• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

On Intelligent Design...

Soul2Soul

Love is .....
Dec 23, 2013
374
19
London
✟16,928.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Sure, nature...it's laws...those would be things I consider "undesigned".

I don't know how familiar you are with intelligent design...but generally speaking, it's proponents claim that the entire universe and everything in it is designed.

Can I ask - is it unreasonable to consider that nature designed it's own laws - or how did those laws originate?

Whilst I do believe that God is The Creator ..... I am reluctant to confine my understanding to one particular label, e.g. Creationism, Intelligent Design etc. For many years I was a YEC and was anti - science ....... but it was actually science that put an end to my YEC stance!
 
Upvote 0

Dre Khipov

Active Member
Dec 12, 2015
152
40
44
USA
✟23,007.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Over the years, I've heard a lot of proponents of intelligent design argue that certain aspects of reality point to the idea that an entity of extreme intelligence (god) created the entire universe and everything in it...from the biggest galaxy, to the smallest rock...and all life everywhere.

My question to anyone holding such a belief would be...what distinguishes design from un-designed? For the purposes of this thread...I'll simply use the term "natural" for un-designed.

If all of reality is designed...how does one recognize design and distinguish it from that which is simply natural? What would natural even mean in such a universe?

Looking forward to answers.

I don't think that accurately represents the ID argument, although I'm sure there will be creationism proponents that would argue that.

ID argument in its simplest form is that there's some form of intelligence responsible for the living matter, because there is a distinct difference between function of living matter from non-living one, and we can very easily tell the difference. We don't need to appeal to complexity, etc. It's just intuitively obvious.

Likewise, ID is not an inherently theistic argument. Neither are objections against evolution as it's currently presented are coming from theistic perspective. For example, this guy recently caught a lot of flack for writing a book about his doubts and issue with theory of evolution as it presented today:

https://books.google.com/books/abou...urce=kp_read_button&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://news.nationalpost.com/holy-p...ed-a-heretic-for-daring-to-question-darwinism

The bottom line - it's not 20th century anymore. There's a lot of "gun ho" type of atheism that I see, but it eventually circles back into "we have no real clue... and that doesn't work, so let's ponder possibilities".

ID is a philosophical position. It's not a scientific one.
 
Upvote 0

Chriliman

Everything I need to be joyful is right here
May 22, 2015
5,895
569
✟173,201.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
That's not my premise...that's my belief...and it's not the question in the OP.

You seem to think that everything is designed, you should be able to answer the question...

What distinguishes design from non-design? If everything is designed...then what is the criteria for detecting design? How would you tell it apart from something not designed?

Without a way to determine if something is designed or not...then the entire claim that "everything is designed" falls apart.

The answer to how we determine if something is designed or not is by looking at the thing in question and viewing the clear evidence of design.

We can also view the evidence of design and say to ourselves "maybe it's not designed" then continue with that belief, as you have done. However, no matter how long we continue with that belief, the evidence will and has continued to support the belief that everything in our reality is designed for a specific purpose.

Believing that the evidence suggests undesign when it continues to support the belief of design, is ignorant.
 
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Site Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,977
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟1,005,242.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Over the years, I've heard a lot of proponents of intelligent design argue that certain aspects of reality point to the idea that an entity of extreme intelligence (god) created the entire universe and everything in it...from the biggest galaxy, to the smallest rock...and all life everywhere.

My question to anyone holding such a belief would be...what distinguishes design from un-designed? For the purposes of this thread...I'll simply use the term "natural" for un-designed.

If all of reality is designed...how does one recognize design and distinguish it from that which is simply natural? What would natural even mean in such a universe?

Looking forward to answers.

I think of roadside flowering plants. It is clear that each of the plants was designed, but the distribution of the plants along the roadside was the result of unorganized forces (however this also could be the product of a sort of design in that I doubt if a landscape architect could make it any more appealing to the eye). Mmmmm, maybe everything is designed.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
39,990
12,573
✟487,130.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
The answer to how we determine if something is designed or not is by looking at the thing in question and viewing the clear evidence of design.

Wonderful...now we're getting somewhere...

What is the "clear evidence of design"?
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
39,990
12,573
✟487,130.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Now...please list the natural forces that determine that matter will come alive.
List these and we will know if rocks will ever live. Please do list them all.
1.
2.
3.
4.

To your question:
I pondered space and the lack of life.
bigbang_cosmological.jpg



I honestly have no idea what you're talking about...

Are you asking me about possible silicon based life forms? What does this have to do with design?
 
