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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
It’s a “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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
God only knows. 
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’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”.
You’ll be less than amused, then, to find out that “intelligent design” is an issue in the UK and many other countries (the document provides numerous examples).
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.
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.
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.
In a hoop, people subject their arms in and affirm someone elses 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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.