# Alternative Intelligent Designers

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/alternative-intelligent-designers/12504>\
**Category:** Conversation\
**Tags:** Science, Design\
**Created:** [November 20, 2020, 10:33pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/alternative-intelligent-designers/12504 "2020-11-20T22:33:02Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 16\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![ProfBravus](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/profbravus/32/9712_2.png) [@ProfBravus](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/ProfBravus)\
**Post date:** [November 20, 2020, 10:33pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/alternative-intelligent-designers/12504/1 "2020-11-20T22:33:02Z")

</div>

Discussion on a couple of other threads, which has become circular enough that I’ve backed out of participating, seems to have included the attempt (on the part of some) to whittle ID right down to “these things are complex and apparently difficult to explain based on evolutionary mechanisms, and so an unspecified (and not necessarily the Christian Creator God) designer must have been involved”.

Does that seem like a fair characterisation of that position?

Now, let’s not bring the discussion from the other threads into this one! I don’t really care all that much whether particular ID proponents are smuggling a conviction that it’s the Christian Creator God after all into their thinking.

What I’m interested in is, if not God, what or whom? If the Designer is not some version of the ‘all the omnis’ Yahweh/Jehovah God, who is it?

Aliens? Perhaps aliens from a solar system whose star developed much earlier than ours and who are therefore billions of years more technologically advanced than humanity?

Some kind of pantheistic deities as in Hinduism, Greece and Rome?

Some naturalistic mechanism as yet undiscovered, and in accordance with Arthur C Clarke’s “technology of a sufficiently advanced level is indistinguishable from magic” dictum?

Who are the candidate Designers, on the assumption that one is required at all?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Dan\_Eastwood](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/dan_eastwood/32/2368_2.png) [@Dan\_Eastwood](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Dan_Eastwood)\
**Post date:** [November 20, 2020, 10:37pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/alternative-intelligent-designers/12504/2 "2020-11-20T22:37:32Z")

</div>

There is nothing in ID that excludes evolution itself from being the Designer. That probably why we see so many mischaracterization of evolution. 🙂

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![sfmatheson](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/sfmatheson/32/22811_2.png) [@sfmatheson](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/sfmatheson)\
**Post date:** [November 21, 2020, 12:28am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/alternative-intelligent-designers/12504/3 "2020-11-21T00:28:08Z")

</div>

> [@ProfBravus](#):
>
> What I’m interested in is, if not God, what or whom? If the Designer is not some version of the ‘all the omnis’ Yahweh/Jehovah God, who is it?

> [@ProfBravus](#):
>
> Who are the candidate Designers, on the assumption that one is required at all?

The candidates are limited only by the human imagination, which created every candidate you named. I’m partial to Athena but have been known to sing the praises of the Morrigan.

More seriously, there are many (including me) who don’t grant the typical assumption that design requires a designer. This has been discussed previously on the forum:

> [@Design Without a Designer?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/design-without-a-designer/11227/15):
>
> I don’t need any new words and I don’t share the premise of “design implies a designer” with you. I have tried to document [elsewhere in this thread](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/design-without-a-designer/11227/8) the fact that design is a pretty integrated concept in biology, such that many biologists talk about design and design principles with no worry that they will be misunderstood. I’m afraid I don’t see how the concept of design without a designer is either hard to grasp (conceptually) or hard to understand (linguistically). People have tried words like “designoid” and phrases like “apparent design.” The subtitle of Dawkins’ The Blind Watchmaker is “Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design.” I’m well aware that many believers and unbelievers alike are stuck with the word ‘design’ linked to ‘designer’. I have seen only one argument for this approach so far, which is the dictionary. Maybe there are other things going on. But here is Dennett (from [this piece](https://www.edge.org/conversation/the-false-allure-of-group-selection#dd)) on one reason why it might not be a good idea to refuse to give…

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Puck\_Mendelssohn](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/puck_mendelssohn/32/11849_2.png) [@Puck\_Mendelssohn](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Puck_Mendelssohn)\
**Post date:** [November 21, 2020, 12:41am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/alternative-intelligent-designers/12504/4 "2020-11-21T00:41:50Z")

</div>

I thought it was generally agreed that the midget gang from Time Bandits were the Designers. Is that not the case?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [November 21, 2020, 12:52am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/alternative-intelligent-designers/12504/5 "2020-11-21T00:52:27Z")

</div>

Alternatives to accomplish what purpose or function?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rumraket](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/rumraket/32/9328_2.png) [@Rumraket](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Rumraket)\
**Post date:** [November 21, 2020, 1:23am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/alternative-intelligent-designers/12504/6 "2020-11-21T01:23:28Z")

</div>

ID is intrinsically religious, it can only ever lead to either that conclusion, or something they can and will spin to that effect, and that is, well, by intelligent design.

