# Intelligent Design = Atheism? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 4, 2001, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-atheism/85417 "2001-10-04T18:24:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Maci](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/838e76/32.png) [@Maci](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maci)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2001, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-atheism/85417/1 "2001-10-04T18:24:21Z")
It may just be the lack of sleep talking, but . . . Intelligent Design proponents admit that biological life is often “sub-optimal” ( [http://www.discovery.org/viewDB/index.php3?program=CRSC&command=view&id=86](http://www.discovery.org/viewDB/index.php3?program=CRSC&command=view&id=86) ). In the case of the cited article, Dembski argues that no designer designs for optimal efficiency, so why should we expect god too? But I think he misses the point that human designers operate under restraints of economy, knowledge, and material when they design cars, etc. whereas an omnipotent, omniscient god has no such hindrances. So am I wrong in assuming that, if true, Intelligent Design is absolute proof that god is in fact a limited being and therefore not really “god” as most people would define it? ---
**Author:** ![Cuckoorex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ad7895/32.png) [@Cuckoorex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cuckoorex)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2001, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-atheism/85417/2 "2001-10-04T18:55:59Z")
I would venture to say that IF (and that’s a big and unlikely IF) Intelligent Design were true, then all it would really show is exactly what the name implies; that an intelligence was behind the design. Whether that intelligence is God or not is another matter entirely. That assumes that any Intelligent Designer _has_ to be God. ---
**Author:** ![toadspittle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c0e974/32.png) [@toadspittle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toadspittle)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2001, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-atheism/85417/3 "2001-10-04T18:58:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Maci \* > \*\*It may just be the lack of sleep talking, but . . . > > Intelligent Design proponents admit that biological life is often “sub-optimal” ( [http://www.discovery.org/viewDB/index.php3?program=CRSC&command=view&id=86](http://www.discovery.org/viewDB/index.php3?program=CRSC&command=view&id=86) ). In the case of the cited article, Dembski argues that no designer designs for optimal efficiency, so why should we expect god too? > > But I think he misses the point that human designers operate under restraints of economy, knowledge, and material when they design cars, etc. whereas an omnipotent, omniscient god has no such hindrances. > > So am I wrong in assuming that, if true, Intelligent Design is absolute proof that god is in fact a limited being and therefore not really “god” as most people would define it? \*\* Unfortunately, no. You can easily reconcile all of the imperfections in creation (disease, poorly designed eyes, knees, etc., general evil and human suffering) as God just playing by the rules that He set up for creation. He could have set up ANY rules, but this is what he chose, and he’s decided to work within those parameters. Just as, for instance, a poet writing a sonnet could decide it’s too hard to fit what he needs to say into 14 lines and instead needs 17 lines… but doesn’t, because then it wouldn’t really be a sonnet anymore, would it? So poor design is some evidence vs. God, but as in a court case, evidence can be interpreted many ways. ---
**Author:** ![Cliffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/59ef9b/32.png) [@Cliffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cliffy)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2001, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-atheism/85417/4 "2001-10-04T19:22:17Z")
That’s a cop-out. Why are “the rules” God chose so inviolate? If he’s God, he could have just chosen rules in which perfect design would have been possible. –Cliffy ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2001, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-atheism/85417/5 "2001-10-04T19:23:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Maci \* > Intelligent Design proponents admit that biological life is often “sub-optimal” … > > But I think he misses the point that human designers operate under restraints of economy, knowledge, and material when they design cars, etc. whereas an omnipotent, omniscient god has no such hindrances. > > So am I wrong in assuming that, if true, Intelligent Design is absolute proof that god is in fact a limited being and therefore not really “god” as most people would define it? Ahh, but “sub-optimal” only by human terms, not the Great Watchmaker’s. The Grand Poobah may have decided that the optimal result in Its view, was biological design that presented challenges to said designed. One obvious example is that fact that living things die. Sub-optimal to the living thing, but pretty necessary if that pretty Heaven the Mongo Enchilada designed was going to get any use. Sua ---
