# What are the arguments for intelligent design? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 11, 2011, 10:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-arguments-for-intelligent-design/595929 "2011-09-11T10:57:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2011, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-arguments-for-intelligent-design/595929/21 "2011-09-11T18:20:51Z")
> [@ianzin](#): > > I support neither creationism nor ID, but at the same time I think the ‘irreducible complexity’ argument is more interesting than you say, and also more challenging. > > I’ve read what Richard Dawkins has to say about the supposed ‘irreducible complexity’ of the eye and I don’t find it satisfactory. In one of his books he wrote, 'What use is half an eye? It’s twice as useful as one quarter of an eye. What use is one quarter of an eye? It’s twice as useful as one eighth of an eye." This is flawed reasoning, as if utility were something that could be chopped into smaller lengths, like a piece of rope.\* In many cases, it isn’t and it can’t. If component A serves no purpose without component B and vice-versa, then both have to be present for the device or machine to work. You can’t adequately address this interesting point by reciting simple fractions. > > To stick with the ‘eye’ example, one aspect I find fascinating is that the eye is useless unless the brain has corresponding functionality to make sense or use of whatever signals it received from the eye, and vice-versa. These elements (the eye and whichever part of the brain processes the data) have to exist at opposite ends of the optic nerve in order for the whole system to serve any purpose. Does evolution have a good explanation for this? Yes, but there’s more to it than just reciting fractions and talk about very, very long periods of time. > > Another good example is that DNA can’t anything useful without the presence of reverse transcriptase, and vice-versa. They are both very, very complex molecules. Again, does evolution have an answer? Yes, and a far better one than ‘a wizard did it’. But to wave away these questions as if they are either trivial or simple explained does a disservice to the richness of the explanations and also hands ammunition on a plate to the creationists. > > - I don’t say this to bash Dawkins. I’m a supporter of his, I’ve worked with him on a documentary and I’m mentioned (favourably) in one of his books. I’m not attacking the man, I’m pointing out that _one_ argument he has advanced on at least _one_ occasion (to my knowledge) doesn’t really help his own cause. I wouldn’t call your quotes from Dawkins to be useful other than a very, every oversimplified, layman type explanation. Just go to talkorigins if you want more details. ---
**Author:** ![ZenBeam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/3ab097/32.png) [@ZenBeam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZenBeam)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2011, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-arguments-for-intelligent-design/595929/22 "2011-09-11T18:59:10Z")
I would think that you _could_ investigate ID scientifically, in terms of what characteristics the intelligent designer must have, based on what is currently observed. An analogy would be observing the universe as it exists now, and determining what it must have been like at earlier times. When you start considering _flaws_ in the “design”, (e.g. sickle cell anemia as a “solution” to malaria, men’s susceptibility to hernias, human spinal problems brought on by reusing the four-legged animal design instead of designing a better spine), I would think you’d be able to discuss to what extent the intelligent designer is lazy, and/or stupid, and/or fallible. I’d expect it would make ID less attractive to the implicit “God is the intelligent designer” assumption, if talk of a flawed or lazy designer were prevalent. ---
**Author:** ![ianzin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/ed655f/32.png) [@ianzin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ianzin)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2011, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-arguments-for-intelligent-design/595929/23 "2011-09-11T19:32:22Z")
> [@ZenBeam](#): > > When you start considering _flaws_ in the “design”, (e.g. sickle cell anemia as a “solution” to malaria, men’s susceptibility to hernias, human spinal problems brought on by reusing the four-legged animal design instead of designing a better spine), I would think you’d be able to discuss to what extent the intelligent designer is lazy, and/or stupid, and/or fallible. I agree, and I always think this is a very good point to raise with the ‘a wizard did it’ brigade. The ID faction are forever waxing lyrical about pretty, beautiful and nifty aspects of the world we live in, from gorgeous sunsets to bees and flowers to advanced mimicry and so on. On a purely emotional level, and if you don’t know much about what constitutes good reasoning, one might well sigh a wistful sigh and think some super-being must have created it all and worked out every little detail. However, when you start noticing or mentioning the more superbly craptastic elements of the world we live in, it does indeed become clear that even if there is a designer, he’s certainly not the sort you’d want to worship as a god. **ZenBeam** mentioned some great examples. To paraphrase Yossarian in Catch-22, you’re the supreme intelligence in the universe and you find it vital to your vast and infinite master plan that some kids are born with cystic fibrosis, lyme disease or harlequin syndrome? If that’s the best you can can do, thanks, I’ll find myself another god to worship. Or none. Surely the clearest sign that there is no Intelligent Designer is that if there were, he wouldn’t have created a world in which the Intelligent Design advocates are the ones lacking intelligence. ---
