Why would an intelligent designer use mass extinctions?

[Myriad]

While I realize that, just because I initiated this thread, I don't have any right to control it, I wonder if we could get back to the question I posed in the OP. One fairly reasonable answer to the question of why an intelligent designer would use mass extinctions is that said designer, while intelligent, is far from perfect. Of course, another is that there is no ID. Does anyone have any other ideas?

Another idea is that our perception of the designer's methods is skewed, and what we perceive as imperfection is actually just unwarranted unfulfilled expectations based on things like how we would approach a similar task.

As an analogy, consider a binary digital counter that is set to slowly count upward, starting from 0000 0000 0000 0000. As it correctly operates, it will eventually reach 0011 1111 1111 1111. At the next tick, it then continues to 0100 0000 0000 0000.

An observer who lacked a complete understanding of the meaning of binary counting, who instead perceives the purpose of the counter being to gradually accumulate an increasing quantity of 1's, might see that event as at least a large and unnecessary setback, if not an outright error or design flaw. So many hard-earned 1's, gone in an instant. A mass extinction of 1's! But the counter (or the engineer who designed the counter) doesn't care; it only added one, just like always, and the binary value of the count increased by one, just like always.

When we think about genius in a human designer, we look for things like the ability to make great intuitive leaps forward beyond existing examples; to mentally conceive things very different from what already exists, and then realize them. The archetypes (who still fall short of this ideal) are people like Benjamin Franklin or Leonardo da Vinci, or fictional characters like Captain Nemo or Tony Stark. By contrast, any humdrum engineer can invent minor tweaks to parts of existing things, especially if we don't expect most of them to work when tested. (However, we don't exactly condemn iteration and trial and error either; no one calls Edison an idiot because he had to try hundreds of different materials for light bulb filaments to find one that worked.)

So, if we envision the ultimate creator, we tend to envision the extreme of great intuitive leaps forward: creating everything, out of nothing (not meaning using no raw materials, but rather, creating things whose like has never existed before), instantly.

But what if instead of the "ultimate da Vinci," we consider the "ultimate Edison" instead? A designer who works with no plan, intention, or forethought, but instead, constantly makes every possible small variation in everything that already exists, and then sifts out the results? We have a hard time seeing that as genius or even intelligence (even though the supposed intuitive leaper is probably doing something similar, mentally inventing many variations and then rejecting the ones that don't suit; we see what finally goes down on paper as one big intuitive leap because that mental process is veiled). But if we get over that prejudice, we can see that evolution itself is a lot like our hypothetical "ultimate Edison," and is itself an intelligent designer.

If we veil the process, it's hard to tell the difference between an ultimate da Vinci and an ultimate Edison from the results alone. I'm not sure what would constitute perfection or imperfection in the latter.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[tsig]

Another idea is that our perception of the designer's methods is skewed, and what we perceive as imperfection is actually just unwarranted unfulfilled expectations based on things like how we would approach a similar task.
As an analogy, consider a binary digital counter that is set to slowly count upward, starting from 0000 0000 0000 0000. As it correctly operates, it will eventually reach 0011 1111 1111 1111. At the next tick, it then continues to 0100 0000 0000 0000.

An observer who lacked a complete understanding of the meaning of binary counting, who instead perceives the purpose of the counter being to gradually accumulate an increasing quantity of 1's, might see that event as at least a large and unnecessary setback, if not an outright error or design flaw. So many hard-earned 1's, gone in an instant. A mass extinction of 1's! But the counter (or the engineer who designed the counter) doesn't care; it only added one, just like always, and the binary value of the count increased by one, just like always.

When we think about genius in a human designer, we look for things like the ability to make great intuitive leaps forward beyond existing examples; to mentally conceive things very different from what already exists, and then realize them. The archetypes (who still fall short of this ideal) are people like Benjamin Franklin or Leonardo da Vinci, or fictional characters like Captain Nemo or Tony Stark. By contrast, any humdrum engineer can invent minor tweaks to parts of existing things, especially if we don't expect most of them to work when tested. (However, we don't exactly condemn iteration and trial and error either; no one calls Edison an idiot because he had to try hundreds of different materials for light bulb filaments to find one that worked.)

So, if we envision the ultimate creator, we tend to envision the extreme of great intuitive leaps forward: creating everything, out of nothing (not meaning using no raw materials, but rather, creating things whose like has never existed before), instantly.

