# According to intelligent designer believers... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 21, 2005, 8:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/according-to-intelligent-designer-believers/327231 "2005-10-21T08:35:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![filmyak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/94ad74/32.png) [@filmyak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/filmyak)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2005, 8:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/according-to-intelligent-designer-believers/327231/1 "2005-10-21T08:35:26Z")
According to intelligent designer believers… why do men have nipples? That is, why do they believe that a god that seems so opposed to sex for fun would stick two utterly useless nubs on a guy’s chest? And while we’re at it, what do they think about appendixes? Both are easy to explain using evolutionary theory, but I can’t quite figure out what ID’ers would say. Googling the question brings up more questions from fellow skeptics, but I haven’t found any real answers… ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2005, 8:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/according-to-intelligent-designer-believers/327231/2 "2005-10-21T08:49:28Z")
They would say that we cannot know the mind of god. That’s their whole schtick; it’s about not knowing, so it MUST be god. The very fact that they can’t explain it they see as a point in their favor. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2005, 10:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/according-to-intelligent-designer-believers/327231/3 "2005-10-21T10:02:25Z")
> [@filmyak](#): > > According to intelligent designer believers… why do men have nipples? My wife is an intelligent designer — she’s just finished a couple of Halloween costumes for the grand kids. And she says that men have nipples because it makes them cute. ---
**Author:** ![Nilor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a4c791/32.png) [@Nilor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nilor)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2005, 10:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/according-to-intelligent-designer-believers/327231/4 "2005-10-21T10:32:36Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > My wife is an intelligent designer — she’s just finished a couple of Halloween costumes for the grand kids. And she says that men have nipples because it makes them cute. Did she put nipples on the costumes she designed? Er…I guess that strays from this forum. What makes you think you can get a logical answer from advocates of intelligent design? ---
**Author:** ![BarnOwl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e95f7d/32.png) [@BarnOwl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BarnOwl)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2005, 10:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/according-to-intelligent-designer-believers/327231/5 "2005-10-21T10:34:52Z")
If ID is right and evolution is wrong, how do the ID-ers explain the plethora of extinct creatures, whose fossils have been found by the billions. Were these big time mistakes God made while going through His learning curve? “Hmmm. Didn’t get that right, did I.” **WHAM!** “You’re dead. Now let’s try something else.” Good old persevering God. He kept at it until He got it right. But considering how Man has been such a colossal disappointment, God may not have gotten it right, after all. Yet. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2005, 11:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/according-to-intelligent-designer-believers/327231/6 "2005-10-21T11:00:27Z")
Well, given how poorly designed the human body is, they very least they could do would be to change the name of their made-up, specious non-theory to ‘Incompetent Design’ or ‘Badly-Botched-Together Design’. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2005, 11:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/according-to-intelligent-designer-believers/327231/7 "2005-10-21T11:14:14Z")
> [@tagos](#): > > Well, given how poorly designed the human body is, they very least they could do would be to change the name of their made-up, specious non-theory to ‘Incompetent Design’ or ‘Badly-Botched-Together Design’. Ah, no, you see, it’s not bad design, it’s just that we don’t understand the criteria. And that’s the problem with ID - in one word: unfalsifiability. In slightly more words: no matter what objection you can possibly raise against ID, it’s just too easy to weasel out of by saying “Well, the designer may have a different perspective to ours”. In any case, I’ve found it very difficult to get anyone to tell me what ID _is_; there’s a lot said about what it _isn’t_ (i.e. “it _isn’t_ creationism”, “it _doesn’t_ attempt to identify the designer”, etc). So, an ID approach to the issue of male nipples would probably be something like: -It arises out of the common construction method implemented for both male and female humans… this common construction method (as opposed to having completely different developmental processes for each sex) is evidence of… DESIGN! Because… ummm… how could something so complex happen by chance? Of course if we _did_ have completely different developmental processes for each sex, then that would also be evidence of… DESIGN! Because… ummm… how could something so complex happen by chance? ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2005, 11:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/according-to-intelligent-designer-believers/327231/8 "2005-10-21T11:25:33Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > Ah, no, you see, it’s not bad design, it’s just that we don’t understand the criteria. > > And that’s the problem with ID - in one word: unfalsifiability. Sadly true. I can’t for the life of me understand how anyone able to chew gum without choking can subscribe to this crap. IMHO any school that teaches ID as science or in a science-related class should be decertificated or whatever the appropriate word is. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2005, 11:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/according-to-intelligent-designer-believers/327231/9 "2005-10-21T11:28:17Z")
I am still waiting to find out where the intelligent designer was before there was a place to be, and design in. To exist one needs a place in which to exist,unless place and being are the same. I wonder was intelligence also design? Monavis ---
