# Who created the Intelligent Designer? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 22, 2005, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-created-the-intelligent-designer/327457 "2005-10-22T21:51:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Malodorous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e47774/32.png) [@Malodorous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malodorous)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2005, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-created-the-intelligent-designer/327457/21 "2005-10-23T03:10:28Z")
> [@JustAnotherGeek](#): > > 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. They don’t formally purpose that the designer is non-physical or supernatural, or that it cannot be tested varified or observed. It could be superintelligent aliens, a la _2001_, for example. These could be verified by SETI, or future telescopes, etc. To use my former example, Darwin proposed evolution without purposing a mechanism for mutations (or at least not the correct one). This hardly means that he thought that it was due to a non-physical or supernatural agent, or that evolution should’ve been tossed out because of the lack of such an explanation. > [@](#): > > 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 \. But once these people leave the public arena, they state (often on the net, etc) that they equate the IDer with their god. Many physicists are amazed that the universe follows patterned laws, the law of Gravity for example, that are so easily understood, and see the work of \ behind it. They often state this in their books, lectures, etc. (Hawking’s quote about “knowing the mind of God” for example) That hardly invalidates the law of Gravity, or makes it a religous theory. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2005, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-created-the-intelligent-designer/327457/22 "2005-10-23T03:48:29Z")
> [@This Year's Model](#): > > If it was not God, then it was some entity indistinguishable from God. When _The Daily Show_ covered the subject of ID, Jon Stewart noted that it was “not necessarily God, just someone with the basic skill set to create an entire functioning universe.” > [@JThunder](#): > > Or this intelligent designer did not arise from anything. As philosophers would say, it would have to be an uncaused cause. I think that was the whole point of bringing this up, which I’ll spell out explicitly: if it’s OK for something not to have a cause, then why put God in the picture at all? Why not just say that the universe had no cause, instead of saying that God created the universe, but God had no cause? It’s just adding a layer that doesn’t ultimately answer any questions. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2005, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-created-the-intelligent-designer/327457/23 "2005-10-23T03:59:30Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I disagree. The IDers are trying to sell their product as science. You’re right. I have just gotten in the habit of ignoring the “It isn’t God” subterfuge, so I missed the point of the OP. (I have the same problem with the panspermia folks as the OP has with ID.) > [@Malodorous](#): > > They don’t formally purpose that the designer is non-physical or supernatural, or that it cannot be tested varified or observed. Of course they do not say that. They are trying to hide the fact that it is true, because that would demonstrate that it is not science. When they come up with a way to predict how to find the “designer’s fingerprints” they may be coming closer actually practicing science. Since there is no way to distinguish between evolutionary events that happened following the current rules and evolutionary events that might happen under their special pleadings, their hypotheses are useless as science. > [@Malodorous](#): > > Many physicists are amazed that the universe follows patterned laws, the law of Gravity for example, that are so easily understood, and see the work of \ behind it. They often state this in their books, lectures, etc. (Hawking’s quote about “knowing the mind of God” for example) That hardly invalidates the law of Gravity, or makes it a religous theory. Leaving aside the metaphorical nature of many of the statements to which you allude, the fact remains that those physicists do not attempt to impose a “god” or a “designer” into the laws of physics. No actual physicist claims that quarks spin because a designer set them in motion. So you have some number of physicists and biologists who perceive God behind the general order of the cosmos and a certain number of physicists and biologists who perceive no God behind that order, but then you have a select set of pseudo-biologists who claim that they can see God in individual events _even when those events can be explained without God_. The scientists who do and who do not see God behind the general order can happily work together, simply choosing to not get upset about each others’ theological beliefs, and then you have a separate set of people who are not actually doing legitimate science trying to interfere with school curricula. > [@Malodorous](#): > > 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. They do not have a theory. They have a weak hypothesis that has failed under every test administered. In contrast, Darwin’s theory has actually withstood every challenge. Beginning with Lord Kelvin’s calculations that the sun could not have burned long enough to support life for the millions of years required by Darwinian evolution through the questions regarding the regularity of genetic mutations that came up in the last 30 years, Darwin’s basic theory has surmounted every challenge. Behe’s Irreduceable Complexity has not survived even ten years. We did not need the knowledge of DNA to support Darwin’s basic theory. Dobzhansky applied Mendelian genetics to the Theory of Natural Selection in the 1920s and demonstrated its functional viability then. (We even refer to the currently accepted Theory as Neo-Darwinian.) Now if you want to argue that competing theories should have been mentioned in classes alongside Darwin’s up until 1928 or so, I might even support you. Since that time, however, no other Theory has provided anything close to a challenge. ID is pseudo-science. ---
