LAME INTRODUCTION:I will apologize right here and now for the convoluted thread that now appears to be locked for its misdirection.
Furthermore, I will attempt to stay close to topic and keep topic in mind for organizational purposes.
This thread isn't directed specifically at Raist though he is welcome to join in, but it's really an open question I invite you all to consider.
___________________________________________________
I believe I can show you that it doesn't require intent.
INTENT:I will start by examining something
with intent. When someone designs a motorcycle, the design was probably made
with intent to suit an overall purpose like transportation. The combustion engine drives pistons and turbines to create mechanical energy that drives other portions of the motorcycle in a useful fashion. Wheels spin, and by utilizing friction you move forward. WEeee.
DESIGN:But what is design? When someone builds a machine, the intent is usually a means toward a goal. It has to
function. The design (the inherent physical characteristics of the subject) is incorporated in the function of the machine, because the functionality is the real focus here. By function, I am referring to the purpose that it serves. A gear in a machine has a function/purpose.
But what about things that have no designer?
If by some miracle a motorcycle falls together without a designer, including god, does it not have design? Does it not have function? I'd say the design is still there.
WITHOUT DESIGNER:I believe that something can have design without
being designed. Therefore, I would say that something can have a design without a designer's
intent for the design. Since I don't believe in miracles, the motorcycle example doesn't do justice.
Let's return to an example that I feel
does demonstrate my point. Consider a crude baseball bat. It is a simpler machine, and also much easier to imagine it occurring naturally since it is just a thick wooden stick, than a complex machine like a motorcycle.
This stick can have
many purposes because it has many inherent applicable functions. Because it is so simple, it is not really specialized to perform any
one function. Its possibilities are basically endless, and hitting baseballs is just one of many functions, (no wife beating jokes today, sorry). These functions are a
direct result of the physical form, and can be seen as what something "can to effectively do."
...
Let's suspend our beliefs in god(s) for a moment, if you haven't already, just to examine some functions:
- A cell's mitochondria has a purpose of generating the majority of ADT energy.
- A cell's lysosomes clean up worn out cell materials.
- A cell's nucleus protects and stores the DNA.
CONCLUSIONS:I don't claim that some authority (including God) specifically deemed each of these to have functions, but those functions are simply what they are built for. Muscle tissue was not necessarily created by a designer, but it still has a function to expand and contract.
If the baseball bat was wasn't designed by someone with intent but simply formed by the mechanical forces of nature, I would still find it useful and efficient for bashing things. It effectively and efficiently uses leverage to transfer force,
but it doesn't do anything outside of its
design capacity, like say cure cancer. It obviously isn't specialized in this fashion.
My question to you is, do you really need intent to have design? I want to hear your reasons.
Poll