**Author:** ![paperbackwriter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/53a042/32.png) [@paperbackwriter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/paperbackwriter)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2011, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-arguments-for-intelligent-design/595929/24 "2011-09-11T19:43:33Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > What would it mean for something to be a “scientific alternative to materialism”, anyway? Science _is_ materialistic, in the sense that they mean there. It’s an explanation for the material world. To the ID proponents, “scientific” means whatever they want it to mean. To put it another way, it’s whatever they can cram into science classrooms, not science in the Popperarian sense. A “scientific alternative to materialism” is therefore flat-out pseudo-science. Religion using the rhetoric of science to appear neutral and objective. ---
**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:** [September 11, 2011, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-arguments-for-intelligent-design/595929/25 "2011-09-11T20:18:33Z")
[QUOTE=ZenBeam] I’d expect it would make ID less attractive to the implicit “God is the intelligent designer” assumption, if talk of a flawed or lazy designer were prevalent. [/QUOTE] That just gets handwaved away with an argument along the lines of “we can’t possibly know the designer’s motives”. So in essence, we should look at the evidence for ID, but shouldn’t dwell on it if it turns out to look like evidence against ID. ---
**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:** [September 11, 2011, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-arguments-for-intelligent-design/595929/26 "2011-09-11T20:24:29Z")
One argument for ID I’ve come across is the argument from consequences - that is: ID is necessarily true because otherwise, everything else that rests upon it is at risk. Its a dreadful argument, with a logical fallacy at its core, but this argument is out there in the wild. Tends to be used mainly from the pulpit to the faithful, rather than in public. ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2011, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-arguments-for-intelligent-design/595929/27 "2011-09-11T21:12:41Z")
> [@curiousprincegeorge](#): > > [http://conservapedia.com/Intelligent\_design](http://conservapedia.com/Intelligent_design) > > Didnt read the page myself properly but it should offer what creationists believe are the arguments for intelligent design Poe’s Law is strong in Conservapedia. The point at which I literally laughed out loud while reading that page: “Intelligent design theorists leave the identity of the designer open as a matter of **scientific discipline**.” ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2011, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-arguments-for-intelligent-design/595929/28 "2011-09-11T21:19:57Z")
It’s a “[God of the gaps](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps)” argument - any gaps in knowledge that science hasn’t gotten around to you yet must be attributable to a supernatural force, and actually constitute _proof_ of God’s existence. ---
**Author:** ![CookingWithGas](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cookingwithgas/32/485_2.png) [@CookingWithGas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CookingWithGas)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2011, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-arguments-for-intelligent-design/595929/29 "2011-09-11T21:43:12Z")
Does the theory of ID say that \*all \*natural objects are necessarily designed? Or just the ones they pick and choose? Because if I was designed, I want warranty service on my junk DNA, spinal problems from standing upright, allergies, and defects due to recessive genes. I’ll be back with a more complete list. I also want to know why carnivores were designed if killing is supposed to be such a bad thing. I want to know why parasites were designed. Why were viruses designed? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2011, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-arguments-for-intelligent-design/595929/30 "2011-09-11T22:10:47Z")
An intelligently designed eye wouldn’t have the blood vessels in \*front \*of the retina, either. And we wouldn’t each have a sewer pipe running through a recreational area. ---