**Author:** ![JustAnotherGeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/58f4c7/32.png) [@JustAnotherGeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JustAnotherGeek)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2005, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-created-the-intelligent-designer/327457/24 "2005-10-23T04:01:48Z")
> [@Malodorous](#): > > They don’t formally purpose that the designer is non-physical or supernatural, or that it cannot be tested varified or observed. It could be superintelligent aliens, a la 2001, for example. Horse Hockey. For three reasons. one: If intelligence is required to create intelligence, where did the aliens come from? two: There is a world of difference between claiming “superintelligent aliens, a la 2001” created life on this planet, and claiming that some unknown, unknowable intelligence created life on this planet. The first statement is testable; the second is not. The first can be scientifically verified or disputed; the second cannot. three: > [@](#): > > Positive evidence of design in living systems consists of the semantic, meaningful or functional nature of biological information, the lack of any known law that can explain the sequence of symbols that carry the “messages,” and statistical and experimental evidence that tends to rule out chance as a plausible explanation. [From this site](http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/) At least they come out and say it. If there isn’t a law that explains it, it must be ID. If there isn’t a law to explain it, it cannot be verified, tested, or observed. How do you observe a prediction of a law that doesn’t exist? > [@Mal](#): > > Many physicists are amazed that the universe follows patterned laws, the law of Gravity for example, that are so easily understood, and see the work of \ behind it. Yup. Whole lotta biologists, chemists, mathameticians, too. It’s a difference of saying “OH, so that’s how he did it.” and “There’s no explanation, so it must be an intelligent designer.” In the first case, the person in question uses science (possibly incorrectly) to explain “the mind of god.” In the second, the person uses “the mind of god” to explain science. And let me go on record (tho no one has accused me of such) as stating that I am not arguing from a point of atheism. I am not trying to say that the material world is all that we have. My only point is that science is a material (natural) philosophy; anything that uses non-physical (or supernatural) explanations is not science. ---
**Author:** ![Malodorous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e47774/32.png) [@Malodorous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malodorous)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2005, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-created-the-intelligent-designer/327457/25 "2005-10-23T06:46:34Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Of course they do not say that. They are trying to hide the fact that it is true [that they are proposing a supernatural designer], because that would demonstrate that it is not science. Keplar came up with his laws of planatary motion because he thought an ordered solar system would provide proof of a creator. Newton came up with his _Principia_ to try and recreate the wisdom of Solomon. Einstein searched for a GUT to try and “understand the Old One”. That these scientists theories were motivated by their religious beliefs does not invalidate them or make them “not science”. > [@](#): > > When they come up with a way to predict how to find the “designer’s fingerprints” they may be coming closer actually practicing science. Since there is no way to distinguish between evolutionary events that happened following the current rules and evolutionary events that might happen under their special pleadings, their hypotheses are useless as science. They belive that they have found a way to distinguish between evolutionary events and intelligent design (irreducible complexity), thats the point of their theory. > [@](#): > > Leaving aside the metaphorical nature of many of the statements to which you allude, the fact remains that those physicists do not attempt to impose a “god” or a “designer” into the laws of physics. That was sorta my point. I was responding to **Geek’s** comment that ID was religious because it’s proponents, when they’re not acutally presenting their thories to the science community/press/schoolboards, profess that God is in fact the designer. My response was that many physicists have done the same thing, but as you say, God is not actually necessary for their theories. Similarily it isn’t disingenous for IDers to claim that why they belive God to be the designer, he isn’t necessary for their theories. > [@](#): > > They do not have a theory. They have a weak hypothesis that has failed under every test administered. What test has ID failed under? ( **John Mace** above seems to think its untestable). ---