But what if instead of the "ultimate da Vinci," we consider the "ultimate Edison" instead? A designer who works with no plan, intention, or forethought, but instead, constantly makes every possible small variation in everything that already exists, and then sifts out the results? We have a hard time seeing that as genius or even intelligence (even though the supposed intuitive leaper is probably doing something similar, mentally inventing many variations and then rejecting the ones that don't suit; we see what finally goes down on paper as one big intuitive leap because that mental process is veiled). But if we get over that prejudice, we can see that evolution itself is a lot like our hypothetical "ultimate Edison," and is itself an intelligent designer.

If we veil the process, it's hard to tell the difference between an ultimate da Vinci and an ultimate Edison from the results alone. I'm not sure what would constitute perfection or imperfection in the latter.

Respectfully,
Myriad

IOW the designer works in mysterious ways.

If our perception of the designers methods are skewed then how can we call it design?

 

[Myriad]

IOW the designer works in mysterious ways.

Those are indeed other words, in that they say pretty much the opposite of what I did.

The issue with natural history is that the ways are no longer mysterious, but laid rather bare by scientific research. And they're not what most people expected of the kind of designer they imagined.

The main options are: reject the facts; conclude there's no designer; or conclude that your expectations of the designer's nature and methods were wrong.

If our perception of the designers methods are skewed then how can we call it design?

By the results; or by more careful comparison of the processes of the natural world with how human designers actually do things, examining both as algorithmic computations, rather than comparing an over-reductionistic perception of the former with an over-holistic perception of the latter.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[tsig]

Those are indeed other words, in that they say pretty much the opposite of what I did.

The issue with natural history is that the ways are no longer mysterious, but laid rather bare by scientific research. And they're not what most people expected of the kind of designer they imagined.

The main options are: reject the facts; conclude there's no designer; or conclude that your expectations of the designer's nature and methods were wrong.




By the results; or by more careful comparison of the processes of the natural world with how human designers actually do things, examining both as algorithmic computations, rather than comparing an over-reductionistic perception of the former with an over-holistic perception of the latter.

Respectfully,
Myriad

The only way to conclude evolution did it is to reject facts?

This designer was like a human?

 

[tsig]

Another idea is that our perception of the designer's methods is skewed, and what we perceive as imperfection is actually just unwarranted unfulfilled expectations based on things like how we would approach a similar task.
As an analogy, consider a binary digital counter that is set to slowly count upward, starting from 0000 0000 0000 0000. As it correctly operates, it will eventually reach 0011 1111 1111 1111. At the next tick, it then continues to 0100 0000 0000 0000.

An observer who lacked a complete understanding of the meaning of binary counting, who instead perceives the purpose of the counter being to gradually accumulate an increasing quantity of 1's, might see that event as at least a large and unnecessary setback, if not an outright error or design flaw. So many hard-earned 1's, gone in an instant. A mass extinction of 1's! But the counter (or the engineer who designed the counter) doesn't care; it only added one, just like always, and the binary value of the count increased by one, just like always.

When we think about genius in a human designer, we look for things like the ability to make great intuitive leaps forward beyond existing examples; to mentally conceive things very different from what already exists, and then realize them. The archetypes (who still fall short of this ideal) are people like Benjamin Franklin or Leonardo da Vinci, or fictional characters like Captain Nemo or Tony Stark. By contrast, any humdrum engineer can invent minor tweaks to parts of existing things, especially if we don't expect most of them to work when tested. (However, we don't exactly condemn iteration and trial and error either; no one calls Edison an idiot because he had to try hundreds of different materials for light bulb filaments to find one that worked.)

So, if we envision the ultimate creator, we tend to envision the extreme of great intuitive leaps forward: creating everything, out of nothing (not meaning using no raw materials, but rather, creating things whose like has never existed before), instantly.

But what if instead of the "ultimate da Vinci," we consider the "ultimate Edison" instead? A designer who works with no plan, intention, or forethought, but instead, constantly makes every possible small variation in everything that already exists, and then sifts out the results? We have a hard time seeing that as genius or even intelligence (even though the supposed intuitive leaper is probably doing something similar, mentally inventing many variations and then rejecting the ones that don't suit; we see what finally goes down on paper as one big intuitive leap because that mental process is veiled). But if we get over that prejudice, we can see that evolution itself is a lot like our hypothetical "ultimate Edison," and is itself an intelligent designer.

