Intelligent Design or unthinking blasphemy?

Hi, sorry there's been a bit of activity on this, so gonna just try catch up here. Then a bear who sits on a tree stump has "designed" a seat? Implementation(verb)
Design descirbes an action, and not just an action, like religion, or philosophy, or science, it describes a discipline.
You're suggesting God has to do things in one way, because that's the best way they can be done. This isn't an omnipotent God you're describing it's superman squared. How would a different, simpler universe, provide a definitive answer?
You, or anyone can believe in God any way you like, it's none of my business, but the Christian God isn't involved in a farce, He doesn't decieve, and He doesn't need to design, because He can create perfection without effort, or using the machinery present in the substances He created Absolutely, 100%, that's why we have the word "design" which describes a certain process, and the word "evolution" which is a different process.
You suggest that their are other forms of design than human, and I'd be interested in knowing where you got this idea?
"Design" as I use it, is a process that was first studied in ancient Greece, tho' it may have been earlier. So why do you think Genesis doesn't say, "And God said "let there be light", then sat down for a bit to work out what the parameters light would exist under would be"?
Because He didn't do it. Sorry but where did you address the design question? I thought you weren't willing to attempt it?
According to the Bible, Man is the toop of the food chain, in every way. Everything in Nature is subordinate to us, but this isn't apparent in the "design". I make no such assumption, God frequently says so.
And by the way, these "reasons" you speak of, how do they occur within an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, eternal,atemporal and above all complete being?
They can't. Our language, nor our intelect is capable of understanding God. This is why the word "Creation" is used.Can any human truly Create something? no. Can any human truly design something? yes of course. I'd like to see these other methods, Evolution isn't design, any more than floating bits of wood are boats. No I realise that your appy to add your own meanings to either A)the Christian Gods actions, and His revelation (fine by me, but blasphemy anyway), or B) Alter the meanings of words until they fit into the use you want for them (Creation Science anyone?), which by the way, is taking His name in vain, as sins go it's a biggy. Sorry but this is blasphemous too, you're suggesting we could avoid God's plan for us.

This is more along the lines of what I was getting at, with the notable point, that in design, as much of the trial and error as is possible, is done in abstract terms.
Beaver's do not design dams, or they'd have hydroelectric plants by now. Which is, in fact, the only method known, because it's the one we made.

That's fine if you want to look at design that way, but it's not scientific design, in scientific design we put things in where they are most efficient, this is largely dictated by where they must be. This doesn''t apply to God.
Yoou're use of design is pretty much, "anything made by an agent that can make it", or "anything which shows pattern", and sure you can define it like that, but, considering ID claims to be a scientific movement, what would be the purpose in switching from "Creation" to "Design"?
It's to add a technical veneer, not to say "God had designs on the people of Israel".
Well, technically, in a scientific way, it's not design. Remember, the point of this was that design could be shown in nature, which wouldn't work with your definition of design.
And as a Christian, it's claiming to know God's motivations, and to say that He is material, and subject to the same laws as us.

Lo I think Ringo pretty much answered this but... Maybe not, but it still suggests a Deist theology, and that could be blasphemous, remember God can move in and out of Creation at will, and does so, and this "design" implies that the basic "stuff" has properties which God must work around.In all honesty I don't think it's blasphemous to use words like design, etc. if you're trying to get your head around the concept of God, and it's probably not to use them in prayer, or in Church.
But to go to a scientific setting, or a court, and say "I know, This is how God did it!!" is blasphemy, it's arrogant, and it's an attempt to use God, to make your preferences dominant.Screaming "Jesus F***ing H. Christ!!!" after hitting your thumb with a hammer, isn't polite, but it's not a sin.
"Saying God did it how I say, it's Science" Is two arguments from authority, both outright wrong, and both intended to further the ambitions of those making the claims.
This is the essence of taking His name in vain imo.
It also says that the Bible wasn't good enough. Wether it was acccurate and inerrant, or a general poetic vision of morality, Christians believe it to be God's inspired divine word, to add or remove from it, is the same sin of arrogance, and manipulation as above.(imo)It's also pretty hard to adapt the word intelligent to be a fitting description of God, simply because it suggests the possibility of the opposite.
"Intelligent Design" (political) is a far cry from "Divine Design", "Perfect Design"(religous) or any other kind of "non-human design" anyone cares to posit.

