[Ed.]Does intelligence have a place in the discussion of evolution?

[mijopaalmc]

As I understand it, intelligent design proponents often draw an analogy between human engineering and intelligent design. Just as human engineers tinker with their designs of technologies making changes that have a specific, predicted results, so too does God the Divine Engineer tinker with its designs of living things making changes that have specific results.

Now, leaving aside everything else that is wrong with intelligent design, I see two main ways of combating the analogy:

1. We point out that there is no consciousness or intelligence behind biological evolution. This approach suffers from a major shortcoming in so far as there is no agreed-upon definition of consciousness or intelligence. It is far from clear whether a provisional definition of "intelligence" such as the "the ability to perceive and understand causal relationships well enough to obtain a specific outcome by manipulating the initial conditions" make a meaningful distinction amongst animals (including human).
   
   
2. We point out that intelligence is a mere "convenience" when talking about human engineering and that the processes of biological evolution and technological development are identical in so far as they are both examples of "change over time with retention of 'what works'". This approach also suffers from major shortcoming in so far as dismissing intelligence as a "convenience" begs the question as to why it is convenient to discuss intelligence in some cases and not others and why the perception of intelligence is merely a "convenience".

So, does intelligence have a place in the discussion of evolution and intelligent design?

 

[drkitten]

As I understand it, intelligent design proponents often draw an analogy between human engineering and intelligent design. Just as human engineers tinker with their designs of technologies making changes that have a specific, predicted results, so too does God the Divine Engineer tinker with its designs of living things making changes that have specific results.

No, He doesn't.

There's a big difference -- in fact, the entire difference between "intelligent design" and "evolution" -- in the difference between the "specific, predicted results" of human engineers and the specific, but unpredicted and unpredictable in detail results of evolution.

We point out that there is no consciousness or intelligence behind biological evolution.

Yup. Bingo.

This approach suffers from a major shortcoming in so far as there is no agreed-upon definition of consciousness or intelligence. It is far from clear whether a provisional definition of "intelligence" such as the "the ability to perceive and understand causal relationships well enough to obtain a specific outcome by manipulating the initial conditions" make a meaningful distinction amongst animals (including human).

Doesn't matter. There's no evidence of animal-level "intelligence" behind evolution, either. The fundamental aspect of "design" is that it is goal-directed behavior; there is something that you want to achieve by the end of the process. Humans, of course, are champions at this, but we've seen evidence of goal-directed behavior in many other species (mostly, but not entirely, in mammals).

And we've seen no evidence of goal-directed behavior in "evolution." Quite the contrary; if you look at the path that evolution takes, it's more like the random walk of a smoke particle.

So the level of "intelligence" displayed by "evolution" does not even rise to the level associated with animals. God, the Divine Hamster? Actually, God doesn't even achieve the level of Divine Hamster. If you're suggesting that the "Intelligent" Designer is not as intelligent as a hamster, but only as intelligent as a grain of sand in a dune,.... that's not very helpful.

[*]We point out that intelligence is a mere "convenience" when talking about human engineering and that the processes of biological evolution and technological development are identical in so far as they are both examples of "change over time with retention of 'what works'".

No sensible and knowledgeable person would do this. The processes of biological and technological development are not identical. One is Darwinian, the other is Lamarkian, for example. It would at best be confusing to the students, and at worst would be a creationist lie.

[QUTOE][This approach also suffers from major shortcoming in so far as [/QUOTE]

... it is a creationist lie. I agree that this is a major shortcoming.

So, does intelligence have a place in the discussion of evolution and intelligent design?

Perhaps. About a paragraph at the beginning to present it as a failed and empirically falsified hypothesis -- the same way that phlogiston has a place in the discussion of (the history of) thermodynamics.

 

[Michael Redman]

so too does God the Divine Engineer tinker with its designs of living things making changes that have specific results.

Why would an omnipotent, omniscient God need or want to tinker?

 

[mijopaalmc]

Why would an omnipotent, omniscient God need or want to tinker?

Well, it wouldn't, but that's sort of irrelevant to my point. Intelligent design proponents have altered their argumentation to allow for, in some limited way, the observed changes in biological populations over time. This in itself may be considered the "evolution" of the idea intelligent design except the changes were made deliberately by intelligent agents in response to evidence that could no longer be ignored and with the specific purpose and goal of perpetuating the ideas of intelligent design further. Evolution simply dies not possess the elements of deliberateness, intelligence, purpose or goals.