If we veil the process, it's hard to tell the difference between an ultimate da Vinci and an ultimate Edison from the results alone. I'm not sure what would constitute perfection or imperfection in the latter.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Those are indeed other words, in that they say pretty much the opposite of what I did.

The issue with natural history is that the ways are no longer mysterious, but laid rather bare by scientific research. And they're not what most people expected of the kind of designer they imagined.

The main options are: reject the facts; conclude there's no designer; or conclude that your expectations of the designer's nature and methods were wrong.




By the results; or by more careful comparison of the processes of the natural world with how human designers actually do things, examining both as algorithmic computations, rather than comparing an over-reductionistic perception of the former with an over-holistic perception of the latter.

Respectfully,
Myriad

If, as you say our perception of the designer's methods is skewed, and what we perceive as imperfection is actually just unwarranted unfulfilled expectations based on things like how we would approach a similar task, then why would we want to do a comparison of the processes of the natural world with how human designers actually do things.

First you tell us that the designers methods may not be human methods then you say we should compare human methods to discern the designers methods.

 

[Pixel42]

The only way to conclude evolution did it is to reject facts?

This designer was like a human?

I think "reject facts" and "conclude there's no designer" are two separate options.

 

[Myriad]

If, as you say our perception of the designer's methods is skewed, and what we perceive as imperfection is actually just unwarranted unfulfilled expectations based on things like how we would approach a similar task, then why would we want to do a comparison of the processes of the natural world with how human designers actually do things.

First you tell us that the designers methods may not be human methods then you say we should compare human methods to discern the designers methods.

I gave two alternatives for making it possible to perceive non-human design. One is "by the results." That is, look at inputs and outputs, with the dynamics of the system itself as a black box. If the difference between what goes in and what comes out meets certain criteria, declare that design has taken place. You won't like that option, though, because it leads to the watchmaker argument and the like, largely because attempts at actually specifying the necessary "certain criteria" have been poor.

The alternative, then, is to look at the process. Since the only generally accepted established example of design is design carried out by humans, there is no alternative to comparison of the process under examination to the process of design carried out by humans. The key issue there is the critically important words you didn't highlight in my latter post: "more careful." More careful comparison, to avoid skewed perspectives.

Most such comparison is so sloppy as to be useless; for example, comparing the lowest level mechanical details of one process (e.g. the operation of individual switches in a computer CPU, or individual instances of predation or mutation in an evolving species) with the most global or holistic view of another (e.g. the subjective experience of creative pursuits) and hence declaring them nothing alike.

If neither of those methods are acceptable, then as far as I can tell, distinguishing design from non-design must remain impossible pending the invention of other methods.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Myriad]

I think "reject facts" and "conclude there's no designer" are two separate options.

Correct. I think that's clear enough in the original, to anyone not in the habit of scrutinizing my every post for anything that can be portrayed as woo. But if I'm mistaken, I apologize for the unclarity.

 

[tsig]

I think "reject facts" and "conclude there's no designer" are two separate options.

You are right.

I missed the semi-colon ;[

 

[Dinwar]

You've been perfectly clear to any honest reader, Myriad. Therein lies the problem.

You certainly highlight the deep flaw in ID and Creationism. All of your arguments would vanish if they'd simply prove the existence of a Designer. Take your binar clock idea--sure, someone who knew nothing about it would consider it a mass extinction of 1s, but it would be simple to explain binary to them (every culture counts to two), and understanding binary is one aspect of the Designer of that clock. The whole reason the issues you raise exist is because people want to leave the Designer as an undefined, nebulous, unknowable entity. Once you start defining the Designer, those problems vanish.

 

[tsig]

Correct. I think that's clear enough in the original, to anyone not in the habit of scrutinizing my every post for anything that can be portrayed as woo. But if I'm mistaken, I apologize for the unclarity.

That's the first time I've been accused of reading posts too closely, the usual thing is to be told I just skimmed them.

 

[Dinwar]

That's the first time I've been accused of reading posts too closely, the usual thing is to be told I just skimmed them.

You misunderstood my criticism: I criticized you of skimming my posts in order to find excuses to dismiss them. You read far too much into the parts you focus on, but ignore anything that doesn't help you construct an excuse for dismissing an argument.

But that's neither here nor there. I'm not going to persue this side-bar; I merely wanted to clarify the accusations against you, since you insisted on making them explicite.

