designers on intelligent design

…humans are most certainly not the only designer/creator inhabitants of earth…all life is intelligent to some degree…we are, however, most likely the only life form who can actually comprehend our mortality and the inhabitant most able to adapt to a given environment or even modify or create our environment to suite our needs…modification is just further iteration and doesn’t necessarily diminish the intelligence which created the original…what we regard as stupidity is mostly misdirected intelligence but intelligence just the same.

To begin there is the variable of intelligence. Or at least the conscience desire in living things to survive. As designers we act in the role of creator to help our products adapt to their specific enviornments. We are here to ensure their survival. Can you call our guiding hand the work of natural selection? If natural selection, as it occurs in nature were to take place in the commerical world, it creates a poor business model, to say the least. It is through our intelligence that the first, “micorbiotic” stages of evolution are bypassed, or at least skipped over. Wouldn’t it stand to argument then, that were we to have a “creator”, these stages of life wouldn’t be present? While evolution works, it isn’t an extremly efficent model, when looked at form a design standpoint. Wouldn’t some “Intelligent Designer” have used the design process to generate concepts that were a little more polished? We don’t use 80% of our brain capacity. We have the remnants of claws and hair that isn’t essential to our survival. These are major oversight for a designer that is supposed to be all-knowing. But I guess it’s hard to come up with a perfect design in just 6 days…

  1. How much does a designer’s role reflect that of the creator (i.e. understanding of mechanics, form, function, human behavior etc.)

On the first day, God came into the office and turned the lights on over the drawing table, and it was a good, full spectrum, low-wattage bulb. Over the next six days He drew, built, modeled; a few days later He threw everything away and started over, since His original ideas for the planet didn’t really hold up under scrutiny.

  1. Do you feel that working as a designer gives one more insight into the workings of the world?

Yes, in a study of cause and effect, especially in the research phases of a project, and in the evaluation phases when you decide if a product solved a particular problem or addressed a need. Often a good idea will run up against a wall of human nature - take ego, for one small example - the most well-designed eco-friendly fuel-cell powered vehicle does nothing to address people’s ambitions to drive a monster SUV, and the feeling that it engenders. You could say that some people are not as open to evolution, and might have gone astray, but this simply shows the world’s complexity…and so yes, the designer gets some idea of this complexity, through the frustrated efforts of his or her best intentions.

  1. Does this insight elevate the designer as a “higher sentinent being”?


No, it just gives them an informed opinion. Actually I think the opposite is true - the trend-focused designer’s obsession with the making of things - literally fetish objects or idols - distances he or she from deeper self-knowledge insights into their own minds and existence. Maybe that’s just me. :unamused:

  1. Bearing in mind that the ability to learn is an evolutionary advantage, it follows that some designers are more evolved than others. Design is merely the reaction of a designer to his/her environment… usually in a manner which attempts to shape it. We don’t create anything, but reconfigure raw materials into a new object.

  2. One cannot design without knowing the worlds workings.

  3. I find it hard to believe that sub-atomic physicists have greater insight because they deal with even finer details.

  4. The amoeba is more complicated than a pocket watch. Cellular processes like mitosis and basic metabolism are orders of magnitude more complex than a mousetrap.

  5. I don’t think Intelligent Design has cast a new spotlight on Industrial Design. More likely, it was Martha Stewart and all the DIY shows that were quickly adapted from the British originals.

  6. Evolution and design are roughly the same, when looked at on the same large scale. The design process is more akin to natural selection, while evolution is the slow long-term adaptation. Take wheeled transport vehicles, there is a beautiful natural evolution from the basic 2-wheel cart to the modern tractor-trailer. Modern humans are not adapted for living in an age of foraging and mortal combat with predators, but our ancestors were. Each new iteration of vehicle and human have specific design features for the needs of the day.

  7. What happened to seven of nine?

  8. I think more like elementals. Most designers seem to fall into either Earth or Water. Fire for the lighting designers. Air is rare.

  9. A designer of building blocks… make the rules and everything else follows. The H20 molecule is one the most beautiful forms in the universe. There is a theory that prime numbers and quantum electron orbits are mathematically related. I also like ripples and various shades of purple.


…7 of 9 and harry kim are likely boinking each others collective brains out…jeri ryan is currently filming “shark” directed by spike lee…

The critical question is whether Designers consider the design life forms as Design. If they do – then it’s simple. Darwin has figured out the design process and people like Prof. Richard Dawkings have successfully replicated it in a computer. It works.

  1. Hmmmm.If you mean creator, like the creator of all things, then how can you not “REFLECT”. This is hard to answer simply. The question is over simplified compared to it’s actual complexity. I would say it’s as simple as catagories, catagories of design and designers, if the designer is stupid and uninformed then their reflection will be skewed and untrue. i.e. Modernism. If the Designer is inteligent or at least trying to be their reflection could be one of two things, innovative (at any degree), or an honest error.i.e Optimism for design.

“There is hope in honest error: none in the icy perfection of a mere stylist.” Anon-

2)I am young, unexperienced and have a lot to learn. However I would say that for those of us referring to ourselves as designers or studying to do so, if you do not have any insights into the workings of the world yet, you should immediatly stop what your doing and educate yourself or at least start trying. Basicaly, if your not tapped in, your doing your self and the rest of us a great disservice. Us, refers to all living species on spaceship earth.

3) NO! We are just the ones who can’t rest, when from gaining this insight we see what problems our pedecessors have strewn before us. We are like Scientist in many ways, our subject, culture of course!

  1. Unsure.

  2. What are some contemporary examples of Intelligent design. I am emersed in design culture, I feel that I Look in the right places, but still would have to sadly say about 3% (rough estimate) is intelligent.

  3. COMPLETELY DIFFERENT! or everything echoes everything, hows that. Wow

and for the fun ones:

8)Huh? i tried to play along with this one, but, HUh?

  1. Self-righteous? His house? Common!

    Hey hey I got one.

  2. Who or what designed God? My money is on Chaos! All though…nevermind.

    I’m no nihilist, but if intelligent beings are in anyway responsible for the state of earth right now, I would rather not see what the stupid beings came up with.

(no offense stupid beings)

how did the paper turn out?

hi all,

sorry for going MIA, but we’re getting close to finals and my schedule goes out the window as things start to prioritize themselves.

Thanks for your many replies. the paper is due on tuesday the 18th, so I’ll be doing my last bit of compiling this weekend. If you have any last comments please send then and I will probably post the paper (or send it to who ever is interested) the following friday.

happy spring holiday,

Some parametric feature based models (in solidworks. pro-e and the like), interestingly enough, also have features which are suppressed like the eye sockets, or overpowered by other features like the reptilian tails.
We all know how ‘intelligent’ those models look. :wink: