Who designed the ID designer(s)?

Hi Catholic Scientist,Getting a bit off-topic (as are most of the latest replies) . . . . . . yet that is just subjective evidence, good (perhaps) for making up opinions . . . certainly it cannot be used as the evidence for the logical deduction itself, though, as that would be self-referential. Indeed. The Buddhist position that all is illusion, and the scientific position that all knowledge is ultimately tentative come together at this point.In science we make one "faith-based" assumption that the objective empirical evidence is representative of reality, then follow the trail of objective empirical evidence with logical reasoning to determine what is most likely to be true. We infer with inductive logic to determine (hypothesize) what we think might be true, and deduce tests to check the hypothesis. Anything not contradicted by invalidating evidence is possible to be true, but is still only hypothetical unless confirming evidence is available to give it tentative support.A theory is a tested hypothesis, tested by objective empirical evidence, where the hypothesis passes validation tests and survived invalidation tests. Even then, after many tests, a theory is still a tentative explanation for observed objective empirical evidence. Yes, we can assume that it is real and proceed on that basis, subject to revision when\if more information becomes available. When you move away from objective and empirical evidence then the only elements you have left are a priori opinions & beliefs (ie world views) and logical deductions based on current knowledge (hypothetical concepts).Mind you, you could have personal experience that has not been replicated\validated\confirmed\tested, and this could lead you to form conclusions that would not be reached by people not having that experience (the aware conscious observer alone in the woods of previous threads).A subjective experience can thus be used as a basis for your conclusion, however (imho) that is still a personal conclusion that should be regarded as opinion. Subjective evidence (religious experiences) could lead people to conclude that god/z exist, however that is a side issue to the topic.The OP (Message 1) was written in 2004, almost 7 years ago, and as yet no-one has refuted the logic of the argument that there are four categories involving the existence (or not) of Intelligent Designers:

quote:

---

(1) Nobody\nothing designed the ID designer(s), it\they evolved naturally through totally natural processes. In this case ID defaults to natural laws and processes, including evolution, just as if we didn't assume a designer (so it would be irrelevant to pursue), and continued belief in ID is then based on faith, OR

​

(2) Nobody\nothing designed the ID designer(s), it\they have always existed from the beginning of time. In which case they are god(s), being necessarily supernatural to have lived an immortal existence that must also have been non-material before particles coalesced from the cloud of plasma energy at the beginning of time. Belief in them is belief in god(s) and thus a form of faith, OR

​

(3) A god or gods designed the ID designer(s), and empowered them to do the designing. With this version the designers become "angels" or demi-gods doing god(s)’s bidding, and, because god(s) is\are now firmly included, ID again ends up being a form of faith, OR

​

(4) Other previous ID designer(s) designed the ID designer(s) to replace\assist them. Now move up to that level and repeat the sequence again (computer programmers will recognize this as a DO LOOP). If there is no other answer than an endless cycle of designers, then this too is a supernatural (see #2 above) cycle akin to the Hindu faith of infinitely recurring universes, all the designers are gods by default, and ID again ends up being a form of faith. (This is the "turtles all the way down" version).

---

These categories all end up with belief in an Intelligent Designer being a matter of faith. Is there a fifth category where it isn't?You mention belief based on evidence, but now we have whittled away at that to the point where we have taken away objective empirical evidence (and none has yet been provided) to support their existence, so we are left with subjective evidence, appropriate for opinion and belief . . . which is still faith in my book.Belief in alien visitations without objective empirical evidence is faith.Belief in sasquatch\yeti without objective empirical evidence is faith.Belief in Intelligent Design without objective empirical evidence is faith.It is not science.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

Dear intellen,Please stop playing games and address the issue of the thread: is belief in Intelligent Design (new, old, indifferent) based on faith as laid out in Message 1:

quote:

---

(1) Nobody\nothing designed the ID designer(s), it\they evolved naturally through totally natural processes. In this case ID defaults to natural laws and processes, including evolution, just as if we didn't assume a designer (so it would be irrelevant to pursue), and continued belief in ID is then based on faith, OR

​

(2) Nobody\nothing designed the ID designer(s), it\they have always existed from the beginning of time. In which case they are god(s), being necessarily supernatural to have lived an immortal existence that must also have been non-material before particles coalesced from the cloud of plasma energy at the beginning of time. Belief in them is belief in god(s) and thus a form of faith, OR

​

(3) A god or gods designed the ID designer(s), and empowered them to do the designing. With this version the designers become "angels" or demi-gods doing god(s)’s bidding, and, because god(s) is\are now firmly included, ID again ends up being a form of faith, OR

​

(4) Other previous ID designer(s) designed the ID designer(s) to replace\assist them. Now move up to that level and repeat the sequence again (computer programmers will recognize this as a DO LOOP). If there is no other answer than an endless cycle of designers, then this too is a supernatural (see #2 above) cycle akin to the Hindu faith of infinitely recurring universes, all the designers are gods by default, and ID again ends up being a form of faith. (This is the "turtles all the way down" version).

---

Is there a fifth category that I have missed? These are examples of what I call mental masturbation. You "define" intelligence to fit your observation, then "experiment" to show that your observation fits your definition of intelligence, and use that to conclude that intelligence exists in nature to support your faith that Intelligent Designers exist, using a different definition of intelligence for the designer.It is circular logic, it is false logic. Amazing then that we can actually measure intelligence in apes according to existing definitions of intelligence in humans: see google: ape intelligence measurement -- About 1,790,000 results (0.20 seconds)

quote:

---

Scholarly articles for ape intelligence measurement

​

The thinking ape: Evolutionary origins of intelligence - Byrne - Cited by 650
Intelligence of apes and other rational beings - Rumbaugh - Cited by 105
Evolution of the brain and intelligence - Roth - Cited by 198

---

and Google Scholar: ape intelligence measurement -- Results 1 - 10 of about 21,100. (0.12 sec)Does the fact that we can measure intelligence in other animals mean that they are intelligently designed?No, it means they have intelligence. Real "how" answer: the bacteria evolved via mutation and selection, where mutation offered the possibility to use nylon as a food source, and selection for the increased survival ability of those with the mutation to use an additional food source.This, by the way, is a tested and verified "how" -- the kind of question science answers.btw "how come" is not "how" it is "why" . . . but I put this down to the obvious trouble you have with the english language (not your native language evidently). If you can quantify intelligence then please show me the measurements of intelligence for humans and apes so that they can be compared? Then measure the intelligence of an oak tree for comparison.If you can't do that then you don't have a quantifyable measurement. So how many tissues will it take to support a human? a Gorilla? is this how you measure the intelligence of these species?In other words you are NOT measuring intelligence but the resistance of tissue paper to falling eggs. You could use leaves instead, does that mean that the leaf is intelligent? You could use cannonballs - does that make the cannonball intelligent? Curiously, the ToE does remarkably well at explaining the objective empirical evidence we have that evolution -- the change in frequency of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation in response to ecological opportunities -- occurs and has occurred, and that it appears to be sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the world around us, to the fossil record and the genetic record.The ToE makes no claim to be able to measure intelligence.Again, going back to the google scholar reports, the first three of them on the first page of results are:

quote:

---

[BOOK] The thinking ape: Evolutionary origins of intelligence
R Byrne - 1995 - questia.com
... 158. Further reading, 161. 11 Apes and language, 162. Cognitive foundations for language in animals, 163. ... Estimating intelligence, 212. Brain enlargement reflects intelligence, 213. Allometry: getting the right scale of measurement, 214. Primate brain sizes, 215. ...

​

Evolution of the brain and intelligence
G Roth - Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2005 - Elsevier
... on the view that mental or behavioral flexibility is a good measure of intelligence ... Using mental and behavioral flexibility as a criterion for intelligence, among tetrapod vertebrates, mammals ... Among primates, apes come out as more intelligent than monkeys, and monkeys more ...
Cited by 198 - Related articles - All 18 versions

​

Intelligence as an emergent behavior; or, the songs of eden
WD Hillis - Daedalus, 1988 - JSTOR
... independent of representation. The measure suggested below is simple and important, if not sufficient. ... necessary to sustain symbolic intelligence? An ape is a complex sensory-motor machine, and it is possible that much of this complex ity is necessary to sustain intelligence. ...

---

That looks like there are a lot of quantifiable measurements made to determine the relative intelligence of apes, humans, and monkeys: measurements that can be applied to other species, measurements that can be replicated by other scientists -- unlike your system.But that is off-topic, the topic is whether belief in Intelligent Design is faith.Do you believe in "egg falling does not break through 8 sheets of tissue" design?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : uote not s

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

Hi again Catholic Scientist, thanks. Faith, by definition, is believing something without evidence or proof:

quote:

---

faith -- n

1. strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence
   
2. a specific system of religious beliefs: the Jewish faith
3. Christianity trust in God and in his actions and promises
4. a conviction of the truth of certain doctrines of religion, esp when this is not based on reason
   
5. complete confidence or trust in a person, remedy, etc
6. any set of firmly held principles or beliefs
7. allegiance or loyalty, as to a person or cause (esp in the phrases keep faith , break faith )
8. bad faith insincerity or dishonesty
9. good faith honesty or sincerity, as of intention in business (esp in the phrase in good faith )

​

Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition 2009

---

I have not said it is a dichotomy. The reason that I mention the fact that ID is not science is because IDologists frequently claim that it is -- not because there is no middle grey area between science and faith, especially religious faith - definition #4 - which is where I see your position on faith leaning, and where I see ID being, because it is based on a priori beliefs.There is a spectrum of beliefs, from pure science to pure faith, where science is supported by objective empirical evidence, and faith is not supported by logic nor evidence. In between we have experiences we believe are true, they are based on the evidence of our experience, but do not meet the rigor of testing and attempts to invalidate concepts that is part of pure science. If we take deism - the original ID, btw - as the cutoff between religious faith and non-religious faith, then we can say that anything with an a priori belief in the existence of god/s is religious faith. Agreed, the UFO guy is not basing his belief on an a priori faith in the existence of aliens that have visited earth, but on a personal experience. This, of course, goes back to the long discussion with Straggler (and others) on the value and use of subjective evidence, and this is where the issue of faith vs science becomes muddy.As I said previously:

quote:

---

When you move away from objective and empirical evidence then the only elements you have left are a priori opinions & beliefs (ie world views) and logical deductions based on current knowledge (hypothetical concepts).

---

Logical deductions based on current knowledge do not get us to the hypothesis that there are Intelligent Designer/s -- that requires an a priori opinions or belief that god/s exist . . . or evidence that god/s exist.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

Hi Chuck77,One of the things this board tries to do is keep threads on specific topics, rather than wander all over the place like most other boards. Once you get used to this idea you will see how useful it is for pursuing specific questions. An excellent topic for a new thread (or finding an existing thread on this topic), noting that this thread is not about common ancestry, it is off-topic on this thread. One of the things you will run into are definition aspects to the question. I think that you would agree that you and I share a common ancestor back in Homo sapiens past, although we may disagree how far back that is, and that is only dealing with humans. This would also be an excellent topic for a new thread (or finding an existing thread on this topic), noting that this thread is not about origins of life, it is off-topic on this thread. I agree that we don't know -- the oldest rocks known that could have fossils already show life had evolved before those rock sediments were laid down, some 3.5 billion years ago; there is no record preceding that, so no, we don't know. It may be abiogenesis (by any one of several possible means, it may be that life was carried here (panspermia) or it could be creation of one form or another.These two new topic suggestions could be combined into one, as you are likely talking about the earliest common ancestor, and that is part of the origin of life.Note that there is a whole forum on this board dedicated to OOL: Origin of Life, so look around it and see if one existing thread addressees your questions. Which is true of most science. Science does not claim absolute knowledge of anything, and new fields (like abiogenesis) have a lot of uncertainty and disagreement. They are making interesting progress, though, in developing possible scenarios. Here I presume you mean Origin of LIfe (OOL) rather than new species arising, and this would be better covered by that new (or the found existing) thread on this topic. Simplistically, ID is the faith that an intelligent designer designed some aspect of the universe. Most IDologists are christians rather than people really committed to the concepts of intelligent design.Do you know what Deism is? Here's a hint: Is ID properly pursued? (note that thread predates this one). LOL. How do you know whether or not abiogenesis and evolution are not mechanisms used by the intelligent designer in forming the world\universe we have around us?I look forward to further discussion on one of the OOL threads, just so you don't think I am brushing you off here.I also look forward to your reply on the Correlations thread, btw.Now, can you offer a fifth possibility to the four listed in Message 1?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : added

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

Hi Chuck77, thanks. It is important to recognize when your beliefs are based on faith and when they are based on evidence. As Percy points out in Message 320:

quote:

---

... If you accept ID as a matter of faith, and if you don't think it should be taught in science class, then I don't think many would have any problem with that. But if you not only accept ID as a matter of faith but also think it is science deserving of attention in public school science classrooms, as Dover, Pennsylvania, did back in 2004, then all science minded folk would have a big problem with this, and would push you to describe ID's qualifications as science.

---

That's the gist of the basic ID argument -- whether or not ID belongs in science classes. As a form of faith it does not. It is perfectly fine to have public education cover it in something like a comparative religion or a philosophy of religions (humanities) class, but science classes should (continue) to be restricted to science subjects, where knowledge is gained via the scientific method and is based on objective empirical evidence.Of course, when you talk about ID is such humanities classes, then they are not necessarily restricted to any one religious view. Now here is where I have trouble with the average argument from design approach -- the assumption (faith) that it supports (only?) one specific faith. Please see Is ID properly pursued? for my discussion of this aspect and the potential pitfalls of an incomplete commitment to the design argument.Science is a tool to understanding.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

Hi Catholic Scientist, you can read if you cannot respond (you can message me), so I will lay out my view: Indeed all is well, I had my 15 mo checkup since last chemo and have all clear from the doctor. Spending too much time remodeling the house and not enough biking. Except that ...... if the evidence is not objective empirical evidence, then one is taking on faith that it does represent what you think it does. Here the assumption is that lights=aliens, while the open-minded skeptic view would be that it could be aliens, or it could be something else, neither of which are confirmed (pending further evidence). Going from could be to IS is a leap of faith. Again, going from a position that it could be designed to it IS designed is a leap of faith.And ...... if proof is all you have, then it is a logical construction that relies on the assumption (leap of faith?) that the premises are true in order to reach a true conclusion.If - and only if (imho) - objective empirical evidence is found, then no, it would no longer be a matter of faith.Personally, I think logic alone (ie with an absence of objective empirical evidence) is only good enough for making rationally formulated opinions, based on what you know and what you believe to be true, and cannot rise above being based on (one foot in) opinions\assumptions\beliefs.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

Hi Energy, and welcome to the fray. In the context of doing chemistry we do not need to know the source of molecules, or even much about the molecules internal workings (quarks and leptons, not just electrons, protons and neutrons), in order to study and understand chemical reactions, or to make predictions on future reactions from the properties of the chemicals.However, if the question "where do the atoms come from" is asked, then chemistry is not able to answer that question.In a similar vein, if the question "where did life come from" is asked, then evolution is not able to answer that question -- evolution deals with the "chemical reactions" of organisms within ecologies, and doesn't need to know where life came from to study and understand evolutions "reactions," or to make predictions on future "reactions" from the properties of the organisms and their ecologies.In the context of the topic for this thread (Message 1):

quote:

---

I would like to address the problem of "who designed the designer(s)" -- even though ID proponents adamantly argue that the question is not relevant to the science involved, because I feel it is very relevant to the issue of whether ID is a faith or not. As such, I suggest that it be put in the {Faith and Belief} forum rather than the ID forum.

​

I claim (here and elsewhere) that ID is de facto a form of faith.

---

In the context of the above discussion, it would be possible to study aspects of ID without knowing where the IDer came from.In the context of this thread I am asking where the IDer came from.Enjoy. Edited by Zen Deist, : ps

Hi again Energy You're welcome. Here's another: If you use [qs=Taq]Causality and mechanism ... [/qs]
and
[qs=Dr Adequte]Quite. Every three-year-old has discovered ... [/qs]they become: and And it's a little less confusing. Correct - we could know about the footprint maker without the footprints, and we could study how footprints are made, however the existence of the footprints could also lead us to ask who made the prints.The Laetoli footprints come to mind:
Laetoli Footprint Trails | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins ProgramNote that the mechanisms of how footprints are made has been part of the research into the Laetoli footprints and the discussions of which type of hominid made them (bone configuration, stance, etc).Enjoy.