**Author:** ![Malodorous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e47774/32.png) [@Malodorous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malodorous)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2005, 7:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-created-the-intelligent-designer/327457/26 "2005-10-23T07:04:45Z")
> [@JustAnotherGeek](#): > > one: If intelligence is required to create intelligence, where did the aliens come from? Don’t know. Maybe they evolved? Where did Darwin think the mutations that caused natural variation came from? What did Newton think caused gravity? Not every theory explains every last question right from the get go. ID makes no claims about the designer, whether he be Jehova or Aliens that evolved on another planet. _Hypotheses non fingo_ as Newton said. > [@](#): > > There is a world of difference between claiming “superintelligent aliens, a la 2001” created life on this planet, and claiming that some unknown, unknowable intelligence created life on this planet. The first statement is testable; the second is not. The first can be scientifically verified or disputed; the second cannot. ID makes neither statement. > [@](#): > > It’s a difference of saying “OH, so that’s how he did it.” and “There’s no explanation, so it must be an intelligent designer.” In the first case, the person in question uses science (possibly incorrectly) to explain “the mind of god.” In the second, the person uses “the mind of god” to explain science. IF evolution were to be disproved (I know, but we’re assuming for the sake of arguement), then I would find an intelligent designer to be pretty much the only other explanation for the complexity of life. Wouldn’t you? I don’t think it’s such a leap for IDers who think they’ve disproved evolution then to say that “the mind of god” is the reason for natural complexity. > [@](#): > > My only point is that science is a material (natural) philosophy; anything that uses non-physical (or supernatural) explanations is not science. But an ID creator would have to be physical, in the sense that he would have to affect the physical world. Else how would he get all that DNA and stuff get lined up in the right way. So IDers aren’t using non-physical explanations. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2005, 9:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-created-the-intelligent-designer/327457/27 "2005-10-23T09:28:17Z")
> [@](#): > > Keplar came up with his laws of planatary motion because he thought an ordered solar system would provide proof of a creator. Newton came up with his Principia to try and recreate the wisdom of Solomon. Einstein searched for a GUT to try and “understand the Old One”. That these scientists theories were motivated by their religious beliefs does not invalidate them or make them “not science”. Different motives. Keplar and Newton were operating from a presumption of God and trying to figure out what he did. In the course of that search, they put forth and examined theories that actually did not rely upon God to be true. Their philosophies/theologies placed God as the author, but nothing in their work invoked God as a direct agent. In contrast, the ID proponents attempt to wedge God into events where he is not even required for an explanation. Their motivations are different and their actual actions arew wholly different. > [@](#): > > They belive that they have found a way to distinguish between evolutionary events and intelligent design (irreducible complexity), thats the point of their theory. There is no theory. There is a weak and untenable hypothesis. They cannot imagine certain events occurring without a divine push and they wedge a god into the gap of their failed imagination. > [@](#): > > What test has ID failed under? Johnson, being no scientist, has never produced a test. Dembski, being a poor scientist, has only stood on the outside and thrown the stones of his incomprehension at the Theory of Evolution. That pretty much leaves Behe. Behe’s"irreducible complexity" has been shredded: Behe claimed that blood clotting could not possibly evolve without intervention because the sequences of proteins and amino acids needed to cause clotting could not work unless all were present simultaneously from the beginning. Kenneth Miller has demonstrated that [Behe was just wrong](http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/clot/Clotting.html); Behe claimed that the complement system of antibodies had to be irreducibly complex, but Mike Coon and Matt Inlay have demonstrated that [Behe didn’t get that](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/icsic.html) [or his related claims](http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/Evolving_Immunity.html) right, either; Behe alkso claimed that there was no way in Darwin’s theory to explain rotating flegella in bacteria, but, although I am not sure that the whole sequence has been proven yet, N. J. Matzke has demonstrated that such an event [clearly could be explained under Darwinian theory](http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html). (In addition, Behe has been pretty sloppy when trying to demonstrate that biologists were hiding from research on those issues. He claimed in Darwin’s Black Box that there were several areas of exploration that scientists were avoiding, yet in a simple Google® search of the topic, I, a layperson, was able to find over a dozen papers on the topic published before he published Black Box. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2005, 11:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-created-the-intelligent-designer/327457/28 "2005-10-23T11:19:09Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > **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. Since one believes God always was, then it stands to reason that the place where He came from always was first, unless God is both being and place at the same time. Monavis ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2005, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-created-the-intelligent-designer/327457/29 "2005-10-23T13:39:00Z")