**Author:** ![Cardinal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cardinal/32/4000_2.png) [@Cardinal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cardinal)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2001, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-atheism/85417/6 "2001-10-04T20:45:25Z")
If God wanted to set up physical and genetic laws that He knew would eventually result in people, and He didn’t really care if that meant that they would have non-functioning appendixes, then the “sub-optimal” design in just a term from humans, pointing out that something different _could_ have been done differently. There’s also no way to know whether God stepped in and pushed things along occaisionally. If what He did was not a violation of the laws of nature, then it’s just a kind of steering motion. Others may jump in here screaming that there’s no need to postulate God’s “interference” for the process to happen, but I already said that. I simply said that the fossil record is not the kind of thing that makes an indication of God’s involvement. It’s not like He left some sort of fingerprint for us to find, even if He did get pointedly involved at some point. Even a miracle (a violation of natural laws) doesn’t leave a fossil trace. ---
**Author:** ![Soup\_du\_jour](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/848f3c/32.png) [@Soup\_du\_jour](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Soup_du_jour)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2001, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-atheism/85417/7 "2001-10-04T21:44:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally Posted by Cliffy > > \ ***That’s a cop-out. Why are “the rules” God chose so inviolate? If he’s God, he could have just chosen rules in which perfect design would have been possible.** This entire line of thought is based on the **assumption** that God would want to create a perfect world. If the world were perfect, either: -Humans, as we know them, couldn’t exist. We are imperfect. or -We would be automatons. Even in a perfect physical form, we would still have that problem of free will. I hate to sound “church-ey,” but God loved us so much, he couldn’t bear the possibility that we wouldn’t be free. He gave us the oppertunity to make mistakes. We just make them. Besides, things wouldn’t be any fun if everything were perfect. -Soup ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2001, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-atheism/85417/8 "2001-10-04T21:59:55Z")
Science fiction writers often face the problem that the wonderful new invention, social institution, or whatever, that provides the _machina_ for the story, makes the resolution of what little plot is possible too easy. There is no conflict worth mentioning, no character development, no growth. And no sales. If you have a planet-buster bomb, one little old fire-breathing dragon becomes small potatoes indeed. Or, for another parallel, why do people invest immense time, effort, and financial resources into attempting to find a life partner when their sexual and residential predilections can be quite adequately provided for by masturbation and by living alone? Whatever may have been God’s motivation, it cannot have been simplicity or efficiency (most simple universe, by the way, is accomplished by tweaking some basic parameters only slightly. I believe that the strong force:electromagnetism constant is one that, shifted in one direction, permits only a universe full of hydrogen, and in the other, not even that: any Big Bang results in immediate collapse to the pre-existing state. Then you get down to the nitty gritty, and find the recurring concept that God’s intent is for His creatures to love him. Takes two to love, of course. And a world in which to evolve that concept. And maybe he’s just interested in the situation, and wants to keep the plot and characters running indefinitely. ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2001, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-atheism/85417/9 "2001-10-04T22:06:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dave Swaney \* > \*\*If God wanted to set up physical and genetic laws that He knew would eventually result in people, and He didn’t really care if that meant that they would have non-functioning appendixes, then the “sub-optimal” design in just a term from humans, pointing out that something different _could_ have been done differently. > > There’s also no way to know whether God stepped in and pushed things along occaisionally. If what He did was not a violation of the laws of nature, then it’s just a kind of steering motion.