Science is tentative and non-absolute. Not made. If I made someone else's design, then I am not the designer. The designer has to be the one that conceived it. Design can be shown in nature. The bone of contention isn't design, its the intelligent part. In the God scenario we are talking about infinite intelligence. So, given the ID movement, what is God's motivations. How can an entity that is apart from the universe and time be considered material, and why must the infinitely powerful, all knowing all prescent creator of the laws that we must obey - be subject to those same laws?

Why?The act of creation described does not preclude specific interaction or that GOD must "work around some existing properties".If I have a basic car that runs just fine I can still add an 8-track player.I'm not sure how what I describe must be either deist or limiting. IMHO if you look at religion the main interaction between GOD and man is in the area of behavior, guidance.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

No, it utilised an already existing product for its own ends. However, if it conceived of a design for a seat in its head, and then just happened to find that same design occuring in nature, then it still designed a seat - it just wasn't original (poor bear). Yes, design is both a verb and a noun. I have defined them both. God could do it anyway, but why would he do it anyway that wasn't the best way? He could do it two different ways with two different reasons, each time being the best way I suppose. It wouldn't. But a simpler universe may not serve the same purpose as the one we have. Since we don't know what that purpose is we can't say that a simpler universe would be a better design. A pencil is much simpler than a car - but they serve different purposes. Well, I was talking about a perfect entity, not the Christian God for the simple reason that you were talking about a God that doesn't err...You are defining design as the systematic methodology of humans. The God of our hypothesis gets it right first time. He says, I'll have two eyes, a brain, two arms, two legs, a heart, two lungs....That is God's method of design - He just says what He wants and He gets it. The body he conceived of is a design - and it was Him that thought it up, thus he is the designer.Using only one narrow definition of design is the problem here. If you do not consider evolution a certain type of design, then we really have nothing to discuss. Evolution designs things in a blind, 0 forethought fashion. We have used the evolution procedure to design aeriels, radios, computer programs and a plethora of other things. In your definition of design then ID is not a good name. However, we take a step through the looking glass of semantics into the field of pragmatics and we discover what they mean when they say design. And it means 'in contrast to the blind procedure of evolution'. God is simply the exact opposite of evolution. Because He isn't a crap, imperfect designer (assuming the God that doesn't err...which isn't the God of Genesis). He thinks that there should be a thing defined as light, he conceieves of how it will work and then speaks it into existance. That's a theological issue, not an ID issue. I was responding to the criticism that the universe was inefficient/non-perfect. If you now say the universe is perfect then the matter is settled. Evolution tries it ten ways. The bottom designs get thrown out, the middle ones get copied twice and the top ones get copied three times. Each slightly different. This is blind design. If you read Dawkins he will wax lyrical about the wonderful design in nature that cries out for an explanation. The concept that evolution is a (frankly brilliant) design method is not something I dreamed up, here is a random link that shows that other people view evolution as a non-intelligent design mechanism.Pick up a copy of the Blind Watchmaker sometime and when you've finished let me know if you still consider that evolution is not design. We all do that...you yourself consider it blasphemy that God makes mistakes - despite contrary evidence from God Himself (unless the Bible writers were liars of course, but that's another story). That would be impossible (unless that was the reason God gave us free will, but then we are delving to far into theology for an ID discussion). I am suggesting that if God had built the universe in a different (simpler) manner, then it would have been for a different reason than he would have built the universe in a complicated manner.If God created a massive cosmos filled with void -then humanity would follow a different course than if he had built it simple. This is self-evident I thought - but perhaps moon landings, probes, Copernicus, and NASA will convince you that it is so.Given that history is the way it is, and given that God has a plan of some kind, then the universe has to be the way it is, or the plan would be different. (or the plan would fail...but the err-less God doesn't do that).planA -> Simple universe
planB -> Complex universeIF God decided to go with planB he cannot also create a simple universe anymore than he can make p not p.