Try a simple thought experiment. We discover some evidence that life was designed. The immediate question is, by who? Well if it’s not God or evolution it must be aliens. Okay so now we have aliens, where did they come from? Well ID says they can’t just spring into existence, and ID says evolution can’t explain it, so where did they come from? Super aliens of course. Okay so now we got super aliens, and where do they come from? Well if it’s not God or evolution it must be Giga-super aliens. Okay so now we have aliens, where did they come from? Well ID says they can’t just spring into existence, and ID says evolution can’t explain it, so where did they come from?  
And we can keep going until we run into another problem, which is that aliens could not have always existed. Regardless of how old the universe ultimately is, we know now that at some point we get back to a period before stars or planets, where all the matter in the universe was in the form of extremely dense and hot ionizing radiation where nothing could live. So there can’t be an infinite chain of alien creators going back forever, and so we’re forced to pick the outside of the univers designer hypothesis.

Michael Behe essentially agrees with this type of reasoning. As he testifed in the Dover trial:

> _“. . . it may be that all possible natural designers require irreducibly complex structures which themselves were designed. If so, then at some point a supernatural designer must get into the picture. I myself find this line of reasoning persuasive. In my estimation, although possible in a broadly permissive sense, it is not plausible that the original intelligent agent is a natural entity. The chemistry and physics that we do know weigh heavily against it. If natural intelligence depends on physical organization, then the organization seems likely to have to be enormously complex and stable over reasonable periods of time. While simpler systems may perform the tasks that irreducibly complex systems perform a terrestrial life, they would likely perform them more slowly and less efficiently, so that the complexity required for intelligence would not ultimately be achieved. Thus, in my judgment it is implausible that the designer is a natural entity.”_

It’s absurd to think ID can be somehow divorced from it’s religious underpinnings. To the extend they are claiming to merely find evidence for ID you can entertain the idea without obvious theistic implications, at least for a while. But Sooner or later we get something pretty much like God because their supposed pro-ID evidence always and only ever takes the form of anti-evolution arguments, that’s where we end up only with something “outside of nature”.

We can try to entertain a thought-experiment that the original designer was not literally an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient supernatural mind living in the absence of a physical brain, but instead some alternative form of life living outside of the universe, and the universe is itself a sort of simulation being run on computers build by super-aliens in some super-universe. And while that’s certainly philosophically conceivable, cdesign-proponentsists would of course try to spin that as being functionally equivalent to God, which it was all intended to lead back to anyway.

That’s why in the end their supposed pro-ID “evidence” never amounts to actual theories or models of ID(how the designing takes place, what methods were used etc.) and only ever take the form of anti-evolution arguments. Because only by doing that can their endeavor lead to a theological conclusion, which is what it’s all about in the end. That’s why they’re doing ID stuff in the first place. It’s religious apologetics, nothing more.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![sfmatheson](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/sfmatheson/32/22811_2.png) [@sfmatheson](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/sfmatheson)\
**Post date:** [November 21, 2020, 1:23am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/alternative-intelligent-designers/12504/7 "2020-11-21T01:23:43Z")

</div>

> [@Puck\_Mendelssohn](#):
>
> generally agreed that the midget gang from Time Bandits were the Designers. Is that not the case?

There was a Great Schism, and many have given themselves over to error and damnation.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Dan\_Eastwood](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/dan_eastwood/32/2368_2.png) [@Dan\_Eastwood](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Dan_Eastwood)\
**Post date:** [November 21, 2020, 1:27am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/alternative-intelligent-designers/12504/8 "2020-11-21T01:27:49Z")

</div>

@sfmatheson, @Puck_Mendelssohn,  
I have a Mr. Slartibartfast here who wants to have a private word with you.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Puck\_Mendelssohn](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/puck_mendelssohn/32/11849_2.png) [@Puck\_Mendelssohn](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Puck_Mendelssohn)\
**Post date:** [November 21, 2020, 2:11am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/alternative-intelligent-designers/12504/9 "2020-11-21T02:11:26Z")

</div>

> [@Dan\_Eastwood](#):
>
> I have a Mr. Slartibartfast here who wants to have a private word with you.

