Why intelligent design has to be associated with an intelligent mind or a personal God?

Question

I reject as too restrictive the implications Design => Intention => Mind of an advanced life form. I replace them by Design => Direction => laws (which act everywhere in human beings and elsewhere). So, the laws of nature without a personal God or an individual mind can account for the intelligent design behind the universe.

By "personal God", I mean a God that someone (such as Jesus) can know personally. I like the term "Intelligent design", even without the notion of a personal God, because it says that the laws of nature have a direction. Things progress, the genome became more and more complex, etc. I believe in a personal God, but I don't think that this aspect of the laws of nature is needed to explain the creation of the universe and evolution.

The personal God is an aspect of the laws of nature that is only needed to explain our personal experience, usually an inner experience, unless of course you met that personal God externally, say, in some coffee shop.

gnostic: I think that anything needed for intelligent design must have been available in the laws of nature. In a way, I have no problem in saying that intelligence is available in some pure form in the laws of nature and manifested in creation, especially in human beings.

Jolly Roger: Thank you for providing an example of someone that fundamentally rejects intelligent design, even if it comes without a personal God. I think this is going too far. The notion of error depends on your perspective. What is an error in one perspective is beautiful in another. Besides, you cannot ignore the obvious fact that we, human beings, are not even close to be able to design even the most simple life form.

novangelis: I know very well that argument: Design => Intention => Mind of advanced life form. My main point is that I reject it. The notion of Intention is a non scientific concept that we created only for convenience. So, as previously mentioned, I completely reject the above implications, and replace it by Design => Direction => Laws.

injanier: Thank you for agreeing. Your added point is a different subject. I would have to think more about it.

holyspurt: The term "intelligence" is not only associated with some life form like in biology. In a second meaning, it is also associated with angels or deities. You may think that we are back to the notion of a personal God, but this is not necessarily the case. The deities aren't material. They are eternal. They are responsible for different aspects of life. All just like the laws. Modern science did not exist at the time. So, the concept of deities was the concept of laws of nature of the time. The key point is that the term intelligence has always been associated with the forces in nature. So, it is completely natural to say that the laws of nature constitute the intelligence in nature. This is just a modern interpretation of the second and very natural meaning of the term intelligence. In the appropriate secular context, there should be no confusion.

holyspurt: Here are my replies:

1. I am not supporting polytheism, a god of the sun, the rain, the stars, the trees etc.

2. A personal god is not material, but this is irrelevant.

3. Sure we can say that 'science' was there at the time, but the essential is that the term laws of nature was not there. So, the deities was their view of the laws of nature.

4. My case as to why the laws of nature constitute intelligence in nature is simply that it is consistent with its definition adapted to a modern secular context. As our understanding progresses, it is natural to adapt the terminology. It has nothing to do with the supernatural.

5. I don't know why you insist that intelligence must refer to human beings or to the supernatural, but not to the laws of nature.

If we use intelligence for the laws of nature, we suggest that religions are partially right. This is unifying. It is good. In no way this means that we reconsider science or that we accept every thing in these religions.

Answer 1

I agree with you that we can see intelligence in the universe without needing to attribute it to divine intervention. I think the greatest weakness of the Intelligent Design movement is that an examination of biological systems would lead you to the conclusion that if this has a designer, he's been learning as he goes along. This doesn't fit well with the concept of an all-knowing, all-powerful, eternal Creator.

I have been contemplating various flavors of the strong anthropic principle, which says that the laws of the universe are such that it must produce intelligence.

Answer 2

you are now discussing something of semantics. the phrase intelligent design has a specific meaning/conotation as you pointed out, as does the phrase laws of nature. you can say that intelligent design is the same as laws of nature but you are only changing the meaning for yourself, and potentially confusing everyone else.

Also, the laws of nature have a direction without any 'design'. nature has a direction, because nature is restrictive to some and permissive to others. that's what the laws of nature mean. take genome complexity. The genomes became more complex because they couldn't become less complex. If genomes were to change, there is only one way to go. That's a law of nature, independent of any designer.

EDIT:
1. I still don't see the point you are making. are you supporting polytheism, a god of the sun, the rain, the stars, the trees etc?
2. A personal god is not material either.
3. Depends what you mean by 'modern science'. there was science even if no one was around to observe it.
4. You have not made the case as to why one should believe that the laws of nature constitute and intelligence in nature. In fact, historically, events that have been contributed to the supernatural, were later found to be completely natural.
5. Despite comments 1-4, there is NO evidence that there is anything supernatural, be it one personal god, or many deities. It sounds like you are attributing universal complexity to supernatural forces. Using those arguments, one could say the God (the one many people believe) is too complex to not have a God before Him and so one, ad infinitum/nauseum). Pure philosophy.

EDIT 2:
--5. I don't know why you insist that intelligence must refer to human beings or to the supernatural, but not to the laws of nature.--
I have to disagree. Intelligence, at least in my opinion is subjective. where the laws of nature have nothing to do with how we perceive them. they are what they are. we can call them complex, simple, elegant, inefficient, intelligent etc... they are all adjectives based on the observer's point of reference.

Answer 3

Actually, ID advocates use the same methods of design detection used by SETI, archaeology, and forensics. There are clearly indicators when an event or phenomenon has a natural, random cause, such as the formation of crystals, and when it has an irreducible complexity that can't be explained by natural causes, such as the bacterial flagellum, a nanomachine essential to locomotion. We can tell a mousetrap is designed because it has at least five critical parts, so that if any one part is missing, the mousetrap won't work. In addition, the parts must be perfectly calibrated and aligned. Similarly, if multiple parts of a bacterial flagellum are all essential to its function, and if the parts must be perfectly calibrated and aligned, the flagellum must have been intelligently designed. There is nothing funny about logic or evidence. In contrast, the notion that a bacterium can morph into 8.7 million species of plants and animals by miscopying its DNA is pretty humorous. Cheers, Bruce

Answer 4

You are talking about the aspects of Intelligent Design which falls outside of religious references?
A) Aliens (the non-religious version)
B) Time Paradox (we made ourselves)
C) Quantum Theory some pieces of which are:
(a) the Big Bang is replaced with touching membranes which inserted an every expanding influx of energy/matter
(b) there are 10+1 dimensions
(c) man is 4 dimensional
this opens interesting room for an unknowable being who might have chosen to poke his finger thru the membranes :)

Those are the only ones I can remember but I think there were more. People too often clump Intelligent Design into a religion thing, or worse yet a christian only thing, or even worse try to argue it as if its some bible version of creation.

Answer 5

Are snowflakes intelligently designed? No. They form by simple rules based on the properties of the water molecule. Is the eye of a hurricane intelligently designed? No. It forms based on fairly complex rules. Simply put, order can derive from chaos. Calling emergent order "design", has implications of intent that cannot be backed by evidence.

Answer 6

There isn't any evidence of intelligent design. As have been pointed out many times, the human body has many design flaws and leftover parts and similar examples can be found throughout the set of organisms on this world.

Natural law can not be said to be intelligently designed as there is nothing to indicate that it is.

Answer 7

What about Love? Love exists in humans and animals and some may say even nature expresses love and beauty towards life.

laws = protection = love

Answer 8

exactly. how did you know? btw looking at all those products of human design in front of your nose, intelligent being(s) can hardly be ruled out methinks.

Answer 9

I can't imagine someone or something NOT intelligent designing something intelligent. Can you?