Unless I am mistaken this thread is examining the Designer as the Biblical God. Or why the blasphemy talk? Sure thing. We can talk all about prophecies, and God warning people about something that is about to happen (eg Noah)...clearly thinking ahead. What if you've got it backwards for design? We are made in God's image after all... So you are asking for a human to give an example of a perfect (ie God-like) design? I never said God-like design was possible (I don't believe in anthro-God!), but its philosophically conceivable. I conceive of a pyramid of three blocks. Then I build it. No trial and error. The pyramid is my design. Its not a perfect example for reasons I could get into, but I won't since it serves its purpose for now. If we are going to exclude the reasoned argumentation of that clause then God should be off limits entirely, otherwise whenever the debate got to some level evidence would be required. I am getting this feeling that the argument is going to boil down to ' you can't use words to describe God, therefore...' Actually the OP does - since it claims that God does not err. Come of pope! Show us an example of God designing and creating a universe!You have to explain why it is magic, and what magic is before I can really answer your questions about it. You can't just define it as magic and expect that to settle it. You see, I have a feeling you are defining magic as 'the impossible happening' or some such. In which case you are defining it as impossible, QED and all that. God doesn't need to plan or think? Nevertheless, when God creates something it has a design. He was the creator of that design, and the English language refers to Him as the designer. Perhaps language is woefully inadequate for the job, in which case it doesn't matter what we say, its blasphemy and/or diminishes God. We should probably burn religious texts and stop discussing Him. By who? God never mentioned that such a thing is blasphemous that I can remember. Show me that this is blasphemy.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Yes, and it's terms, because of this are, specific, and precise. You are now arguing that a vague general word, which you define as meaning "stuff that's thought up" be allowed in. Should scientists even be considering this? Do you think that people realise that ID means "God has to exist 'cos nothing happens without someone forcing it to"?? I was under the impression that ID was talking exactly about the type of design I mentioned, which has at least some scientific validity, and could therefore possibly be dealt with by science.
There were posts as I typed this will respond more later. Show one such example please, remembering that even tho you said evolution was a form of design you then said that design requires an idea to be concieved.
Infinite intelligence is more political language, find one example of intelligence as an attribute of God in the Bible, and explain what definition of "intelligence" your're working with please. He can't, so why try to hem Him in by saying He can be found in material objects?? I don't claim that God can be found in the "design" of the universe (pattern, or how it works?). In fact I don't claim anything along those lines, What I claim is that if you believe in the Bible, you will follow it's requirements.
One of the major beliefs, of the Bible, is that any revelation, beyond it's pages, and anyone giving such is to be considered "Anathema". Is ID such a revelation?
If Id want's to be considered science, then using "design" in such an interpretable manner, is foolish it's neither tentative nor finite. If they mean pattern fine, say so, if they mean design, ok say so. Or is a "theory" just something we think now?Again this all returns to the motivation.
God supplied us with the inforrmation which was to be used in His worship. He told us that any other information caliming to be such was lying. ID theorises a way to prove Gods existence, when even the claim this can be done is a sin.It's fine for you to say "this is what I think happened...", but to set up a movement to get this set in stone, and named "science" is to challenge God Himself, since He tells us we can't know.There's only two methods, for Christians to reach God, Christ and the Bible. Christian theology has followed this route always. these are the ways which were given us by God, anything which goes outside these is unChristian, and sinful. All Christian apologetic is based on these two sources, for this exact reason.Again religion is a discipline, you can't be a Buddhist and a millionaire, you can't be a Satanist and a Jew, You can't be a Christian and validate ID.
You can however call yourself whatever you like, and try convince others. The ID camp has done this twice, they claim Id is science (I can't tell wether you agree or not), and they have claimed that science is Christianity.
They can argue the point all they want, but Christians are not expected to validate other religions, which ID does by it's very ambiguousness. So Christians are affirming the possibility their God does not exist, and others may, to gain the use of a tool, which God never approved of. They are also back-handedly admitting that Christs sacrifice and the Bible are unconvincing proofs.
This is a clear case of using God to further ones own ends. It's like the Golden Calf, but this time the false idol is science.And I'd still like to know why you think design in the case of ID means pattern? Frankly, there's no such thing as an intelligent pattern, a pattern simply is or isn't, to claim the universe shows intelligent pattern is even more meaningless than ID imo.
Political language, designed to change the original meaning, and with no other intent.Edited by Shh, : last line added.