> [@FriarTed](#): > > All of us believe in an uncreated something- let’s call it Energy. I agree. The latest scientific theories about the Universe put similar restrictions when people ask about the subject, as do religions when people ask about God. e.g. “You can’t ask who created God. God always was, and so your question is meaningless” vs “You can’t ask what happened before the big bang. Time does not exist before the big bang, and so your question is meaningless” Not that I agree that ID is science. It isn’t. It’s just that science these days seems stranger and stranger compared to the pre-relativistic and pre-quantum days, when it was easier to relate to, and when it wasn’t making voodoo-like claims such as “particles constantly go in an out of existence”, and “a particle can be in two places at the same time” (I understand that these have been scientifically proven, so it’s not like I’m rejecting them) > [@](#): > > We theists believe that Energy is conscious & personal & active. Non-theists hold that It is not. But that is a big difference, don’t you agree? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2005, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-created-the-intelligent-designer/327457/30 "2005-10-23T14:05:11Z")
Many posters here have pointed to what they think the motives of IDers are. And those opinions may or may not be correct. Regardless, a more “scientific” view would say that in ascertaining the validity of a theory, motives are irrelevant. Also, the theory that the universe required an intelligent designer is not a position held solely by Christians or those who would like a more religious-friendly curriculum. Attacking the theory (or hypothisis, if you prefer) on those grounds simply makes the critique less valid. Should the concept of an intelligent deisgner be taught in science? Well, if the laws of science are taught and there is one single event that seems to violate one of those laws (causality), it seems irresponsible to not mention an intelligent designer as a one of the two or three possible explanations that have been proposed. And it hardly seems like it would be harmful to one’s understandiong of science and the physical world to discuss the concept of irreducible complexity. I’d say quite the opposite. My personal belief is that it is healthy—from a scientific standpoint—to let young minds know that there are holes we can’t fill in and where they are. I can think of no better way for those holes to be filled in someday than to have young minds start thinking about them. Exposing them to the breadth of competing theories seems to be a terrific way to spark their imaginations and teach them critical thinking. I would just like to add that I have no desire to see religion taught in any class other than one expressly devoted to the topic. ---
**Author:** ![Terrifel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c68b51/32.png) [@Terrifel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terrifel)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2005, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-created-the-intelligent-designer/327457/31 "2005-10-23T14:33:45Z")
> [@Zerc](#): > > How does ID explain the existance of the Intelligent Designer? Intelligent Design Theory also postulates the existence of a Primordial Avian, which may or may not have been a stork. ---
**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2005, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-created-the-intelligent-designer/327457/32 "2005-10-23T14:35:02Z")
There is a problem with criticising ID theorists as to the ultimate origin of the Designer. Their not knowing where the Designer came from is not nearly as much of a problem to their position as the pure science types would have us believe. The vast majority of scientists support the Big Bang theory of creation. Where did the Big Bang come from and what came before it? Physicists now say that we can’t know and we will not ever know. Space-Time started at the Big Bang. That is one strange and mysterious story of creation if I ever heard one. It is turtles all the way down by that reasoning too. Note that I am a true agnostic and a follower of science. However, I get extremely annoyed when people don’t acknowledge that purely scientific view of the universe has, and always will have, its unknowns and they are outside the realm of human understanding. A Nobel prize winning physicist draws a line at explaining the origin of the universe in the same way that a supporter of ID does. The endpoint of ID is that a creator made the universe with qualities essential to intelligent life. The dominant scientific view is that the universe just went ‘poof’ out of either nothing or something that is eternal and whatever came after that was an accident. The nature of those competing theories doesn’t lead one to immediately label one as kooky and the other one as easily comprehensible and fully understandable by scientists. (Editing disabled while spellchecking) Stop spell checking ---
