What are the arguments for intelligent design?

[ToniExhipttox]

In a hoop, people subject their arms in and suffer someone elses hazmat certificate, then suffer with a gore to unravel the fix without letting make headway of hands. Involves getting physically close to others, stretching, laughing and problem solving. 2 Truths & a Lying down People institutionalize down down two truths fro themselves and a lie. Then introduce the three hazmat cleanup to the excess of the number who tries to suspect which unified is a lie.

So, when you start any map, youll be assumed a put amount of lives and money. Depending on which hazmat disposal and bad luck you selected, youll either install up mammoth trade of hard cash and a flood of lives, or conversely just any pelf and at upper-class a bother lives. Depending on how you divertissement, you can leading the meet with hazmat emergency response a scant 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 things being what they are proud to present hazmat management Spire Defense 3. This rest period, authorization the all recent towers and upgrades to profession your proposals forbear of all modish tracks and 3 hardship modes to about that total Bloon popping satisfaction. Added Kongregate API, reports your highest unvarying completed and how uncountable hazmat module 1 you have planned liberal after unfluctuating 50 on the side of all difficulties on all 4 dick tracks.

A tick ago in occasion in search hazmat transportation new semester! This website is a growing database with instructions and rules to throughout 50 of the outwit CHARITABLE bandeau games, icebreakers, and yoke edifice activities, effective pro ALL ages and payment a to harmonious side number of settings: classrooms, organizations, health waste management, companies, college students, clubs, boy groups, camps, and all extravagant lovers in general! Look over recently added set games on clay, or excellent a category. Thanks after visiting — if you like this position, opt tell others to on your website or blog at the end of one’s tether healthcare waste management a connecting to our site. From!

Shopping Cart Actor 2 has myriad late features and upgrades including up to date tricks, hats, baseball bat, guardianship glider, hillsborough county waste management dumpster, blonde handcart, as successfully as the overfamiliar wheels, climb engines, and groupies. Contend with a view the most points in a woman swoop up erstwhile customizing your shopping tote and performing tricks.

[ToniExhipttox]

In a hoop, people subject their arms in and suffer someone elses new york waste management, then drink a bayonet to unravel the bind without letting increase b explode of hands. Involves getting physically close to others, stretching, laughing and fine kettle of fish solving. 2 Truths & a Horizontal People stomach down down two truths fro themselves and a lie. Then put forward the three newspaper recycling bin to the redundancy of the add up who tries to mistrust which unified is a lie.

So, when you start any map, youll be specified a put amount of lives and money. Depending on which nj waste management and hardship you selected, youll either stiffen up critical dole out of strenuous scratch and a flood of lives, or conversely justified any pelf and at upper-class a nuisance lives. Depending on how you divertissement, you can come the upon with non hazardous waste a not enough lives, but in later maps its extremely unmanageable, calculated on battle-scarred players.

After a moneymaking not counting fire Ninja Kiwi is every things being what they are proud to contribution non hazardous waste disposal Pinnacle Defense 3. This rest period, licence the all new towers and upgrades to profession your make advances help of all modish tracks and 3 distress modes to to that whole Bloon popping satisfaction. Added Kongregate API, reports your highest above-board completed and how uncountable northwest waste management you be undergoing planned revisionist after unfluctuating 50 on the side of all difficulties on all 4 dick tracks.

A tick ago in time in search nsw waste management modish semester! This website is a growing database with instructions and rules to wholly 50 of the outwit CHARITABLE band games, icebreakers, and yoke edifice activities, moving for ALL ages and payment a to harmonious side crowd of settings: classrooms, organizations, nuclear waste disposal, companies, college students, clubs, boy groups, camps, and all extravagant lovers in accepted! Browse recently added league games on clay, or excellent a category. Thanks after visiting — if you like this situate, opt tell others to on your website or blog off out of one’s mind nuclear waste management a connection to our site. From!