The concept is not vague. It is quite specific. Evidence of forethought is the Holy Grail of ID. They think they have it, and if they did, science should consider it. At its extreme ends, that is one argument put forward, in more common usage though, it is a case of 'the things that exist conform to an order and complexity which is just too unlikely to not be the result of forethought. ID is not about seeking God's blueprints, it's about seeking evidence that biological systems cannot come about through a blind process since there are steps required that blind processes simply cannot do (or are absurdly improbable). Design doesn't require an idea to be conceived, but an conceived idea can be design. A design can also be for some purpose, such as replicating DNA. I wasn't talking strictly Biblical, but common attributes associated with him - all-knowing all-wise etc. After all - you yourself weren't being strictly Biblical with your err-less God. I was merely discussin an intellectul possibility. Perhaps God has no intelligence. Wisdom is usually the word used. Nobody is hemming anyone. God could easily have left no evidence of his work. ID is saying that for whatever reason, He did. Or more specifically, he left general evidence that someone was at work. ID is a bunch of political hot air with nefarious motivations that God would be shocked to know of. It isn't blasphemous to consider God as the designer, in my opinion. However, it is sinful to lie, manipulate and cheat your way to selling books spreading the word. However, there are patterns which have a very low statistical likelihood of happening. So low, indeed, that for them to have even a small chance of happening the universe would have to be a million times older. Of course, cumulative selection is rebutted as a means to this end because of irreducable complexity. Quite happily ignoring such things as redundant complexity...but look at us, chin-wagging.

I don't think the OP mentions the Biblical God. I am talking about the possibility/probability of blasphemy. (I may have overstated it a time or two? ) You'd have to discuss that with somebody who believes that Bible prophecies were accurate. Then it wouldn't be design - it would be reproduction. I have no interest in philosophical conceptions. Design is not a philosophical conception - it's about something real. It's a brain-to-reality process, not a striclty in-brain process.I think Shh in the OP has described design as an abstract form of trail and error. Whether the errors are filling the junkyard or the wastepaper basket or the back corners of the brain, they're still errors. Which is why we distinguish the science forums from the religious ones. In the religious forums, you can make vague philosophical conceptions about what is "possible". The science side expects some grip on reality. Well, there is that, but I think it's outside the scope of the OP. For the purpose of this topic, we're talking about a pretty severe bringing down of God to the level of a "designer". It's the next thing to calling Him "the guy in the next cubicle". You're talking about a "design" methodology which can not be understood or duplicated, which can only be discussed as a "philosophical conception", for which you can provide no concrete examples. What else am I expected to call it except "magic"? How would you define "magic"? Of course not. So you assert. Seeing "design" where there is no design process is a delusion.Any real design is created by some sort of design process. That process leaves "fingerprints", as it were - tentative sketches, botched calculations, failed prototypes, etc. Something like that ought to be detectable, otherwise how can you say there is a "designer"? Well, yes. Blasphemy is in the attitude, not in the words. That's why I have no qualms about writing "God is a fat old bastard" to make a point. Those words are equivalent to "God is a designer" or "God is a pastry chef". It's blasphemy only if you believe it. Did you ever explain to your dog why you are allowed to eat off the table and he is not? He has his role in the household you have yours. His role does not involve questioning your role, or even trying to understand your rules. His role is to do his best to keep you happy.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

quote:

---

The reason being that this idea, is held, mainly by apparently devout (arguably fundamentalist) Christians.
The reason I find this funny, is that the definition of "Intelligent Design" and the definition of "God" are totally incompatible.

