What I understand about the thinking behind Intelligent Design is that life is so complicated that it could not have happened by chance but rather some being must have designed life. If this is true then how did this Designer come into existance? Obviously they couldn’t have come into existance by chance because this would mean that life also could have come into existance by chance and so then the IDer must have been designed by some other higher being. The question then becomes how did this higher being come into existence and so on and so on.
How does ID explain the existance of the Intelligent Designer?
It doesn’t. ID doesn’t “explain” anything; all it does is attempt to poke holes in the theory of evolution… which then, somehow, means that ID must be true. :rolleyes:
Another way to look at it is that people who believe in ID secretly believe that God is the Intelligent Designer… but they don’t want to say it out loud, because they want ID to be taken as seriously as evolution.
ID is or must be God, the self existent one, or “I AM THAT I AM.”
Exodus 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
If you choose to belive otherwise that is your problem when it comes to the time after this life is past.
Obviously nothing so complex as the Intelligent Designer (ID) could have arisen by mere unconscious processes. There has to have been an Intelligent Designer Designer (IDD).
And obviously nothing so complex as the IDD could have arisen …
Hrrrm, I think I see where this is going. It’s turtles all the way down, young man.
IANAIDT but I am very confused by this statement. Most proponents of intelligent design freely say or hint that it is God that is the intelligent designer. They tend to be a little abstract because they don’t pretend to know the details. What else would be the intelligent designer?
To the OP: This is just another version of the “if there is a God then who created God” argument. Most proponents simply say that we cannot know or that God is the one truly eternal thing.
If ID proponents don’t want to obfuscate the identification of the Designer, why not call it “God Designed” or somesuch?
By calling it “Intelligent Design”, they’re able to keep the argument restricted to “did evolution do it, or some other, intelligent force?”. By not identifying God as the Intelligent Designer, they don’t have to defend God’s role in the matter- all they have to say is, “Well, I’m just sayin’ that SOME intelligent force created everything- I’m not necessarily sayin’ Goddidit”.
Instead of the argument being “Religion vs. Science”, by keeping God out of it they’re able to present it as “(Pseudo)Science vs. Science”. They’re just being coy.
Even assuming I accepted that there must be an ID (I don’t), how does it follow that (A) there also must be an afterlife, and (B) people who don’t believe in the ID are going to face a “problem” of some kind after this life is past?
I know, I know. Exodus something or other probably…
Bytegeist, don’t sweat the drive-by posts. They aren’t worth the effort.
Zerc, I am afraid that you will not really get anywhere pursuing that line of argument. It is the position of most Christians, Jews, and Muslims that God always was and, thus, needs no creator, himself. If you find such a belief unpersuasive, you will get no further into the discussion by demanding that he must have been created. That notion is outside that belief system, (in fact, it is contradicted by it), so you are simply at an impasse in which you claim that something must occur while they assert that it did not occur.
Because, unlike Creationists who take the Bible as their starting point, the IDers are (or at least claim to be) basing their argument only on observation and deduction, not on religious revelation or Scripture. It’s no secret that those ID proponents who are also believing Christians (or followers of other monotheistic religions) identify the Intelligent Designer with the God they worship, but that identification is definitely not science so it has no place in their arguments. (For comparison purposes, some advocates of Darwinian evolutionary theory are ardent atheists and are motivated by their atheism to plug evolution as a way life/species could have arisen without a Creator, but this motivation does not belong in a scientific argument even if the argument it motivates is itself valid.)
Aside from your last sentence, I think you’ve summed things up pretty fairly. But why is it “just being coy” to keep religion as such out of their argument? Sounds like, with you, they’re damned if they do and damned if they don’t.
If it was not God, then it was some entity indistinguishable from God. “Shakespeare did not write the plays; it was another fellow with the same name.” I hardly think the IDers are proposing the existance of a God that created man that is not the Christian God. This circumlocution allows them to be both coy and sophist.
All of us believe in an uncreated something- let’s call it Energy. We theists believe that Energy is conscious & personal & active. Non-theists hold that It is not.
I disagree. The IDers are trying to sell their product as science. They often say something like “The Intelligent Designer might be God, but it might not”. If it’s not, then who designed it? If it is, then let’s keep ID out of school science classes and relegate the “theory” to the religion department where it belongs.
Just because there’s a hole in the theory doesn’t mean that it isn’t science or that it shouldn’t be taught in schools. No one discovered the mechanisms for mutation or heredity until long after Darwin, but that doesn’t mean that evolution shouldn’t have been taught in schools until DNA was discovered. If the ID’ers choose to remain silent on the identity of the designer that isn’t a reason to deny their theory.
As Lightnin said, thats sort of the point of ID. They’re able to purpose a theistic like theory without mentioning God.
So Popeye the Sailor is the ID?
ID is an asinine theory. It is for people who are too simpleminded to comprehend that millions (if not billions) of generations of trial and error can intelligently (or at least competantly) design something as well or better than an “Intelligent Designer”.
Now I understand how the sheer complexity of the universe might lead people to believe that it was designed as such. I have a different theory. The universe seems so well designed to us because if it was designed any other way, we wouldn’t be here to contemplate it.
I didnt say that was the reason. It’s not science because it’s not testable. Read any of the testimony from scientists in the recent PA case, and they agree. ID is more a critique of science than science itself.
You’re right; they can pursue any theory they like. However, this theory is not scientific. In fact, many argue that it is anti-scientific because it creates rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty.* In any of the various ID versions, at some point, the proponents say, this cannot be explained by science, therefore it must have been done by an Intelligent Designer. It’s throwing into a physical explanation something non-physical (or supernatural). This non-physical process cannot be tested, verified, or observed. Thus, this “theory” of an Intelligent Designer is truly a “philosophy.”
*[size=1] Thank you Douglas Noel Adams!
The problem is that they aren’t keeping religion out of their argument. They are merely trying to make it seem so. In the arenas of law and public opinion, ID proponents claim that the ID’er is not necessarily <Yahweh/Jehovah/Allah>. But once these people leave the public arena, they state (often on the net, etc) that they equate the IDer with their god. The notion of ID is being used as a wedge to force theistic thinking into evolution science.
Let me put it this way. Michael Behe proposes that the protein structure of a bacterial flagellum cannot have been produced by evolution of molecules into complex structures. It is possible that he is right. But by believing this to be the case, is he likely to conduct research into finding the evolutionary pathway that created the protein structure? If he does not, then his belief that it is not possible has stopped his experimenting in this realm of science.
The IDer is the Prime Motive, the unstoppable force, the alpha and the omega, the effect without a cause. Nothing created or designed it. That’s the point. ID “theory” claims that certain phenomina need a supernatural force to explain them. Since this force is supernatural, it has no natural explanation; i.e. nothing (natural) created it.