Upvote 0

Davian

fallible
May 30, 2011
14,100
1,181
West Coast of Canada
✟46,103.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Ignostic
Marital Status
Married
Thank you for illustrating my example.

So are there natural forces that would cause a tree to fall? Ever?
If so please list these forces and we can determine if the tree will ever fall.

Now...please list the forces that determine that matter will come alive.
List these and we will know if rocks will ever live. List them all.

motion forces
thermal
electrical
physical
meta-physical
etc.
Indeed. If "science" can't prove its case, credit will go to the Great Pumpkin. Or, pixies. How about one of those "gods"? Do we have evidence for any of those?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Larniavc
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
39,990
12,573
✟487,130.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Can I ask - is it unreasonable to consider that nature designed it's own laws - or how did those laws originate?

Whilst I do believe that God is The Creator ..... I am reluctant to confine my understanding to one particular label, e.g. Creationism, Intelligent Design etc. For many years I was a YEC and was anti - science ....... but it was actually science that put an end to my YEC stance!

"Nature designed it's own laws"...

You're looking at the laws of physics like someone had to write them to tell matter how to interact. Those laws are just descriptions of how matter interacts...they describe, they don't prescribe.
 
Upvote 0

LostMarbels

All-Lives-Matter
Jun 18, 2011
11,953
3,863
50
Orlando Fl
✟173,798.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Over the years, I've heard a lot of proponents of intelligent design argue that certain aspects of reality point to the idea that an entity of extreme intelligence (god) created the entire universe and everything in it...from the biggest galaxy, to the smallest rock...and all life everywhere.

My question to anyone holding such a belief would be...what distinguishes design from un-designed? For the purposes of this thread...I'll simply use the term "natural" for un-designed.

If all of reality is designed...how does one recognize design and distinguish it from that which is simply natural? What would natural even mean in such a universe?

Looking forward to answers.
I have often been one of those who delve into this subject, and I have tried many times to convey my understanding. For me 'nature' or the 'natural relm', is governed by laws and/or constructs that make them 'be'. I have found many focus on an object, or a force itself as the means of scientific analysis. Empirical data: drop an apple and you prove to yourself the existence of what is termed as gravity, and that pretty much it. But to me, what are the constraints of gravity and how did it come to be? I know that gravity is the force that attracts a body toward the center of the earth, or toward any other physical body having mass. But how did this law come to be? Which made me ask the question: what force constrains the laws of physics? I could not accept the notion that gravity, for example, is a sentient entity. Nor could I accept that gravity was a learned trait, or a force that had to learn it's own properties by morphing, or evolving into it's current state. Which lead me to believe in intelligent design. For me, even if all exsitance was created by a big bang, it still dose not account for the very laws of physics that put the expansion in motion in the first place. According to the theories of physics, if we were to look at the Universe one second after the Big Bang, what we would see is a 10-billion degree sea of neutrons, protons, electrons, anti-electrons (positrons), photons, and neutrinos. Then, as time went on, we would see the Universe cool, the neutrons either decaying into protons and electrons or combining with protons to make deuterium. So how did the matter even know how to react in that way? What set the laws in motion? Also the big bang theory is a conglomeration of Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity along with standard theories of fundamental particles. All of which (by the scientific model) was discovered some 14 billion years after the fact.

All existence came from somewhere, including God, but where? The only assumption I see is that God cannot be proven without knowledge of his origin. We don't know where anything came form, yet it's here, and we recognize them as fact due to empirical proof. As far as the laws of physics go, I believe it is fair to say that we can not see, touch, smell, taste or define any of the forces themselves. We can only observe the traits of these force and explain by definition how the act/react.

So here we have known factual laws that are found in nature, and we can observe their traits, but we do not know what these forces are comprised of, or were they came from.

Simply put as an example: gravity itself, not it's traits, but the actual "force" or law of gravity has never in any way been observed, and we have no idea of it's origin, or it's make up.

It fly's in the face of logic for something to have no origin, and yet here it is. So the only logical response is: at this point in time we do not yet know.

Also, as I stated many times. God is a force, and an Immutable constant. Just like the laws of physics, at this point in time we do not yet know his origin. But his traits can be tested, and by observation of his traits his existence can be proven, and since God's traits are immutable, thru observance of his traits we can tell god from other forces. Kind of like telling the difference of gravity from inertia. They both have different traits.