---

The OP talks about the Christian God, who is Biblical. Why? The character of God laid down in the Bible is the one we are talking about here. The God in the Bible does think ahead. If you want to argue from the point of view of a God that you have conceived then you are right in everything that you say, by definition. Not entirely, since I don't think God has lungs. And besides which, even if we are copies of God, not all of nature is a copy of God. Probably a good idea to not discuss God then really, unless you are arguing that God is real (but I doubt that). Indeed - but what if the first idea you had was right? God knows about all the bad designs (since he knows everything) so I guess he has thought up all the bad ones as well as the OK ones, and the best ones. He only implemented the best of all the possible designs. Then this thread is in the wrong forum Discussing blasphemy and God are pointless since I could just ask for evidence that God exists and evidence that blasphemy is possible, and the debate would be over. ID is not blasphemy because there is no evidence that blasphemy exists! If the guy in the next cubicle designed a whole functioning universe, a morality system, life, thought, souls, and all that shebang, I'd be happy to call him God. Or at least I'd happily relegate God to 'the guy in the next cubicle'. So anything which is philosophical in nature is thus magic? Why not call it philosophy and be done with it, it's a much more solid word that conveys more meaning than 'magic'. If I dismiss any of your philosophical discussions on the nature of God or reality as 'magic' I'll happily define it for you. Fine - but the question then becomes - does God plan and think? I think there is Biblical evidence that He does. For you there must be a systematic process. Would it be easier to consider it like the above. God has done a process, but in parallel rather than in series. He knew all the possibilities, including the bad designs, but simply did not implement them.In normal every day English (as defined earlier) the human body has a design; A plan, a layout, call it what you will. In normal English the entity that creates that design is known as the designer. That entity might be some all powerful being, an alien, a human, or evolution or a beaver or whatever. So if your attitude is that God being the ultimate designer of everything in the universe is actually great and holy and good, then it's not blasphemy? Are you saying it would be blasphemous for a dog to consider you as the payer of the bills? To be honest, I really don't know what you are saying here. We have a role to God, and therefore to consider God a designer is blasphemous? Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Lo again,
Modulous, you said It is however, blasphemous to add to the Revelations which God has provided, ID attempts to do this. Such revelations, and those who give them are named "Anathema" in the Bible.It is also blasphemous to insist that science must agree with the Bible. This would mean science can qualify what the Bible says. Which would mean that science can disqualify what the Bible says.
God clearly states the only path to Him is through Grace, Jesus, and The Bible. He doesn't say it's factually accurate, or provable, He says it's the rulebook for a discipline. Science gets to judge scientific matters, but it can have no say in the requirements of the Christian discipline, so if it contradicts what the Bible says, that makes no difference. Nor does it matter when it confims what the Bible said.
So people arguing that ID is a valid theory, and acceptable to Christians, are raising their own golden calf.P.S. can't find the "anathema" reference atm, I'll edit it in later tho.

If God left evidence, that it was designed with forethought, then it isn't blasphemous to point it out then. I'm not sure that is true, could you provide some kind of source for that? Not really. It would mean that science is either right (consistent with the Bible) or wrong (inconsistent with it. If it is inconsistent with God, then it must by definition, be wrong. Yup. ID does not say 'believe in God because it is clear there is a designer'. It just says 'there is a designer, make of that what you will'.

there's a story in the bible, in 2nd samuel 24, and 1st chronicles 21, where david takes a census of israel, and is punished for it.he's punished, because god had promised abraham that his descendants would be as plentiful as the stars, or grains of sand on a beach. by COUNTING them, david is breaking god's promise.so apparently, sometimes checking god's details is bad.

---