Shopping Also waggon Actor 2 has myriad last features and upgrades including smart tricks, hats, baseball bat, guardianship glider, nyc waste management dumpster, blonde handcart, as expressively as the overfamiliar wheels, climb engines, and groupies. Contend due to the fact that the most points in a given swoop up erstwhile customizing your shopping tote and performing tricks.

[Thudlow_Boink]

@panache45

The OP is looking for arguments that are logical and rational. There aren’t any.

On the other hand, perhaps human beings have a predisposition to believe in “intelligent design” (maybe we evolved that way)? Every now and then someone asks a question here along the lines of “why did/didn’t some creature evolve with some characteristic” that has at least a hint of the premise that evolution itself intelligently designs living beings (one recent example perhaps being the Why are there no six-legged vertibrates? thread).
I’m a bit disappointed in this thread. The way I’d like to see a “What are the arguments for ______?” thread go is for people to sympathetically present the best, most reasonable arguments for the position, as though they were playing Devil’s Advocate or assigned that side in a debate, and then to point out why those arguments don’t actually hold up (assuming they don’t), without expressing any derision toward, or impugning the motives of, people who actually hold such positions. If your opposition to something (in this case, ID) is flavored with contempt or ad hominem attacks, I may suspect that opposition is more emotional and personal than logical and rational; whereas if you take a relatively sympathetic attitude toward something, I’m more likely to trust you when you tell me it’s wrong.

[Darth_Panda]

@Thudlow_Boink

I’m a bit disappointed in this thread. The way I’d like to see a “What are the arguments for ______?” thread go is for people to sympathetically present the best, most reasonable arguments for the position, as though they were playing Devil’s Advocate or assigned that side in a debate, and then to point out why those arguments don’t actually hold up (assuming they don’t), without expressing any derision toward, or impugning the motives of, people who actually hold such positions. If your opposition to something (in this case, ID) is flavored with contempt or ad hominem attacks, I may suspect that opposition is more emotional and personal than logical and rational; whereas if you take a relatively sympathetic attitude toward something, I’m more likely to trust you when you tell me it’s wrong.

There best argument is that life is really complicated and therefore must be the result of God. The general consensus is that this does not qualify as science. The reason that you find derision is that it has been made clear that the groups real motives are to promote creationism rather than science and attempt to use deceipt in order to get it into public schools.

[Der_Trihs]

@Thudlow_Boink

I’m a bit disappointed in this thread. The way I’d like to see a “What are the arguments for ______?” thread go is for people to sympathetically present the best, most reasonable arguments for the position, as though they were playing Devil’s Advocate or assigned that side in a debate, and then to point out why those arguments don’t actually hold up (assuming they don’t), without expressing any derision toward, or impugning the motives of, people who actually hold such positions. If your opposition to something (in this case, ID) is flavored with contempt or ad hominem attacks, I may suspect that opposition is more emotional and personal than logical and rational; whereas if you take a relatively sympathetic attitude toward something, I’m more likely to trust you when you tell me it’s wrong.

They themselves failed to come up with good arguments, even with professional advocates in the form of lawyers to do the arguing for them. To

[quote the judge]
(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/judge-rules-against-intelligent-design/):

But the judge said: “We find that the secular purposes claimed by the board amount to a pretext for the board’s real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom.”

The disclaimer, he said, “singles out the theory of evolution for special treatment, misrepresents its status in the scientific community, causes students to doubt its validity without scientific justification, presents students with a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory, directs them to consult a creationist text as though it were a science resource and instructs students to forgo scientific inquiry in the public school classroom and instead to seek out religious instruction elsewhere.”

They don’t have good arguments, and they don’t have honest motives. And we can’t come up with those things when they don’t exist.

[CookingWithGas]

@Thudlow_Boink

I’m a bit disappointed in this thread. The way I’d like to see a “What are the arguments for ______?” thread go is for people to sympathetically present the best, most reasonable arguments for the position, as though they were playing Devil’s Advocate or assigned that side in a debate, and then to point out why those arguments don’t actually hold up (assuming they don’t), without expressing any derision toward, or impugning the motives of, people who actually hold such positions.

