If Humans Build DNA Machines, Is It Intelligent Design?

Posted by Duane

Jul 2

May 15, 2010 — Two teams have succeeded in building little robots that work on DNA tracks. These resemble in many respects the machines that cells use to perform its functions on DNA. No one denies that humans engineered their nanobots on purpose, but Darwinist scientists claim natural cellular machines evolved without purpose or design. What’s the difference?

…

So if we do it, it’s intelligent design, but if nature does it, it’s blind evolution? You realize, of course, that the natural machines in cells are far ahead of us: they are not only autonomous, but attain very complex behaviors that are programmed into their molecular systems. Not only that, they belong to complexes of molecular machines, which belong to networks of signal processing systems, that boggle the mind – and they belong to entire systems that have a coded library, and can reproduce all their parts! Why should not scientists find it “inspiring to see such creativity” of “autonomous molecular systems that can execute complex actions” and ascribe it to design? Molecular biology should be filled with God-fearing, worshiping, praise-singing scientists shouting Hallelujah! What we get instead are man-fearing, fault-finding, hate-mongering ingrates shouting Pal-Ayala.

Other related Aristophrenium articles:

Filed under: Creation/Evolution, Molecular Biology

http://www.facebook.com/tom.gilson1 Tom Gilson

Yes.

(In answer to the question posed in the title of the blog.)

I don't think it needs any more complicated answer than that.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000284021965 Freddy Hernandez

I don't understand what parallel they're trying to convey. It's rather a broken point, and quite a weak straw to grasp.

If mankind invents a machine, it is a product of intelligent design because the creator of said machine is readily demonstrable. There's no mystery there.

The answer, as Tom pointed out above me, is yes. If humans consciously build machines with a specific purpose, that is intelligent design.
http://intensedebate.com/people/AristoDuane Duane

"…If mankind invents a machine, it is a product of intelligent design because the creator of said machine is readily demonstrable. There's no mystery there. [emphasis mine]

So it is only fair to say that something is intelligently designed if we know who designed it… Is that your point?
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000284021965 Freddy Hernandez

Something being a product of intelligent design doesn't mean we always have to know who designed it, but we can make a distinction between intelligent design and natural occurrence by examining what is demonstrable in reality.

For example: I don't necessarily need to know who personally made a basketball to know that basketballs aren't found in nature and a product of human intelligent design.
http://intensedebate.com/people/AristoDuane Duane

We appear to agree that knowing the designer does not preclude our ability to discern design. We also agree that it's possible to distinguish between intelligent design and naturally occurring things by examining "reality" (as if I claimed that the objects of observation existed elsewhere?).

However, being that "reality" is a reference to things in nature (A), we are somehow meant to draw the not-so-obvious conclusion that the objects of study must have a natural origin/cause (B). But how the leap between (A) and (B) is achieved is unclear.

To stick with the example in the article, let's assume for a moment that there is no knowledge of anyone having designed these DNA machines. And then let us assume that some clever scientist discovers these nanobots in "nature" (i.e. "reality"). Based solely on your reasoning, we could never conclude that these machines were designed, even if in fact they were! Of course this is a demonstrably false presupposition, especially when we know the kinds of things that intelligence is capable of producing (i.e. DNA machines)

Finally, the problem with the basketball example is that it appears suspiciously circular. To paraphrase, we know basketballs are intelligently designed because they're a product of intelligent design. It's like your litmus test for determining whether things are designed or not is whether we know they were intelligently designed or not.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000284021965 Freddy Hernandez

"However, being that "reality" is a reference to things in nature (A), we are somehow meant to draw the not-so-obvious conclusion that the objects of study must have a natural origin/cause (B). But how the leap between (A) and (B) is achieved is unclear."

Not so obvious? How's this – don't confirm hypotheses without adequate evidence. Things in nature having a natural cause is not a leap by any measure, because we have no empirical evidence of the contrary – yet we have loads of evidence to support the proposition.

"To stick with the example in the article, let's assume for a moment that there is no knowledge of anyone having designed these DNA machines. And then let us assume that some clever scientist discovers these nanobots in "nature" (i.e. "reality"). Based solely on your reasoning, we could never conclude that these machines were designed, even if in fact they were! Of course this is a demonstrably false presupposition, especially when we know the kinds of things that intelligence is capable of producing (i.e. DNA machines)"

If we could never conclude that these machines were designed, the proposition would not be demonstrably false, would it? I don't understand the point you're trying to make. You're essentially asking "If these things were indeed designed, but we had no way of knowing, how would we know?"

We wouldn't. The question answers itself.

However, if it was demonstrable that the machines were designed in any reasonable fashion, then we would indeed know – although we wouldn't necessarily know the author of such machines.

"Finally, the problem with the basketball example is that it appears suspiciously circular. To paraphrase, we know basketballs are intelligently designed because they're a product of intelligent design. It's like your litmus test for determining whether things are designed or not is whether we know they were intelligently designed or not."

And that's not what I said at all.

I said: "I don't necessarily need to know who personally made a basketball to know that basketballs aren't found in nature and a product of human intelligent design."

I was making a point about the authorship of the basketball, not the specific methods we use to determine intelligent design. This is following my statement in my first post : "If mankind invents a machine, it is a product of intelligent design because the creator of said machine is readily demonstrable."

Demonstrability and empirical evidence for design is key to the process.
http://aristophrenium.com/ Duane

It is a leap, and you've not provided any reason for thinking otherwise. How's this, don't assert connections where there are none. The leap occurs in assuming that simply because these machines are found in nature that they do not or cannot have an intelligent cause, especially when they bear the hallmarks of designed machines, like the ones recently produced by human intelligence.

You have mistaken my illustration. My point was that we know the nanobots in the article were designed. Yet, if we found these exact nanobots occuring in "nature", you'd feel justified in asserting that they were not designed. I see no justification for asserting such a thing. Yet you do?

You say that "Demonstrability and empirical evidence for design is key to the process" yet your basketball example is dependent on knowing a priori that basketballs are designed. So how then, are you meant to determine whether other things that you have no experience with, are designed or not? Part of your criteria seems to be something akin to, "If anything is found in nature, it is not designed". But this assertion itself is not demonstratable or empirically evident. Please!