Intelligent Design == Human Design?

I generally believe that Intelligent Design is simply unscientific, not so much because there's evidence against it, but rather because it doesn't propose an objective scientific question to begin with.There's one aspect about Intelligent Design that shows my point, and I wanted to hear any creationist responses to it. The issue is this: any and every argument that I've ever heard in favor of Intelligent Design could also be made in favor of Human Design.The argument goes something like this: Logical systems, languages, and "specified complexity" are only known to come from humans. Since we see these aspects within life systems, we can therefore conclude that humans designed life.The basic defenses of Intelligent Design work here as well:Argument: "That doesn't explain anything, because it doesn't explain where those humans came from."
Defense: "My 'Human Design' theory doesn't address that. It simply shows that life was designed by humans."Argument: "There's no evidence of humans on earth 3.5 billion years ago."
Defense: "The complexity of life is excellent evidence of humans on earth during this time."Argument: "Humans today cannot design life."
Defense: "That makes no comment on humans in the past."Etc.This shows in several ways why I consider Intelligent Design to be lacking in the basic requirements of a scientific hypothesis. Thoughts?

Well, this topic has certainly run wildly off course. Oh well, still enjoying the trip...

quote:

---

Its not Science like say, cosmology. or anthropology. It is not a whole new science. It's a proposal to accept the variable of intelligence and a creator. Instead of random actions from a undefined start with many teaching that it was a random consequence of dumb luck interactions.

---

Well, that's certainly fine as a philosophy. In this sense I have no problem setting Intelligent Design firmly next to Postmodern Existentialism and Nihilism as interesting mind games, but subjects which simply have no foundation in objective science (and should definitely not be taught in public schools).

quote:

---

the question WHY, or, For what purpose? should be added to the scientific method for any scientist who accepts ID.

---

But again, this is philosophy, and not science. Science isn't meant to answer the "why" in the philosophical sense, but rather the "why" in the practical sense. By your definition, the "why" behind science could just as easily be addressed by mixing in any other philosophy with science. Of course, this is a bad idea...

quote:

---

Stuff like that. Who knows. but it would also let God believing scientists breathe without feeling like they are going against their religion to follow science if they feel science has an anti God position.

---

Science has an anti-supernatural, anti-faith position, and nothing more. Science doesn't promote atheism, agnosticism, or any other religious philosophy. Science is simply an approach.Here's an excellent question to illustrate this point. There are two ways to believe in something: by evidence or by faith. Which type of belief do you think God prefers?

quote:

---

i have attempted to remain true to answering and debating the reasons i feel ID is valid in science. most scientists already accept ID anyways.

---

Now you are on dangerous ground... most scientists believe in God, yes, but the vast majority of scientists specifically reject Intelligent Design as pseudoscience. The vast majority of scientific establishments in the U.S. have released statements specifically condemning Intelligent Design as unscientific, and you yourself have clearly spelled out in your response that Intelligent Design is not science.The key point here is that "Intelligent Design" doesn't mean "belief in a Creator", but rather "the argument that there is scientific and objective evidence to support the hypothesis of life on earth being created by an intelligent designer". This is not science. It's philosophy and religion.

quote:

---

Science is not going to progress without addressing issues of thought , emotion and other things that DO exist...

---

But that's what 'science' means... Science isn't meant to be the be-all-end-all study of reality. It simply focuses on what is measurable and objectively verifiable. That sounds harsh and heartless, but that's just what it means to study science.

quote:

---

there is no area absent of energy.... a constant singular source cannot evolve without intelligence... there is no other variable possible

---

I must confess to being very confused by what you're saying here. Aside from the fact that your science 'facts' are nothing of the kind (even if an area is absent of energy, it still contains both space and time, and thus exists. A single seed can evolve into a full-grown tree without the need of intelligence, etc)But all of this is just fluff meant to cover up the real issue: You said that most scientists accept Intelligent Design. I pointed out that this is patently false: the vast majority of scientists reject Intelligent Design (even if they believe in a Creator).

quote:

---

In the singularity, there is only a single energy without time.
  —tesla

---

'Energy' is not a unit... there's no such thing as "an energy", so I don't understand what you are saying here.

quote:

---

but they DO agree the singularity exists at that point, and that its energy, and space and time are irrelevant.
  —tesla

---

Absolutely not. Space-time is not irrelevant to a singularity because a singularity is an aspect of space-time. You cannot have a singularity without space-time.But I understand your general direction: space-time was greatly warped at the singularity, and a singularity might be the natural 'starting point' of space-time itself.
This, as it turns out, is actually an answer to your question...

quote:

---

The only thing I'm attaching is: OK, so how did it evolve? there's nothing to interact with. no environment, and no hope of introduction. and look around...It DID evolve. so...how?
  —tesla

---

Because if a singularity represents the beginning of time itself, then obviously there was no such thing as "interaction", "cause", or "evolution" (this entire discussion, of course, has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution).I should state at this point that in my understanding of what a 'singularity' is, modern physicists actually aren't sure if space-time itself had a beginning with the singularity. However, I do know that if this turned out to be the case, then the question "What came before the Big Bang?" is like asking "What is south of the south pole?" There's no such thing as 'before' the beginning of time (because "time" didn't exist).

quote:

---

You Don't understand the bbt. read this pls:
  —tesla

---

I have read your source and I'm sorry to say that your accusation is misplaced. I may not understand all aspects of the Big Bang Theory, but I understand the basics, and as far as I can tell, you don't.Consider what I've said in my posts. Here it is again:

quote:

---

Space-time is not irrelevant to a singularity because a singularity is an aspect of space-time. You cannot have a singularity without space-time.
  —Fiver

---

...and from your own source...

quote:

---

It had all of the properties of a black hole singularity but from it 'grew' space time and matter was released into this space as the fundamental particles of very high energy.
  —Your source!

---

And ALL of this goes back to your suggestion...

quote:

---

there is no area absent of energy
  —tesla

---

Those have been my points, and I'd ask any 3rd-party reader to support or correct me on whether I understand the basics of the Big Bang Theory.