Intelligent Design is Smarter than Dumb or No Design

Intelligent Design is Smarter than Dumb or No Design Complexity such as might be found in quantum mechanics, and human lack of understanding of it entails no necessary correlation to God’s construction of the universe, nor does it especially provide necessary certainty about the actual order of assembly and composition that the universe has for-itself.

Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle seems a needed premise for freedom of range of motion, and uncertainty seems a needed element as far as human consciousness goes, or rather subjective epistemology of the species, if they aren’t to be omniscient themselves. Absolute certainty tends to be an attribute of omniscience, and the entire epistemological subject harkens back to the monism/pluralism researches existing from the era of pre-Socratic philosophers Heraclitus and Parmenides to the more modern metaphysician F.H. Bradley.

In reading more of a book by the philosopher Dembski on complexity and specialization in design, or intelligent design, I have gained a better idea of what intelligent design means from the point of view of the contemporary philosophical researchers in that area. For one thing I believe that Intelligent Design is a definite scientific hypothesis. The search for intelligent designs in nature can be approached scientifically an on an empirical basis. Determining if the hypothesis has valid observational evidence correlations is another matter for scientific investigation.

Dembski rightly pointed out the criteria used by SETI or the search for extraterrestrial intelligence as an example of a search for intelligent design. If intelligent design does exist anywhere in nature that is observable, then it would be rash and ignorant to disqualify a priori any possibility that it could exist. Intelligent design may exist not only as a consequence of one cause within the logic of necessity or modal logical of course, but might instead have been caused by extra-terrestrials or even human beings from the future or past I suppose. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to conceive of nanoparticle manipulation of material structures of the Universe on a large scale for purposes of war or peace. Even now a wave of nano-particles from another galaxy could be enroute to the Milky Way to attack and convert it like yeast into alcohol into some form that would have profit potential for intergalactic holiday shoppers.

Intelligent design as a philosophical criterion can be researched from a number of perspectives, including that of the anthropic principle and the fine-structure constants of the Universe. M-Theory provides a many universes natural selection alternative to the unique phenomenality of this one Universe of course, yet natural selection is difficult to demonstrate in biology as the causative agent for evolution if one tries to pin it just onto d.n.a. or cellular membranes perhaps...that is, so far as I know as a non-biologist, it is still possible that natural selection hasn't a proven technical history in biology that plainly accounts for the development of all life and it's permutation. Instead it may be that natural selection and neo-Darwinism has an historical inertia that isn't adequately filled in by scientific facts, and alternatively people provide straw man arguments about creation and a short-lived 10,000 year old universe as the alternative giving the preponderance of evidence decision to the neo-Darwinians.

Cosmology though is a fascinating subject for research, and I think one must be careful about making extrapolations for intelligent design on the basis of selected physical facts, and also not to use selected facts as evidence for a dumb design of the Universe.