**Author:** ![BluePitbull](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e9bcb4/32.png) [@BluePitbull](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BluePitbull)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2005, 11:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/according-to-intelligent-designer-believers/327231/10 "2005-10-21T11:34:33Z")
> [@tagos](#): > > Sadly true. I can’t for the life of me understand how anyone able to chew gum without choking can subscribe to this crap. > > IMHO any school that teaches ID as science or in a science-related class should be decertificated or whatever the appropriate word is. Couldn’t it be taught as a philosophy class? What exactly is it though? Is it showing the complexities of nature? ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2005, 11:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/according-to-intelligent-designer-believers/327231/11 "2005-10-21T11:49:04Z")
It could be taught in a philosophy or religious studies\* class; I don’t think the students in either of these are expected to _personally invest in_ what they learn. \*That would annoy the ID folks more than simply excluding it from the curriculum, because “ID _isn’t_…” ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2005, 12:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/according-to-intelligent-designer-believers/327231/12 "2005-10-21T12:25:50Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > In any case, I’ve found it very difficult to get anyone to tell me what ID _is_; there’s a lot said about what it _isn’t_ (i.e. “it _isn’t_ creationism”, “it _doesn’t_ attempt to identify the designer”, etc). I can at least help you with that. The linchpin of ID is the notion of _irreducible complexity_ - the belief that there are biological mechanisms, particularly at the molecular level, that couldn’t have evolved in a step-by-step fashion because they’d have served no purpose if only some of the parts of the mechanism had been in place. Ergo, the need for a designer to come up with the whole concept in advance and implement it all at once. There’s clearly a bunch of problems with this idea, starting with whether the examples they give of irreducible complexity (e.g. the clotting cascade) really are irreducibly complex, and ending up with assorted theological critiques of the Designer. But irreducible complexity is what ID is all about. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2005, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/according-to-intelligent-designer-believers/327231/13 "2005-10-21T12:28:45Z")
I understand that much, but that being the case, it’s hardly bringing anything to the table that wasn’t previously served up unpalatable and lukewarm by creationism. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2005, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/according-to-intelligent-designer-believers/327231/14 "2005-10-21T12:50:51Z")
> [@BluePitbull](#): > > Couldn’t it be taught as a philosophy class? What exactly is it though? Is it showing the complexities of nature? As long as it’s not in a science class. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2005, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/according-to-intelligent-designer-believers/327231/15 "2005-10-21T12:52:27Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > I can at least help you with that. > > The linchpin of ID is the notion of _irreducible complexity_ - the belief that there are biological mechanisms, particularly at the molecular level, that couldn’t have evolved in a step-by-step fashion because they’d have served no purpose if only some of the parts of the mechanism had been in place. Ergo, the need for a designer to come up with the whole concept in advance and implement it all at once. > > There’s clearly a bunch of problems with this idea, starting with whether the examples they give of irreducible complexity (e.g. the clotting cascade) really are irreducibly complex, and ending up with assorted theological critiques of the Designer. But irreducible complexity is what ID is all about. This is just God of the Gaps with a new name. ---
**Author:** ![gum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bbe5ce/32.png) [@gum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gum)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2005, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/according-to-intelligent-designer-believers/327231/16 "2005-10-21T12:58:35Z")
Which intelligent desinger made teeth? He [or she] ought to be send to Orin Scrivello, DDS. ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2005, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/according-to-intelligent-designer-believers/327231/17 "2005-10-21T13:21:08Z")
I thought this forum was **Great Debates**? What I’m seeing mostly is a buncha folks all on the same side patting each other on the back and laughing about how great they are, except of course for post #9 in which there is some burbling only loosely connected to the subject of the OP, no surprise there. Anyway: [quote=OP] According to intelligent designer believers… why do men have nipples? That is, why do they believe that a god that seems so opposed to sex for fun would stick two utterly useless nubs on a guy’s chest?[/op] I think I see the problem… by no means all IDers argue that the Designer is opposed to sex for fun. This whole “making shit up and attributing it to the other side” seldom comes out well. ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2005, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/according-to-intelligent-designer-believers/327231/18 "2005-10-21T13:22:27Z")
Mind you, a truly Intelligent Designer would have made me able to code slightly better than a trilobite. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2005, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/according-to-intelligent-designer-believers/327231/19 "2005-10-21T13:22:40Z")
So your complaint is that the ID side hasn’t brought anything worthwhile to the debate? I’m shocked, SHOCKED I tell you. ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2005, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/according-to-intelligent-designer-believers/327231/20 "2005-10-21T13:40:44Z")
No, more of a case that no-one is actually expecting the ID side to bring anything to the debate, and they’re busily slapping each other on the back and going “Men’s nipples! Haw haw! That sure told 'im!”, amid the usual ration of strawmanning and well-poisoning. Btw, have I ever mentioned how hubristic I find the term “God of the Gaps”? Ol’ Isaac Newton was modest enough to review his whole life’s work as one of sitting on the seashore going “Ooh! Shiny!” every time he saw a pretty shell or pebble, while the ocean of truth lay undiscovered before him. Now we’re all convincing ourselves we know _practically_ everything. I guess that means we’re all smarter than Newton these days. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/according-to-intelligent-designer-believers/327231.md?page=2)