Now heres the bottle neck. I always told at this point something to the gest that "I can scientifically observe and/or experiment on what is perceived as "God", but I can't get anywhere other than "unknown""

But that Is experimentation.

ex·per·i·ment

/n. ɪkˈspɛr
thinsp.png
ə
thinsp.png
mənt; v. ɛkˈspɛr
thinsp.png
əˌmɛnt/ Show Spelled [n. ik-sper-uh-muh
thinsp.png
thinsp.png
nt; v. ek-sper-uh-ment] Show IPA
noun1. a test, trial, or tentative procedure; an act or operation for the purpose of discovering something unknown

But here's the other problem. You have to know how to do the research. It's kind of like solving a hard mathematical equation. To some, they may believe it foolish, and even impossible to solve, an yet to a learned scholar, and mathematician, quite possible. You see they key is in understanding the mechanics of the equation. I f you understand the mechanics of God, he is quite provable.

But no one will learn shrugging their shoulders saying: "can't be done...."
 
Upvote 0

pat34lee

Messianic
Sep 13, 2011
11,293
2,636
61
Florida, USA
✟89,330.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
The argument falls apart here because this is the fallacy of special pleading.

I don't think so. There must be a primary cause that made everything else.
That is not special pleading but simple fact.

Since time, matter, energy and space were all created at some point, the
creator has to be outside all of them.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

pat34lee

Messianic
Sep 13, 2011
11,293
2,636
61
Florida, USA
✟89,330.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
"Nature designed it's own laws"...

You're looking at the laws of physics like someone had to write them to tell matter how to interact. Those laws are just descriptions of how matter interacts...they describe, they don't prescribe.

There is nothing inherent in natural laws that make them work together.
If they were random, gravity might not be strong enough, or molecular
bonds too strong, or any number of combinations that would make
life impossible anywhere.
 
Upvote 0

pat34lee

Messianic
Sep 13, 2011
11,293
2,636
61
Florida, USA
✟89,330.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
Whilst I do believe that God is The Creator ..... I am reluctant to confine my understanding to one particular label, e.g. Creationism, Intelligent Design etc. For many years I was a YEC and was anti - science ....... but it was actually science that put an end to my YEC stance!

What about your Christian stance, is science your god now?
If you trust man more than God, it may well be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chriliman
Upvote 0

JonFromMinnesota

Well-Known Member
Sep 3, 2015
2,171
1,608
Minnesota
✟60,266.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I don't think so. There must be a primary cause that made everything else.
That is not special pleading but simple fact.

The fallacy of special pleading was committed in bold:

Your premis that "nature" is the same as "undesign" is a flawed premis if all reality is designed by God. There simply is no reason to think anything is undesigned except for God Himself.
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Indeed. If "science" can't prove its case, credit will go to the Great Pumpkin. Or, pixies. How about one of those "gods"? Do we have evidence for any of those?

In the real world we use real world tools.
Real world tools could not reproduce
supernatural results, and reproducibility
is how we make note of evidence.

Gunshot patterns, residuals consistent with known events, etc.
All real world data is dependant on reproducible events.

And if there was supernatural influence, we wouldn't be able
to reproduce is on demand.

By it's nature, there can't be evidence for the supernatural.

So....what natural forces are in effect to produce life?
Why is life on earth better than just dead matter
which we find everywhere else?
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I honestly have no idea what you're talking about...
Are you asking me about possible silicon based life forms? What does this have to do with design?

Now...please list the natural forces that determine a system or design that matter will come alive.
List these and we will know if matter will ever design itself and become live systems. Please do list them all.
1.
2.
3.
4.
 
Upvote 0

Chriliman

Everything I need to be joyful is right here
May 22, 2015
5,895
569
✟173,201.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Wonderful...now we're getting somewhere...

What is the "clear evidence of design"?

The fact that there is information in DNA that guides processes. This information existed before human intelligence.

The most common sense understanding is that information can only come from intelligence, therefore, the fact that information existeded before human intelligence clearly suggests a higher intelligence as the source for the information found in DNA. This higher intelligence designed the DNA and encoded it with information to perform functions.

This is a powerful explanation for why we see information and design in things not created by humans. However, those who do not believe in God will go to great lengths to complicate this simple explanation and try to contrive some other explanation that removes the need for a higher intelligence for reasons unknown(most likely personal reasons)
 
Upvote 0

LOVEthroughINTELLECT

The courage to be human
Jul 30, 2005
7,825
403
✟33,373.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
In Only A Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul Kenneth R. Miller shows that the goal of the Intelligent Design movement is to change the definition of science and in the process undermine or destroy science.

There is the letter of a theory, philosophical system, worldview, etc., and then there is the spirit of it.

I do not see what it accomplishes to split hairs over the letter of a theory, philosophical system, worldview, etc. when the spirit of it is something completely different.
 
Upvote 0