**Author:** ![Terrifel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c68b51/32.png) [@Terrifel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terrifel)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2005, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-created-the-intelligent-designer/327457/33 "2005-10-23T15:14:41Z")
> [@Shagnasty](#): > > Note that I am a true agnostic and a follower of science. However, I get extremely annoyed when people don’t acknowledge that purely scientific view of the universe has, and always will have, its unknowns and they are outside the realm of human understanding. A Nobel prize winning physicist draws a line at explaining the origin of the universe in the same way that a supporter of ID does. This isn’t strictly true though, is it? Both models acknowledge that unknowns exist; however, ID takes the additional, unwarranted step of including an extraneous non-explanation for those unknowns. There’s a huge difference between saying simply that something is unknown (or unknowable), and saying that it’s unknown… and therefore, an Intelligent Designer must be responsible. I’d propose a compromise position between the two approaches, to be taught alongside them in the public schools: the Instinctive Designer Theory. Perhaps the universe was created, not through intelligent action, but by imprinted purposeful activity resulting in complex structures, like a wasp’s nest or a spiderweb or something. Just a thought. ---
**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2005, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-created-the-intelligent-designer/327457/34 "2005-10-23T15:40:41Z")
> [@Terrifel](#): > > This isn’t strictly true though, is it? Both models acknowledge that unknowns exist; however, ID takes the additional, unwarranted step of including an extraneous non-explanation for those unknowns. There’s a huge difference between saying simply that something is unknown (or unknowable), and saying that it’s unknown… and therefore, an Intelligent Designer must be responsible. Sort of. Even though the origin of the universe appears to be unknowable, that doesn’t seem to stop physicists from trying. There are kinds of multiverse theories proposed out there by very smart people. They admit that those theories are untestable. ID doesn’t appear as nutty as some of those from a human standpoint. My main complaint is that thinking atheists often don’t follow the Big Band down to its logical conclusion. Something that we don’t understand created the universe and it must be an incredible and incomprehensible force from our current viewpoint. Based on what we know, intelligent design is a workable theory albeit probably not the most likely one. ---
**Author:** ![JustAnotherGeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/58f4c7/32.png) [@JustAnotherGeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JustAnotherGeek)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2005, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-created-the-intelligent-designer/327457/35 "2005-10-23T17:20:25Z")
> [@Mal](#): > > Quote: > Originally Posted by JustAnotherGeek > one: If intelligence is required to create intelligence, where did the aliens come from? > Don’t know. Maybe they evolved? ??? Isn’t that the entire point? > [@](#): > > ID makes no claims about the designer My point earlier, as to why this “theory” is disingenuous. Ask any ID propoenent in private, and they will tell you it is their god that is the IDer. They are simply trying to word it such that they do not say “my god” and are attempting to pass it off as science. > [@](#): > > Not every theory explains every last question right from the get go And yet, ID is trying to do just that. You’re absolutely right when you state that not every scientific theory proposes the final answer. Science only tries to explain what it can prove. When an intellectually honest scientist can’t adequately explain a phenomina, he or she will say something like “more research is needed” or " further studies in this line of inquiry…" ID adds a stopping point. It says, here is this IDer, who needs no more explanation. This ends the scientific inquiry. > [@](#): > > ID makes neither statement. ooookkkaaaayyy. What does this quote mean? > [@](#): > > The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion. ([From the Intelligent Design Network](http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/)) In order for the first sentence to make sense, there must be a difference between intelligence and undirected processes. That being the case, what is an undirected process? What is intelligence? It assumes that there is an intelligence that is not caused by the undirected process; that is, there is no way intelligence came from non-intelligence. If this intelligence cannot have come from undirected processes, it must have been created seperately from them. The whole quote is another example of ID proponents disingenuity; Natural Selection is not an undirected process. It is environmentally directed. Again, the only way to have their claim make sense is that “intelligent influence” is somehow above or separate from the influence by the environment. And there _is_ a design to living systems (there is no illusion). The design comes from what works in the environment. > [@](#): > > IF evolution were to be disproved (I know, but we’re assuming for the sake of arguement), then I would find an intelligent designer to be pretty much the only other explanation for the complexity of life. Wouldn’t you? I’m not even going to step in that one. Evolutionary theory has made predictions that have been verified, ID “theory” has not. Observations have been made that show _how_ natural selection works; no such observations have been made that show _how_ ID “theory” works. Evolutionary theory is a better explanation for the complexities of life than ID “theory” is. End of story. > [@](#): > > But an ID creator would have to be physical, in the sense that he would have to affect the physical world. Else how would he get all that DNA and stuff get lined up in the right way. So IDers aren’t using non-physical explanations. It is a non-physical explanation, because there is no prediction you can make about the IDer that can be experimentally verified. This requires that the IDer could not be explained by the physical world. If it can’t be explained by the physical world, it’s not natural - it is supernatural. But don’t take my word for it. “ID proponent Behe concedes “You can’t prove Intelligent Design by experiment”. [7]” (from [Time, through Wikipedia.