**Author:** ![brocks](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7feea3/32.png) [@brocks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brocks)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2011, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-arguments-for-intelligent-design/595929/31 "2011-09-11T22:14:22Z")
> [@ZenBeam](#): > > I’d expect it would make ID less attractive to the implicit “God is the intelligent designer” assumption, if talk of a flawed or lazy designer were prevalent. A point that seems to escape proponents of ID is that even if it were true, it would have no important implications. As noted by several others, ID advocates seem to assume that if there was a Creator, then it must have been the God of the Bible (or Allah, if you’re a Muslim IDer). But that doesn’t follow at all. All that is required of a Creator is intelligence and power of superhuman magnitude, but there is no reason to believe that he/she/it is omnipotent, omniscient, or even still alive, let alone that he/she/it gives a rat’s ass about what we believe, how we live, or what happens to us. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2011, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-arguments-for-intelligent-design/595929/32 "2011-09-11T22:23:04Z")
> [@ianzin](#): > > I’ve read what Richard Dawkins has to say about the supposed ‘irreducible complexity’ of the eye and I don’t find it satisfactory. In one of his books he wrote, 'What use is half an eye? It’s twice as useful as one quarter of an eye. What use is one quarter of an eye? It’s twice as useful as one eighth of an eye." This is flawed reasoning, as if utility were something that could be chopped into smaller lengths, like a piece of rope.\* In many cases, it isn’t and it can’t. If component A serves no purpose without component B and vice-versa, then both have to be present for the device or machine to work. You can’t adequately address this interesting point by reciting simple fractions. Except that’s not what he does, he’s gone into details about the usefulness of “partial eyes”; most of which actually exist. Eyespots, eyes that use pinholes instead of lenses, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2011, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-arguments-for-intelligent-design/595929/33 "2011-09-11T22:43:09Z")
> [@CookingWithGas](#): > > I also want to know why carnivores were designed if killing is supposed to be such a bad thing. I want to know why parasites were designed. Why were viruses designed? God only knows. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![ianzin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/ed655f/32.png) [@ianzin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ianzin)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2011, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-arguments-for-intelligent-design/595929/34 "2011-09-12T00:14:47Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Except that’s not what he does Yeah, I know. Please read what I wrote. I wrote that it’s what he said on at least _one_ occasion when discussing this point, and I was just pointing out this kind of simplistic response (which I am fully aware is not at all representative of Dawkins’ output) is free ammo for the ID delusionista. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2011, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-arguments-for-intelligent-design/595929/35 "2011-09-12T01:03:06Z")
It’s important to remember that the “arguments for intelligent design” are, in a scientific (or rather, pseudoscientific) sense, arguments for rejecting evolution. “It can’t have happened that way, therefore our gospel is just as good an explanation”. > [@Hari\_Seldon](#): > > I was amused to discover a large American flag on the site. This illustrates the fact that ID is largely an American phenomenon. You’ll be less than amused, then, to find out that “intelligent design” [is an issue in the UK](http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/WorkingDocs/Doc07/EDOC11375.pdf) and many other countries (the document provides numerous examples). ---
**Author:** ![brocks](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7feea3/32.png) [@brocks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brocks)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2011, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-arguments-for-intelligent-design/595929/36 "2011-09-12T01:07:53Z")
> [@ianzin](#): > > Yeah, I know. Please read what I wrote. I wrote that it’s what he said on at least _one_ occasion when discussing this point, and I was just pointing out this kind of simplistic response (which I am fully aware is not at all representative of Dawkins’ output) is free ammo for the ID delusionista. It is _so_ unrepresentative of his output that I suspect it is either a bad paraphrase, or was chopped out of a context that would immediately refute your assertion that it is bad reasoning. Nobody can write as much as Dawkins has without producing sentences that look silly when taken completely out of context, but the only defense against that is to produce the context. Accordingly, a cite to the sentence in context would be very helpful. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2011, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-arguments-for-intelligent-design/595929/37 "2011-09-12T02:48:52Z")