\*\* That’s one problem with accepting Creationism or Intelligent Design as scientific disciplines - the stock response to any opposition can be simply stated as, “God could have done anything He wanted to!” Sure…but how does that help us in determining whether He actually _did_ do something? And, if so, _what_ did He do? Pointing to imperfection doesn’t really make the case for evolution as the sole “designer”, either, for the same reason: God _could_ have designed things “imperfectly” on purpose, (or, for the hardcore types, Sin has corrupted all Life and introduced imperfection where none existed previously). In short, imperfection doesn’t really make the case either way. **If** God acted as Intelligent Designer (or, if you prefer, “Creator”), then, as I see it, He either left traces of His Handiwork, or He did not. If He did, then we might expect to be able to find them. For proponents of Intelligent Design, these “traces” can be found in the presence of an exceedingly vague concept: “specified complexity”. What, exactly, that means is anyone’s guess (and no one has provided a useful definition of “specified” in this context to date). As such, these “traces” remain elusive, if they are present at all. If He did not (or any would-be traces have been covered up with Divine Subtlety), however, then there is no reason why we _shouldn’t_ be looking for naturalistic causes, since we would be incapable of finding anything to the contrary anyway. In other words, if God’s work was so subtle as to look, for all the world, like it had a naturalistic cause, then we should expect to find such a naturalistic cause (or, at least, to explain said cause in naturalistic terms). ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2001, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-atheism/85417/10 "2001-10-04T22:44:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Soup\_du\_jour \* > \*\*I hate to sound “church-ey,” but God loved us so much, he couldn’t bear the possibility that we wouldn’t be free. He gave us the oppertunity to make mistakes. We just make them. > -Soup \*\* He loved us so much that he gave us the opportunity to suffer **ETERNAL PAIN**. But I’m not bitter. ---
**Author:** ![capacitor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e47774/32.png) [@capacitor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/capacitor)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2001, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-atheism/85417/11 "2001-10-05T00:56:16Z")
Pain, either in the body or the spiritual heart, is the best indicator that something is wrong that needs fixing. ---
**Author:** ![Cliffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/59ef9b/32.png) [@Cliffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cliffy)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2001, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-atheism/85417/12 "2001-10-05T18:26:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Soup\_du\_jour \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally Posted by Cliffy > > > > \ ***That’s a cop-out. Why are “the rules” God chose so inviolate? If he’s God, he could have just chosen rules in which perfect design would have been possible.** > > This entire line of thought is based on the **assumption** that God would want to create a perfect world.\*\* Actually, no. It’s based on the **fact** that any God who could have created a perfect world and instead chose not to do so is an asshole. \*\* > [@](#): > > If the world were perfect, either: > > -Humans, as we know them, couldn’t exist. We are imperfect.\*\* Sounds fine to me. What’s so great about humans? \*\* > [@](#): > > or > > -We would be automatons. Even in a perfect physical form, we would still have that problem of free will.\*\* Humans don’t have free will now; I’d rather be an automaton that doesn’t suffer instead of one that does. \*\* > [@](#): > > I hate to sound “church-ey,” but God loved us so much, he couldn’t bear the possibility that we wouldn’t be free. He gave us the oppertunity to make mistakes. We just make them.\*\* Fuck him. Who the hell does he think he is? –Cliffy ---
**Author:** ![Cardinal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cardinal/32/4000_2.png) [@Cardinal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cardinal)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2001, 7:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-atheism/85417/13 "2001-10-06T07:01:35Z")
> [@](#): > > In short, imperfection doesn’t really make the case either way. Exactly. Natural causes “steered” by God, if there were any, will look just like other natural causes, because they ARE natural causes. We’d never find the “steering”. If you believe that God gave you a great job, you’ll never be able that you wouldn’t have a great interview otherwise. We’ll never know entirely, objectively. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2001, 11:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-atheism/85417/14 "2001-10-06T11:36:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Cliffy \* > Actually, no. It’s based on the **fact** that any God who could have created a perfect world and instead chose not to do so is an asshole. I seem to recall a cartoon where Daffy Duck gets angry with the world Chuck Jones created. As I saw it, however, Daffy just lacked perspective. > [@](#): > > Humans don’t have free will now; I’d rather be an automaton that doesn’t suffer instead of one that does. Based on your personal knowledge of how swell life would be as an automaton? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2001, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-atheism/85417/15 "2001-10-06T12:50:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by capacitor \* > \*\*Pain, either in the body or the spiritual heart, is the best indicator that something is wrong that needs fixing. \*\* I do believe that **SeniorBeef** was refering to the eternal pain of Hell. You’re not suggesting that, once someone is in Hell, she/he can resolve the problem somehow and leave, are you? ---