 

[Navigator]

Another idea is that our perception of the designer's methods is skewed, and what we perceive as imperfection is actually just unwarranted unfulfilled expectations based on things like how we would approach a similar task.

As an analogy, consider a binary digital counter that is set to slowly count upward, starting from 0000 0000 0000 0000. As it correctly operates, it will eventually reach 0011 1111 1111 1111. At the next tick, it then continues to 0100 0000 0000 0000.

An observer who lacked a complete understanding of the meaning of binary counting, who instead perceives the purpose of the counter being to gradually accumulate an increasing quantity of 1's, might see that event as at least a large and unnecessary setback, if not an outright error or design flaw. So many hard-earned 1's, gone in an instant. A mass extinction of 1's! But the counter (or the engineer who designed the counter) doesn't care; it only added one, just like always, and the binary value of the count increased by one, just like always.

When we think about genius in a human designer, we look for things like the ability to make great intuitive leaps forward beyond existing examples; to mentally conceive things very different from what already exists, and then realize them. The archetypes (who still fall short of this ideal) are people like Benjamin Franklin or Leonardo da Vinci, or fictional characters like Captain Nemo or Tony Stark. By contrast, any humdrum engineer can invent minor tweaks to parts of existing things, especially if we don't expect most of them to work when tested. (However, we don't exactly condemn iteration and trial and error either; no one calls Edison an idiot because he had to try hundreds of different materials for light bulb filaments to find one that worked.)

So, if we envision the ultimate creator, we tend to envision the extreme of great intuitive leaps forward: creating everything, out of nothing (not meaning using no raw materials, but rather, creating things whose like has never existed before), instantly.

But what if instead of the "ultimate da Vinci," we consider the "ultimate Edison" instead? A designer who works with no plan, intention, or forethought, but instead, constantly makes every possible small variation in everything that already exists, and then sifts out the results? We have a hard time seeing that as genius or even intelligence (even though the supposed intuitive leaper is probably doing something similar, mentally inventing many variations and then rejecting the ones that don't suit; we see what finally goes down on paper as one big intuitive leap because that mental process is veiled). But if we get over that prejudice, we can see that evolution itself is a lot like our hypothetical "ultimate Edison," and is itself an intelligent designer.

If we veil the process, it's hard to tell the difference between an ultimate da Vinci and an ultimate Edison from the results alone. I'm not sure what would constitute perfection or imperfection in the latter.

Respectfully,
Myriad

The notion is, what we know of mass extinction leads one to assume that any ID involved is either mad or evolving as an ID. Trying different methods.

It is easier to forgive human error than the error of some perceived or explained idea of ID.
ID is more the mystery but the 'ways' are less mysterious than once understood.
However, most decide the best way to handle the question is to say 'there is no ID' - not because there is any hard evidence to support the notion but because they believe that if there were, not only would everything be 'perfect' but surely the ID would proclaim its existence by moving the stars to spell out "I Exist" for all those otherwise incapable of contemplating the possibility without the props.

On top of that, religion has given those who feel the need, enough reason to shun the very idea, which is quite righteous until it is realized that a number of those turn a blind eye to other nefarious human institutions.

Refresh my memory.

What if anything do you know about the discipline of science? Please spare us any more long-winded bloviations.

Just tell us what you know about science, and how you can convince the casual observer that you know what you're talking about.

I know that without science the Holocaust could not have occurred.

 

[Correa Neto]

Sorry, but that's dumb.

Humans have been killing humans since the dawn of our genus. Genocides are described in the Bible. The holocaust could have happened with flint tools - it would just take longer.

 

[Navigator]

Sorry, but that's dumb.

Humans have been killing humans since the dawn of our genus. Genocides are described in the Bible. The holocaust could have happened with flint tools - it would just take longer.

The method of science is involved in the undertaking of invention.

The holocaust happened as it did. How it could have happened is not relevant.

Science was involved. Sorry, but that is the truth of the matter.

Your denial makes not difference to that fact.

Committing genocide, be that ancient Jewish history, more recent American history or the even more recent German history, it is an attitude that is behind the action. The attitude is the same. Science is just a method by which it can be done in larger numbers. Science is behind the creation of the sword, as well as the creation of the plow.

Humans decide how the tool is used. Science (like god ideas) can be used for good or evil.