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design) (end of third paragraph on summary) Let’s get back to the OPer’s question, for a moment. What created the IDer? You are saying that the creator of life on this planet had to be intelligent. Ok… who created that intelligence? Some other IDer? Okkaaaayy… Who created that one… _Another IDer?_ Right. So who… you get the point. Hence **Bytegeist’s** reference to _turtles all the way down._ You are either left with an infite series of IDer’s, or there is some prime mover (which is clearly the chosen view for every ID proponent I have ever heard). What is that Prime Mover? Can you get his address? How does he work? If you can answer these questions, he is not the prime mover. (because he works through physical laws, has a physical location, and can be physically described) If you can’t (even eventually) answer these questions, the prime mover must be supernatural. ---
**Author:** ![Malodorous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e47774/32.png) [@Malodorous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malodorous)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2005, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-created-the-intelligent-designer/327457/36 "2005-10-23T17:59:13Z")
> [@JustAnotherGeek](#): > > [responding to my suugestion that the Designer is an intelligent alien that evolved on another planet.] ??? Isn’t that the entire point? No. ID makes no claims that evolution couldn’t have happened on another planet. Maybe these super intelligent aliens aren’t irreducilbly complex, in which case they could’ve evolved. Again thats not a claim of ID, but its not ruled out either. > [@](#): > > My point earlier, as to why this “theory” is disingenuous. Ask any ID propoenent in private, and they will tell you it is their god that is the IDer. They are simply trying to word it such that they do not say “my god” and are attempting to pass it off as science. OK, but again the motivation of a scientist for proposing a theory shouldn’t have a bearing on the theories validity. They may secretly think that the Designer is a Giant Purple Hippo, or humans from the future or god knows what. The theory is right or wrong independent of what the proposer belives outside the scope of the theory, just as Maxwell’s laws were correct even though he belived in a luminiferous ether as the reason for them. > [@](#): > > When an intellectually honest scientist can’t adequately explain a phenomina, he or she will say something like “more research is needed” or " further studies in this line of inquiry…" ID adds a stopping point. It says, here is this IDer, who needs no more explanation. This ends the scientific inquiry. Don’t know if IDer’s say that the Designer needs no further explanation, but that’s hardly intrinsic to their theory. I’d say the next step after proving the necessary existance of a Designer is to use the scientific method to determine what we can discover about him/it/them. > [@](#): > > It assumes that there is an intelligence that is not caused by the undirected process; that is, **there is no way intelligence came from non-intelligence**. If this intelligence cannot have come from undirected processes, it must have been created seperately from them. The quote you cited doesn’t make this claim. Since we don’t know much about the Designer, there isn’t any way to say that he couldn’t have arisen from undirected causes. ID, as a scientific theory, only makes predictions about things we can observe, if we can’t observe the Designer, then it very well may not hold for him and he very well may have originated from a non-intelligent source (like my aliens, evolving on another planet without any irreducible complexity). > [@](#): > > It is a non-physical explanation, because there is no prediction you can make about the IDer that can be experimentally verified. This requires that the IDer could not be explained by the physical world. If it can’t be explained by the physical world, it’s not natural - it is supernatural. Again I don’t see any requirement that the Designer couldn’t be explained by the physical world in ID. > [@](#): > > But don’t take my word for it. “ID proponent Behe concedes “You can’t prove Intelligent Design by experiment”. [7]” (from [Time, through Wikipedia.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design) (end of third paragraph on summary) I couldn’t get to the original Times article, to see what Behe was talking about, but I don’t see any reason ID couldn’t make predictions similar to those made for evolution. “All lifeforms on Earth have elements of irreducible complexity” would be a good one, and then scientists could go on breaking down simple organisms to find one that could’ve evolved through natural selection. Just to sumarize, I don’t think that ID necessarily holds that “it’s turtles all the way down”. By not making any predictions about the Designer, I see no reason to think that he himself is irreducibly complex, or needs a seperate Designer. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2005, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-created-the-intelligent-designer/327457/37 "2005-10-23T18:09:35Z")
