Intelligent Design

[Pete Harcoff]

I'd like to consider Intelligent Design for a moment.

If one considers Behe's irreducible complexity arguments and other "proofs of design", what does ID infer about the designer?

(I've asked this question before, but never got a satisfactory answer from the ID camp)

 

[Nathan Poe]

Originally posted by Pete Harcoff
I'd like to consider Intelligent Design for a moment.

If one considers Behe's irreducible complexity arguments and other "proofs of design", what does ID infer about the designer?

(I've asked this question before, but never got a satisfactory answer from the ID camp)

Well, apparantly whoever/whatever that designer is, he/she/it is far more complex than the universe, but was not designed.

Okay.........

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by Nathan Poe
Well, apparantly whoever/whatever that designer is, he/she/it is far more complex than the universe, but was not designed.

Okay.........

Heh, I seem to recall the last time I asked this question you were the only one who responed. Isn't there ANYONE out there who subscribes to ID who can at least discuss the subject?

 

[DNAunion]

Pete Harcoff: Heh, I seem to recall the last time I asked this question you were the only one who responed. Isn't there ANYONE out there who subscribes to ID who can at least discuss the subject?

 

DNAunion:  I am a skeptic but have debated on the ID side, so...

 

I think one objection often times raised against ID is pretty close to being on the mark - IDists' designer is God.

 

But that is a misleading generalization (kind of like "white men can't dance").  Not all IDists feel that way - unlike all Creationists, not all IDists require their designer to be God.  For example, when I argued for an ID position (such as the speculation that a form of non-supernatural intelligence - one unlike ourselves - might have been involved in the origin of life) I was not trying to prove that "God did it".  In that case, the designer of life as we know it would be some hypothetical and vaguely defined ETI -- about all that could be said is that it would be intelligent. 

 

And I don't believe that "a designer" HAS to be more complex than something that he/she/it designs.  More importantly, I don't see why "a designer" would HAVE to start off being more complex than what he/she/it/they eventually design. 

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by Nathan Poe
Well, apparantly whoever/whatever that designer is, he/she/it is far more complex than the universe, but was not designed.

There is a master plan. Even with the discovery of DNA we have actually found the code for human life. We have also discovered, I am told, that the code has been tampered with and needs fixed. They say that if you can fix the DNA, it would be no problem for people to live to be 120 years old.

There does have to be a project supervisor who understands the overall plan. But in real life there are a lot of tech's out there, who only understand their little part of the design, that they are working on.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by JohnR7
There is a master plan. Even with the discovery of DNA we have actually found the code for human life. We have also discovered, I am told, that the code has been tampered with and needs fixed. They say that if you can fix the DNA, it would be no problem for people to live to be 120 years old.

"Tampered with". By whom? Or what? And what do you mean by "fix" the DNA?

 

[Stormy]

I'd like to consider Intelligent Design for a moment.

If you truly wished to consider intelligent design, it would take much longer than a moment. Every door that you open will lead to another. Here is a start.

God and Science

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by Stormy
If you truly wished to consider intelligent design, it would take much longer than a moment. Every door that you open will lead to another. Here is a start.

God and Science

*shrug* I read throught your link, but I wasn't very impressed. There seemed to be a lot of vague generalities, and their list of "predictions" seemed more like wishful thinking (likewise, their scientific "scorecard" is logically flawed and lacks specifics).