Humans make the choice.

 

[Dinwar]

However, most decide the best way to handle the question is to say 'there is no ID' - not because there is any hard evidence to support the notion but because they believe that if there were, not only would everything be 'perfect' but surely the ID would proclaim its existence by moving the stars to spell out "I Exist" for all those otherwise incapable of contemplating the possibility without the props.

Translation: Scientists are ignorant morons because they need data before they believe anything. I, on the other hand, am superior, because I can believe things without any evidence at all.

I know that without science the Holocaust could not have occurred.

So Carthage WASN'T razed to the ground? So Jerreco WASN'T put to the sword? So there WEREN'T miles of crucified slaves after the whole Sparticus issue? So Herad DIDN'T put all male babies to death? The Great Wall of China WASN'T built? That's not getting into the Celts, the Huns, the Crusades, the Greek wars, etc., or the wholesale destruction of the indigenous population in North America (sure, disease did a lot of the heavy lifting there--but Europeans were there to give it a helping hand!).

Sorry, but you are merely revealing your ignorance of history and theology here. I also suspect you get your information from rather dubious sources.

 

[Myriad]

The method of science is involved in the undertaking of invention.

The holocaust happened as it did. How it could have happened is not relevant.

Science was involved. Sorry, but that is the truth of the matter.

Your denial makes not difference to that fact.

Committing genocide, be that ancient Jewish history, more recent American history or the even more recent German history, it is an attitude that is behind the action. The attitude is the same. Science is just a method by which it can be done in larger numbers. Science is behind the creation of the sword, as well as the creation of the plow.

Humans decide how the tool is used. Science (like god ideas) can be used for good or evil.

Humans make the choice.

Meh. At the height of the Roman Empire the world population was about 300 million. It was over seven times that at the time of the holocaust. How did that happen? Technology, which as you say emerges from science. So, if you start by crediting science with 2 billion lives in 1939 (plus all the billions added since then), you can go ahead and deduct all of the 20th century's atrocities and massacres and still come out way ahead.

Or maybe, counting heads is a silly way to assess science to begin with.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Myriad]

The notion is, what we know of mass extinction leads one to assume that any ID involved is either mad or evolving as an ID. Trying different methods.

How does it lead one to assume that? I'm not aware of any known mental illness for which the differential diagnosis includes killing dinosaurs or trilobites. As for trying different methods, why can't a method include possible or occasional mass extinctions, the way the method of a binary counter includes periodic zeroing of most of the 1's?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[I Ratant]

Sorry that this is so late, I haven't had internet for a while.



But what would that be and what reason do have to think it so?



Creatures that painfully suffer through their short existence only to end up dying young. Creatures that never truly get the chance to live life. Creatures that end up having much more pain throughout their life than anything that could be considered happiness. You don't have to exactly look very far to find specific examples.



I don't see how this at all addressed my point. Still, there are plenty of ideas of which we don't know the truth of. We could for example be continually viewing thing from different bodies, switching from one random person to the next around every five minutes or so. Or we could be inside a matrix style reality where I am the only real person and everyone else is an illusion, and I could be living this life for the experience or fun of it.

.
I've speculated on this a lot.. and conclude I must be some sick puppy to have ginned up the world as I see it (and as it really is!).
.

We could be randomly flipping from one period in time to the next, where one moment I'm 24, the next I'm 53, and then I'm 2 years old, continually switching. Instead of an afterlife, we could simply be born again as someone new, or as the exact same person living the exact same life over and over again.

I could go on for years thinking up ideas that we have no real way to know the truth of. Unless we have some sort of reason to think that there is something like an afterlife, where some deity or group of deities wants or allows people and other beings to suffer for some unknown yet supposedly moral reason, we have no reason to believe it. If we don't have such a reason then as far as any can tell its nothing more than a baseless ad-hoc justification attempting to make the cruelties around us compatible with Western religions. Anyone can come up with ideas ad-hoc to make any random idea compatible with the reality around us, the question is whether there is any evidence to either of them.

 

[I Ratant]

Sure it can be said that the inventor is not responsible for how the invention is used, although it would be remiss to suggest that he couldn't have figured out what potential such invention could have in relation to the machinery of warfare.
Such deduction does not require the intellect of a rocket scientist to figure out.

.
"And the rocket's red glare.." is far older than Goddard.
And the Congreve rocket was hardly the newest version.