> [@Malodorous](#): > > The quote you cited doesn’t make this claim. Since we don’t know much about the Designer, there isn’t any way to say that he couldn’t have arisen from undirected causes. ID, as a scientific theory, only makes predictions about things we can observe, if we can’t observe the Designer, then it very well may not hold for him and he very well may have originated from a non-intelligent source (like my aliens, evolving on another planet without any irreducible complexity). This is another example of the fuzziness of ID. Behe says that certain constructs cannot be explained by evolution, but does not necessarily say that the appearance of design requires a designer. (At least his acceptance of evolution in the main seems to imply this.) The more creationist branch of IDers would seem to claim that design in nature implies a designer. That branch would require a non-supernatural designer to have a designer also, even if there was no irreducible complexity. I’m also not sure if the claim is that any instance of irreducible complexity means everything was designed, or whether most things that can have evolved have evolved. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2005, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-created-the-intelligent-designer/327457/38 "2005-10-23T18:39:34Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > This is another example of the fuzziness of ID. Behe says that certain constructs cannot be explained by evolution, but does not necessarily say that the appearance of design requires a designer. I think Behe would distinguish between designoid and veritably designed. The former is sufficiently statistically probable to have arisen naturally, the latter too wildly improbable to exist without ID. In reality, there is such a distinction. Behe’s problem is he’s identified things like the bacterial flagella as designed, and proposed an absurd set of conditions (roughly equivalent to putting a bunch of metal and wood in a blender and expecting a mouse trap to pop out) as the basis for his argument. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2005, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-created-the-intelligent-designer/327457/39 "2005-10-23T18:48:07Z")
flagellum, sorry ---
**Author:** ![JustAnotherGeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/58f4c7/32.png) [@JustAnotherGeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JustAnotherGeek)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2005, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-created-the-intelligent-designer/327457/40 "2005-10-23T19:44:58Z")
> [@Malodorous](#): > > No. ID makes no claims that evolution couldn’t have happened on another planet. Maybe these super intelligent aliens aren’t irreducilbly complex, in which case they could’ve evolved. Again thats not a claim of ID, but its not ruled out either. Please reread the official statement of the Intelligent Design Network. They _do not_ specify life on Earth. They specify the universe. And, yes, it is a claim of ID “theory.” ID theorists specifically state that the IDer is either irreducibly complex or a deity, but, in either case, is outside of natural causes. ([page 13, Methods of Design Detection, reference to Dembski](http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/NCBQ3_3HarrisCalvert.pdf)) > [@Mal](#): > > The quote you cited doesn’t make this claim. Since we don’t know much about the Designer, there isn’t any way to say that he couldn’t have arisen from undirected causes. If he did arise from undirected causes, doesn’t that mean that there is no Intelligent Designer? You keep stating something about ID “theory” that is contrary to the definitions I have posted. You keep applying it _only_ to life on Earth. No ID proponent that I have heard or read states that ID only applies to life on Earth. Can you find one ID proponent that goes on record as saying _only_ that the IDer is an alien, and _not_ some supernatural being? Unless they change the position of ID, they are not looking for aliens. They are looking for the prime mover. To state otherwise flies in the face of what the ID proponents are actually saying. > [@Mal](#): > > … the motivation of a scientist for proposing a theory shouldn’t have a bearing on the theories validity. But the motives of a scientist for attempting force other scientitsts into teaching an invalidated theory have all the bearing in the world. ID “theory” has been ripped to shreads by the likes of Miller, Gould, etc. Their predictions have been shown false (see the IC of flagellum structure argument), > [@Mal](#): > > “All lifeforms on Earth have elements of irreducible complexity” would be a good one, and then scientists could go on breaking down simple organisms to find one that could’ve evolved through natural selection. I don’t understand your point, here. Are you saying that ID can be proved by experiment? Are you saying that it can be falsified? And that’s not even what ID proponents even claim. All they claim is that some IC is enough to prove the existance of an IDer. It is, has been, and always will be, an argument of IDer of the Gaps. > [@Loopydude](#): > > Behe’s problem is he’s identified things like the bacterial flagella as designed So, his only problem was that he made a specific prediction that turned out false? :dubious: [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-created-the-intelligent-designer/327457.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-created-the-intelligent-designer/327457.md?page=3)