This is just disguised first cause. But the problem is it does not simplify at all. Now they have to explain something far more complicated and powerful…god. Now that would be one complex creature that could create a universe that we are less than a speck in. ---
**Author:** ![panache45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/panache45/32/64_2.png) [@panache45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panache45)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2011, 7:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-arguments-for-intelligent-design/595929/38 "2011-09-12T07:01:33Z")
The OP is looking for arguments that are logical and rational. There aren’t any. ---
**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:** [September 12, 2011, 7:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-arguments-for-intelligent-design/595929/39 "2011-09-12T07:07:20Z")
> [@panache45](#): > > The OP is looking for arguments that are logical and rational. There aren’t any. It seems a common (and therefore understandable) misconception that the existence of major disagreement on a topic should mean there are strong arguments on both sides, and that the validity of either is not yet resolved. But of course disagreement can be a function of attitude, as well as/instead of viewpoint. And that’s more or less what’s happening here. The ID/Creationist camp _doesn’t want to_ agree with mainstream science. ---
**Author:** ![ToniExhipttox](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ce73a5/32.png) [@ToniExhipttox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ToniExhipttox)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2011, 11:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-arguments-for-intelligent-design/595929/40 "2011-09-12T11:01:24Z")
In a hoop, people subject their arms in and affirm someone elses [junk removal san diego](http://regulated-medical-waste.com/junk-removal-san-diego), then enjoy a bayonet to unravel the fix without letting go of hands. Involves getting physically make inaccessible to others, stretching, laughing and conundrum solving. 2 Truths & a Lying down People stomach down down two truths fro themselves and a lie. Then introduce the three [king county waste management](http://regulated-medical-waste.com/king-county-waste-management) to the redundancy of the tons who tries to suspect which unified is a lie. So, when you start any map, youll be assumed a set amount of lives and money. Depending on which [kingston waste management](http://regulated-medical-waste.com/kingston-waste-management) and misery you selected, youll either stiffen up critical deal of hard cash and a jam of lives, or conversely just any pelf and at a- a nuisance lives. Depending on how you pleasure, you can come the satisfy with [laboratory waste disposal](http://regulated-medical-waste.com/laboratory-waste-disposal) a not enough lives, but in later maps its from stem to stern unmanageable, intentional on battle-scarred players. After a moneymaking upper-class dinghy Ninja Kiwi is every now proud to present [laboratory waste management](http://regulated-medical-waste.com/laboratory-waste-management) Pinnacle Defense 3. This rest period, authorization the all recent towers and upgrades to business your make advances keep from of all modish tracks and 3 affliction modes to involving that total Bloon popping satisfaction. Added Kongregate API, reports your highest level completed and how various [lancaster waste management](http://regulated-medical-waste.com/lancaster-waste-management) you take planned progressive after unfluctuating 50 on the side of all difficulties on all 4 dick tracks. A trice ago in ease in search [landfill waste management](http://regulated-medical-waste.com/landfill-waste-management) new semester! This website is a growing database with instructions and rules to wholly 50 of the outwit NOT BUSY bandeau games, icebreakers, and yoke edifice activities, goods after ALL ages and payment a to harmonious side crowd of settings: classrooms, organizations, [large recycling bin](http://regulated-medical-waste.com/large-recycling-bin), companies, college students, clubs, teeny-bopper groups, camps, and all valiant lovers in normal! Flick through recently added league games on earth, or select a category. Thanks after visiting — if you like this opinion, opt touch on others to on your website or blog at the end of one’s tether [large recycling bins](http://regulated-medical-waste.com/large-recycling-bins) a interplay to our site. From! Shopping Also waggon Actor 2 has myriad late features and upgrades including in tricks, hats, baseball bat, guardianship glider, [large waste bins](http://regulated-medical-waste.com/large-waste-bins) dumpster, blonde handcart, as expressively as the overfamiliar wheels, climb engines, and groupies. Contend due to the fact that the most points in people jump gone customizing your shopping tote and performing tricks. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-arguments-for-intelligent-design/595929.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-arguments-for-intelligent-design/595929.md?page=3)