**Author:** ![Greyson3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/258eb7/32.png) [@Greyson3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Greyson3)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2001, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-atheism/85417/16 "2001-10-06T15:23:19Z")
> [@](#): > > I seem to recall a cartoon where Daffy Duck gets angry with the world Chuck Jones created. As I saw it, however, Daffy just lacked perspective. I don’t think that’s such a good example. Chuck Jones did not make that world for Daffy’s benefit, which was why Daffy’s complaints were so absurd. Daffy was intended to amuse the audience. I would hate to think that that is the situation we are in. ---
**Author:** ![Cardinal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cardinal/32/4000_2.png) [@Cardinal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cardinal)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2001, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-atheism/85417/17 "2001-10-07T01:20:59Z")
> [@](#): > > If you believe that God gave you a great job, you’ll never be able that you wouldn’t have a great interview otherwise. We’ll never know entirely, objectively. That of course is supposed to say: If you believe that God gave you a great job, you’ll never be able **to prove** that you wouldn’t have a great interview otherwise. We’ll never know entirely, objectively. ---
**Author:** ![Cliffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/59ef9b/32.png) [@Cliffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cliffy)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2001, 11:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-atheism/85417/18 "2001-10-07T11:58:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Greyson3 \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > I seem to recall a cartoon where Daffy Duck gets angry with the world Chuck Jones created. As I saw it, however, Daffy just lacked perspective. > > I don’t think that’s such a good example. Chuck Jones did not make that world for Daffy’s benefit, which was why Daffy’s complaints were so absurd. Daffy was intended to amuse the audience. I would hate to think that that is the situation we are in. \*\* In addition, Daffy doesn’t actually feel the pain of his frustration and isolation because he’s fictional. I do. So do you. That’s unacceptable. –Cliffy P.S. I do know what life is like as an automoton, since I’m one right now, as is everyone else. But you missed my point; my alternative is that I might be an anutomoton that doesn’t suffer. I don’t know if such a think actually exists, but if God is omnipotent then he could indeed create them. He could have chose to do that instead. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Pearse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/richard_pearse/32/13144_2.png) [@Richard\_Pearse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Pearse)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2001, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-atheism/85417/19 "2001-10-07T13:38:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Soup\_du\_jour \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally Posted by Cliffy > > > > \ ***That’s a cop-out. Why are “the rules” God chose so inviolate? If he’s God, he could have just chosen rules in which perfect design would have been possible.** > > This entire line of thought is based on the **assumption** that God would want to create a perfect world. > > If the world were perfect, either: > > -Humans, as we know them, couldn’t exist. We are imperfect. > > \*\* But God DID create a perfect world, and you’re right, it doesn’t contain humans. Why can we not we see it? Because we do not live on it. ---
**Author:** ![Soup\_du\_jour](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/848f3c/32.png) [@Soup\_du\_jour](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Soup_du_jour)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2001, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-atheism/85417/20 "2001-10-08T05:31:01Z")
Maybe I didn’t make myself clear. By a “perfect world,” I mean a world in which evil did not exist. I do not mean the “best of all possible worlds.” Not wanting the best circumstances is ludicrous. The disagreement, I suppose, is based on different priorities. The choice, as I see it, is either: -Have a world where we are free to do both good and evil or -Be pre-programmed to act in accordance with another’s will, thereby eliminating our humanity Freedom, by definition, implies a choice, and the means to act on that choice, whether good or bad. This is, of course, assuming that we aren’t automatons, which we have no reason to believe is the case. > [@](#): > > _Originally Posted by SenorBeef_ > **He loved us so much that he gave us the opportunity to suffer ETERNAL PAIN.** Flip the coin. God also gave us the opportunity to enjoy ETERNAL HAPPINESS. Besides, how great would a “perfect world” be? Would we really be happier? Vacations are refreshing because they offer a break from the rat-race. If there were no hardships in your everyday life, would the vacation seem that great? You cannot have a back without a front, top without a bottom, light without darkness, pleasure without pain, or good without evil. -Soup [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-atheism/85417.md?page=2)