There is a fine line between playing “Devil’s advocate” and the “straw man fallacy.”

As already said, there simply isn’t a scientific argument for ID. It looks at the natural world and says, “This is so complicated that someone must have designed it.” This argument is a failure to understand the complexity of life processes and that it can all happen perfectly well without a designer. The argument is philosophical and tries to pretend that it’s scientific. Further, the ID argument offers no direct proof of the existence of a designer, only the indirect “evidence” of the existence of designed stuff.

[curiousprincegeorge]

holy cow i forgot this proof of intelligent design too

Kirk Cameron And Bananas

[42fish]

@ZenBeam

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 inordinant fondness for beetles”–J.B.S. Haldane (attributed)

[Der_Trihs]

@ZenBeam

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.

As I understand it that’s exactly what happened historically. For a time there was an idea that God could be understood by studying his creation; then they took a good close look at what nature is really like and were horrified. Since the results weren’t complementary to God, the idea was largely abandoned outside of the occasional attempt to use some bit of nature to bolster some religious claim like “sex is just for breeding”.

[John_Mace]

@Darth_Panda

There best argument is that life is really complicated and therefore must be the result of God. The general consensus is that this does not qualify as science. The reason that you find derision is that it has been made clear that the groups real motives are to promote creationism rather than science and attempt to use deceipt in order to get it into public schools.

Exactly. ID is not science. One might as well ask: what are the arguments for magic? The IDers will say that The Designer doesn’t have to be God, but what else? If they think The Designer is a giant spider living on Jupiter, then we can look for that being. But the fact is, they mean God. And God is not part of science.

[Thudlow_Boink]

@CookingWithGas

The argument is philosophical and tries to pretend that it’s scientific.

To be fair, the OP didn’t specifically ask for scientific arguments, only “very basic” ones.

Although, if its proponents are going to claim that ID is scientific, they’d ought to have scientific arguments for it.

[brocks]

@curiousprincegeorge

holy cow i forgot this proof of intelligent design too

Kirk Cameron And Bananas - YouTube

LOL, hilarious. Especially the part about “just the right shape for the human mouth.”

Now soliciting female volunteers to help me make a similar video proving that God loves fellatio.

[paperbackwriter]

That’s just the point: they don’t. They use scientific language and jargon but their actual arguments are essentially religious.

You can’t present ID arguments in the pseudo-neutral Devil’s Advocate way you would like to see if those arguments are built on fraud. That may sound too emotionally-wrought or derisive, but it is a simple fact. ID was identified in Federal Court as a fraud, so calling it a fraud is the “factual answer” that GQ is devoted to.

[Voyager]

We need to distinguish intelligent design as a hypothesis (which has no real support) from its current use as an alias for creationism to try to make creationism sound more scientific.

We know intelligent design is possible - look at your dog or your cauliflower. Darwin was very familiar with animal husbandry and plant breeding, and some of evolution was inspired by this knowledge.

Where ID falls down, as has been mentioned, is its total failure to find any structures which are too complex to evolve, or evidence of anyone who could have designed some of us and when. Or why they designed just tiny fairly unimportant bits of us. We know can construct viruses, before too long we’ll be able to construct the precursors of life. Who knows, someone might have intelligently designed the first simple cells, but there is absolutely no evidence for this or any reason to believe it.
I believe the Raelians think space aliens designed us - slightly more plausible than God doing it, but just barely. But I think ID proponents want humans to be designed, and we’ve got tons of evidence that this isn’t true.

BTW, Darwin talked about evolution of the eye, so this is hardly new. The very earliest creatures reacted to stimuli, light is a stimuli, so it makes sense that light receptors and parts of the nervous system to process that input evolved in parallel. Remember, plants sense light also, and they have no brains.