“I SAID it wasn’t important!”

But, yes, transdimensional beings which are manifested here in our dimension as mice are certainly a very real option for The Designer.

I think that particular bit is brilliant: it turns out that, whatever philosophers may have said and thought, there IS, after all, a single, unifying purpose to human life: a grand plan, a master scheme into which we fit and in which each one of us has a part to play – and the point of it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with any of us. It’s a hilarious up-ending of the whole notion of “ultimate purpose” as usually imagined.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Timothy\_Horton](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/timothy_horton/32/9410_2.png) [@Timothy\_Horton](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Timothy_Horton)\
**Post date:** [November 21, 2020, 2:11am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/alternative-intelligent-designers/12504/10 "2020-11-21T02:11:59Z")

</div>

> [@Dan\_Eastwood](#):
>
> @sfmatheson, @Puck_Mendelssohn,  
> I have a Mr. Slartibartfast here who wants to have a private word with you.

Interesting I posted Slartibartfast two hours ago and it got deleted. It must help to have connections. 🙂

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [November 21, 2020, 2:12am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/alternative-intelligent-designers/12504/11 "2020-11-21T02:12:02Z")

</div>

> [@swamidass](#):
>
> Alternatives to accomplish what purpose or function?

So you agree that different functions may have different designers?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![cwhenderson](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/cwhenderson/32/72_2.png) [@cwhenderson](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/cwhenderson)\
**Post date:** [November 21, 2020, 2:13am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/alternative-intelligent-designers/12504/12 "2020-11-21T02:13:31Z")

</div>

> [@Timothy\_Horton](#):
>
> Interesting I posted Slartibartfast two hours ago and it got deleted. It must help to have connections. 🙂

It’s true - the joke was @Timothy_Horton’s first. I rejected the post because it was about 95% meme.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Timothy\_Horton](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/timothy_horton/32/9410_2.png) [@Timothy\_Horton](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Timothy_Horton)\
**Post date:** [November 21, 2020, 2:26am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/alternative-intelligent-designers/12504/13 "2020-11-21T02:26:11Z")

</div>

> [@cwhenderson](#):
>
> It’s true - the joke was @Timothy_Horton’s first. I rejected the post because it was about 95% meme.

It wasn’t a meme. It was a photo of Slartibartfast from the BBC version of Hitchhiker’s Guide.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![cwhenderson](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/cwhenderson/32/72_2.png) [@cwhenderson](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/cwhenderson)\
**Post date:** [November 21, 2020, 2:31am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/alternative-intelligent-designers/12504/14 "2020-11-21T02:31:12Z")

</div>

My humble apologies. If you resubmit the photo, I’ll be happy to approve it.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Timothy\_Horton](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/timothy_horton/32/9410_2.png) [@Timothy\_Horton](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Timothy_Horton)\
**Post date:** [November 21, 2020, 2:36am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/alternative-intelligent-designers/12504/15 "2020-11-21T02:36:21Z")

</div>

Thanks but it’s no big deal. I was just going for the cheap laughs. 🙂

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![ProfBravus](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/profbravus/32/9712_2.png) [@ProfBravus](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/ProfBravus)\
**Post date:** [November 21, 2020, 2:50am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/alternative-intelligent-designers/12504/16 "2020-11-21T02:50:21Z")

</div>

> [@swamidass](#):
>
> Alternatives to accomplish what purpose or function?

Just noting that the OP is an attempt to understand the position of others. I characterised it as “these things are complex and apparently difficult to explain based on evolutionary mechanisms, and so an unspecified (and not necessarily the Christian Creator God) designer must have been involved”.

So I guess the purpose or function would be to explain the things that (it is claimed) evolutionary mechanisms don’t.

I take the point @sfmatheson made that I’ve added a non-essential inferential step from (the appearance of) design to the existence of a designer, and I’m very happy to consider other options.

For my own part, I am comfortable ascribing all the diversity and complexity of life to evolutionary processes, while understanding that, as Dara O’Brien put it, “science **knows** that it doesn’t know everything, otherwise it would stop”. There is plenty of absolutely fascinating and exciting learning still to be done about evolution.

(Full disclosure: the OP may also have been influenced by my love of science fiction)