epigenetics are similar to a modern computer processor except it utilizes chemicals to turn genetic switch's on, or off. Clearly it reaks of intelligent design.
and this is only one example. There are 7 or 8 characteristics which in and of themselves would constitute high probability of intentful intelligent design, but when they coincide it is overwhelmingly likely that the 'thing' in question is intentionally and intelligently designed.
The characteristics which one could expect to find in a Universe, if there were indeed some masterful engineer behind it, can only be understood inasmuch as the characteristics resemble those of our own designs. Ironically the natural world often serves as the inspiration for many breakthroughs in Science and technology. Perhaps this phenomenon is worth considering further at a more appropriate juncture.
What then are the characteristics which might constitute an appearance of design? Perhaps a good place to begin is with some system or device which we know is designed. However it quickly becomes apparent that just not every Human convention or tool will suffice as a satisfactory analogy. The Universe is a complex array of orders of systems; all of these orders of systems are ‘self-sufficient’, and interdependent; every system is a Universe in and of itself, yet only a piece in the Grand Puzzle. For this reason our choice in device, which will act as a sort of control variable in this thought experiment, it must also possess attributes of complexity, autonomy, and interconnection. While many such devices exist in the museum of human convention, for the sake of simplicity, and due to the striking similarities, allow us to consider computer technologies.
The typical home computer consists of the following components: motherboard, CPU, hard drive, graphics processing unit, RAM, as well as wires, sensors, and cooling components. Peripherals, like a keyboard or a mouse, “connects” the User to the computer system. Speakers and monitors serve as feedback devices which enable and assist in the Users ability to interact with the computer.
While each component of the computer system is cohesive, or is a device in and of itself, it is at the same time comprised of countless subservient parallel components and systems, which are working in harmony for the operation of the computer, and ultimately to serve whatever function the User deems fit. For example consider the central processing unit: modern nanofabrication and lithographic technologies make it possible to squeeze more than 2 Billion microscopic transistors onto a single die which is only slightly larger than a postage stamp.
To further illustrate the similarity, and to further demonstrate its applicability, just consider the countless millions of other computers, and the diverse billions of components which comprise and differentiate them; at the same time many of these computers are all connected via the internet and peer to peer networks.
Some may rebut that the majority of PC users are surfing the web simultaneously, but independently of one another; that the degree of connectivity is relative, or variable; that these parallel complex systems are not cooperative because some are listening to music, some playing games, others are chatting, or doing research, and that consequently the connected web of computers cannot be said to be a cohesive system, although it is coherent. Conceding this others still may even press further, by contrasting the disorganized unity of the net against the sort of ‘cohesive autonomy’ that we find in the orders of systems which comprise the Universe(s), and in the whole lot of life. This also is true, but for the sake of being thorough, grant that we follow this thought experiment to its natural conclusions.
Server farms, cloud computing, and P2P networks like SETI@Home are just a few counter examples offered for computer technologies which demonstrate autonomy, complexity, and interconnectedness, and thus that the criteria which would constitute a fitting analogy seem met. Inasmuch as these orders of systems of computer technologies are complex, autonomous, and interdependent, they dimly resemble these same qualities which accompany the orders of systems that comprise the Universe.
Back to the question with which the discussion began; “what are the characteristics which might constitute an ‘appearance of design?’ Using computer technology as a control variable of a system with certain qualities which is known to be designed, and also as an analogous example of a complex, autonomous, and interconnected system of order by which to compare to the orders of systems which comprise the Universe, it then becomes possible to attempt to determine if there exist certain characteristics which can be derived to determine if some system is the product of intention and engineering, or of chance, coincidence, and happenstance.
First however recall the claim that “the characteristics which one could expect to find in a Universe, if there were some masterful engineer behind it, can only be understood inasmuch as the characteristics resemble characteristics of our own designs.”
Some may find such a premise as problematic. Even if it were possible to derive some fundamental requisite characteristics which accompany systems which have been designed, in what way can one practically use this information in examining the Universe, physical systems, and the lot of life? Is comparing computer systems to life, or the Universe, even relevant? Mustn’t we compare apples to apples? An ‘appearance of design’ could be interpreted ambiguously. Opponents of Intelligent Design subtly spin this appearance of design in such a manner, that ‘appearance of design’ observed in life, and in the Universes physical systems, is in fact just that, an appearance, and everyone knows that appearances can be deceiving, and that this is one such example. This idea is subtly communicated, and subliminally understood and accepted; that the appearance of design is illusory, or self-fulfilling, that if you look for it, then of course you will see it, so it is better to believe half of what you see because any appearance of design is prima facie, and de facto, simply a mirage.
The matter is not settled, and no conclusion has been reached. If we find certain characteristics of design in natural physical systems that resemble or parallel characteristics which we find in comparable Human engineered systems; if these characteristics can be reasonably understood as accompanying complex human engineered systems, then can we conclude with any certainty that these physical systems may too be designed? The answer seems to rest in the question of, do these characteristics and attributes necessarily accompany or signify systems which have been designed? Another way to understand this question is, can these characteristics be reasonably understood as occurring, or arising, in a physical system in the absence of intention or engineering?
The appropriate time has come then to revisit the phenomenon of how advances in science, medicine, and technology are increasingly being inspired by the natural world. The most obvious counter to this thought experiment lies here: if human engineered systems are inspired by, or based upon, systems which have been observed in nature, then it is inevitable that we will find similarities and striking parallels. The immediate reaction may be to simply preclude all such nature-inspired, human-engineered systems. However is this measure sufficient?
A more scrupulous critic may strike harder: prodding, “are there any human systems which are not inspired by nature?” Is it possible to even conceive of some physical object without first having experienced it via sensory perception? If nature fundamentally precedes the raw materials and the blue prints, then inevitably we will find resemblance between natural systems, and those designed by intelligent agents.
Granted that we draw upon the natural realm for the raw materials, and for the crude thought fodder, is it not also true that while there are birds, horses, and fish, there are no airplanes, sports cars, or submarines which occur naturally? Over time hasn’t mankind observed, experimented, learned, mastered, and innovated?
An artist uses many colors to paint a masterpiece, and draws inspiration from their Human experience—a capability which is made possible only by the anatomical structures and physiological processes which are involved in sensory perception, in addition to the countless other complex bodily systems upon which experiencing an aesthetic masterpiece are dependent upon. Does the fact that artistic creativity is contingent upon these many bodily components and systems somehow render the masterpiece repulsive, or the artist unaccomplished? Why then should the fact that because Humans derive inspiration from Nature, that it somehow necessarily follows that therefore Human engineering is excluded as a possible model to glean characteristics which might signify, accompany, or constitute intelligent design.
With these criticisms acknowledged it is appropriate now to propose that some characteristics which would certainly suggest intention and/or design are: complexity, precision in critical variables, specialization/compartmentalization, efficiency, efficacy, inter connectivity/interdependence, and lastly that more interpretive characteristic which is arguably subjective or ambiguous is an appearance of ingenuity or problem solving. If any one of these unlikely and unexpected qualities is observed in some object, it would seem reasonable to entertain the possibility that this object is engineered, and if many of these qualities coincide, it would be unreasonable not to entertain the design hypothesis. Yet it is precisely these qualities that science discovers in every nook and cranny of the Universe, and in all orders of systems!
Quoting: The God Solution by M.F. Alexander