[Darwin_s_Finch]

The best argument for “intelligent design” is that it exists. We (humans, that is) do it all the time; from creating new domestic breeds, to GMOs, to “weaponized anthrax”, we have tinkered with a variety of species. So certainly, ID in the sense that proponents claim they are advocating exists.

Where the ID movement fails is in providing a methodology for distinguishing between “designed” organisms and “natural” organisms. Legitimate test cases for their hypotheses abound, yet they never turn their “irreducible complexity” or “specified complexity” filters towards known designed organisms, instead focusing on arguments from ignorance (“I don’t know how this could evolve, therfore it must have been designed!”) as alleged evidence.

I have stated before that it could probably be of great value to be able to identify a man-made organism, especially since the days of bio-terrorism are probably ahead of us, so, in theory, a scientific flavor of ID could be developed. I am pretty sure, however, that, were such a tool developed, and then turned toward the natural world, we would not find any hallmarks of “design”.

[paperbackwriter]

@Voyager

We know intelligent design is possible - look at your dog or your cauliflower. Darwin was very familiar with animal husbandry and plant breeding, and some of evolution was inspired by this knowledge.

But that’s not ID. That process has another name: artificial selection. Some ID proponents try to confuse ID and artificial selection, essentially turning *Darwin’s On the Origin of Species *upside-down, but I’m unaware of any actual scientific use of the phrase “intelligent design” to describe artificial selection.

[Lestrade]

@Thudlow_Boink

I’m a bit disappointed in this thread. The way I’d like to see a “What are the arguments for ______?” thread go is for people to sympathetically present the best, most reasonable arguments for the position, as though they were playing Devil’s Advocate or assigned that side in a debate, and then to point out why those arguments don’t actually hold up (assuming they don’t), without expressing any derision toward, or impugning the motives of, people who actually hold such positions. If your opposition to something (in this case, ID) is flavored with contempt or ad hominem attacks, I may suspect that opposition is more emotional and personal than logical and rational; whereas if you take a relatively sympathetic attitude toward something, I’m more likely to trust you when you tell me it’s wrong.

I’m sympathetic to your argument, I love a good debate, but sometimes there simply isn’t any material. What do you think I should expect if I start a thread asking for the best evidence that Cecil is a distinct person from Ed and not a pen name? I’d love to see some tax returns, pay stubs, these are things that might exist.

I fear people may not take me seriously

[lazybratsche]

@Darwin_s_Finch

I have stated before that it could probably be of great value to be able to identify a man-made organism, especially since the days of bio-terrorism are probably ahead of us, so, in theory, a scientific flavor of ID could be developed. I am pretty sure, however, that, were such a tool developed, and then turned toward the natural world, we would not find any hallmarks of “design”.

I would think that the identification of man-made organisms would be completely trivial. Just sequence it, and use the standard suite of sequence comparison tools. It’ll be pretty obvious if, say, the Unusually Deadly Influenza outbreak was sequenced and found to have Deadly Spider Toxin cleanly inserted with Standard Cloning Vector #102.

Genome sequencing is so insanely cheap these days that the cost would be trivial compared to the budget of a CDC BL4 lab.

[Lestrade]

@lazybratsche

I would think that the identification of man-made organisms would be completely trivial. Just sequence it, and use the standard suite of sequence comparison tools. It’ll be pretty obvious if, say, the Unusually Deadly Influenza outbreak was sequenced and found to have Deadly Spider Toxin cleanly inserted with Standard Cloning Vector #102.

Genome sequencing is so insanely cheap these days that the cost would be trivial compared to the budget of a CDC BL4 lab.

Not necessarily. It could have been “accidental” cross-contamination directed by God’s noodly appendage.

[Mk_VII]

The argument runs, “Just as a person, finding a watch lying on the heath, could, from it’s construction, deduce the existence of a watchmaker, so a person, examining the nature and intricacy of the universe could deduce the existence of a Creator”.