose even if the process itself does not have a real purpose. –  Jul 11 '23 at 15:31
  • 1
    @StevanV.Saban: Did...you ask a leopard about that? Or was that merely the opinion of some humans? It's sounding like you want a form-follows-function setup, where "purpose" is any property of a construction which can be proven to implement some functionality. – Corbin Jul 11 '23 at 15:42
  • 1
    @Corbin You are right. It's the opinion of some humans. I am looking for a way to distinguish the products of evolution from the products of intelligent design. Form follows function is a good engineering design principle that applies to human technology but does it apply to all intelligent design? If the product of evolution produces a behavior or visual change that scientists observe as having a purpose, then how can observations alone provide evidence for or against intelligent design? –  Jul 11 '23 at 16:18
  • @StevanV.Saban It seems that the humans are at fault here, for having ideas about whether something has a purpose or not. The things, animals etc are not concerned about it. Opinions are worth exactly nothing. Or, are actively harmful. But, this is just my opinion, based on me thinking about something. See how it works? – Scott Rowe Jul 13 '23 at 10:31
0

The concept of “purposeless design” involves a contradiction. You can, however, have purposiveness without a purpose; that is, you can have the appearance of design without design (see Kant’s Third Critique).

Michael Kurak
  • 183
  • 8
  • Is natural selection an example of a process that has the appearance of design without design? –  Aug 02 '23 at 00:52
  • Natural selection is a mechanism that purports to generate the appearance of design, as an effect. Kant has something else in mind, viz. self-organizing entities. – Michael Kurak Aug 03 '23 at 12:32
-1

Design is always the product of deliberate mental activity. Anything that happens in the absence of mental activity is not by design, and if there is mental activity going on, but the outcome is not what was intended, then that is also not by design. So, for something to be designed implies that it was produced as a deliberate result of mental activity. Consequently, your question can be reduced to whether it is possible for mental activity to be deliberate but have no purpose.

Now you have to define purpose. People sometimes do things capriciously, meaning that they have no well-defined purpose in doing so. Does that mean there was no purpose at all? You can almost always apply some vague purpose to capricious activity: knocking your friends hat off: impulsive aggression? Tossing the last bit of bread from your sandwich into an ant pile: impulsive curiosity to watch the ants scramble? Constructing a Rube Goldberg device: simple delight in complexity?

Until you can answer whether it is possible to do something deliberately with no purpose whatsoever, you can't really answer this question. I'm inclined to think it is not possible because I can't think of any examples, but my inability to think of examples is not really an argument.

David Gudeman
  • 6,647
  • 1
  • 10
  • 38
  • 1
    Leopard spots are a simple and fascinating counterexample, with connections to cellular automata and genetic algorithms. – Corbin Jul 11 '23 at 04:30
  • @Corbin Counter examples to what? – David Gudeman Jul 11 '23 at 06:07
  • The design of leopard spots, as explained by Turing, was the result of natural selection. The "deliberate mental activity" that Turing and others undertook to understand the design is not the same as the process which originated the design. For what it's worth, I don't think this answer can be salvaged. – Corbin Jul 11 '23 at 15:56
  • 1
    @Corbin, I can't see any connection between this comment and my answer. Are you thinking that leopard spots are a "design" in the sense discussed in the question? If so, you are misunderstanding the question. – David Gudeman Jul 11 '23 at 16:27