Metaphysical 'discussion' #1I think I have survived Portugal. This morning I'm taking the plane home and before returning to civilisation. I did manage to think of something remotely intelligent. Any reactions were too late (you had multiple days) so theological discussions (well, monologue) it is ;-)
You might have heard of the obscure idea of Intelligent Design. It's a somewhat popular theory with some non-atheists. It's core idea according to me is that everything in the universe must have been created by a Creator because it so intricate and smooth running that there had and has to be a higher intelligence involved next to the evolutionary process. In nature, the social structures some species have could be very remarkable (ants, for example). An other case is that the biological function of a species could be strangely appropriate to the environment, like the way some animals have the ability to survive in the strangest surroundings. These cases are used as arguments to support that it is not sufficient to only have evolution as a way of adjusting species to a changing environment. There is must also be a blueprint for specific species which helps them evolve, or an intelligent design.
From the perspective of science these ideas are of little interest. It is just a way of filling in the gaps which can't be explained yet with(evolutionary) science. For the general public however the idea of intelligent design is rapidly catching on because it can't be properly rejected for scientific reasons. This is causing people to start believing in a Creator, which is not a good or bad thing in itself.
The bad thing about Intelligent Design however is that in my opinion it is a wrong reason for believing in a Creator. Just because some things are so fascinating they can't be understood directly is a rather primitive reason for believing.
To specify this, I now present a case in which intelligent design could be disproved, using weird logic and a part of the story from the Hyperion trilogy of books of sci-fi writer Dan Simmons. Ok, let's suppose future humanity creates an artificial intelligence which is able to think for itself. That possibility exists. This creation would not directly be a product of Intelligent Design, because it was a human design. The intelligent design reaction to this could be that the humans that created the thinking computer where guided by the creator or that the design was stored previously within the human mind. Mind that the first point supposes an interventionist creator. The artificial intelligence will start improving itself, if not being limited by thinking capacity, outside control or interfaces to percieve the world around it. Suppose the artificial intelligence will become so smart it starts understanding the very fabric of reality and the universe. With a few additional steps this system would have the same understanding of the universe the original creator has. It could uncover the original blueprints or 'intelligent designs'. It could start creating its own intelligent designs then, using whatever cosmic energy is used to distribute them because it will have uncovered that. This is where the Creator might notice something else has started playing the Creator and will have to either accept that or shut the new system down. Both of these would be strange, in the first case he would be jeopardising the consistency of his original creation and in the second case He would be correcting his own mistake. Which is not possible because creators are generally without error.
Ok, clear? Conclusion of the story is: living within a design seems a pretty boring idea to me. Why believe in a dry theory that takes remaining mystery out of the universe? My advice is that (if you believe in a Creator), you should just continue to like him or her 'personally' and stop trying to understand the works by applying 21st century logic to it.
Cheers, Ad