Spotting Beretta's "designer" {Now only 1 summation message per member}

In response to a question as to the identity of a proposed intelligent designer in the thread Dogs will be dogs will be..??" Beretta writes:- When asked about testing for the existence of this designer Beretta argues that:- I propose a thread to further discuss the nature of Beretta's designer.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add the " {Now only 1 summation message per member}" part to the topic title.

I'd like to focus on Beretta's arguments if possible.It's your call.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

Cheers Nosy!Okay, here are some initial responses and questions. I'm going to leave aside issues that related to genetics and ToE for the moment. Others who are more qualified than myself may wish to add their views on these areas. If you don't know the nature of a given designer how can you know if anything was designed by it? Unfortunately your opinion does not make either design or a designer a fact. Complexity is found in nature. Complexity does not always equate to design. You are making assumptions about the designer without having identified him/her/it. Your examples are all based on instances of human design. Are we to assume that our designer/God designs like a human? Does man "design" in God's image? Does it follow that a designer/God would design in the same manner as humans?Finally, a further question. The idea of a designer is often placed in opposition to Evolution. But what if Evolution itself was designed? If there is a designer/God, could this be a possibility?

Hello Bluegenes,Infinite regression is, of course, a well known problem, but it doesn't seem to deter the ID community from making an exception for their designer/God.I'm keen to a have an ID proponent attempt to assign a nature to a proposed designer/God. There are many underlying assumptions as to what constitutes design and most seem to assume the designer/God works in the same manner as a human being. This mostly likely has roots both in scripture and in the human tendancy to anthropomophize. Nevertheless, I wish to see this issue tackled by those who argue for such an entity. Indeed, and if we must consider a designer/God then it begs the question, if ID proponents are so keen to ascribe the world around us to design, why are they seemingly so loathe to credit a designer with the process of evolution? In lieu of any evidence of a designer whatsoever, how than this be discounted? Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

All interesting questions, none of which ever appear to be tackled by those who argue for a designer/God!The question of active control particularly interests me. Most analogies presented are of an "artisan" nature - a painter who makes a painting, a builder who builds a bridge - but what about a software developer who designs a program that iterates over a probablistic algorithm to produce a non-deterministic outcome? This "design" analogy is curiously absent from those presented.

No problem with me. Your question is certainly more focussed. The point of this thread is not to get bogged down in ToE critcism. Rather, it is to explore the possibility (or impossibility) of an ID hypothesis with regard to a designer/God. Unsurprisingly, no IDists that I am aware of seem keen to tackle this...

You have it if the mods have no problem! The overarching idea was to tackle ID's need for it's own hypothesis, whatever form that would take.

Very good point, Bluegenes.Would be nice to see an ID proponent make his or her case here...Beretta? Anyone? Bueller?Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

Great replies folks. Don't think I've disappeared - I just have little to add to what's been said at the moment.

This was my exact motivation for starting the thread but as yet we've had no ID proponents take up the challenge. When pro-evolutionists (for want of a better term) enter the EvC debate they often too easily fall into the trap of overly indulging the ToE criticisms that IDists use to support their position. The best response is to ask point blank for an ID hypothesis.

Anything to add to this thread, Beretta?

Indeed, which is why the best way to rebutt ID claims is simply to ask for a design counter-hypothesis.

Here's a fun short story that was written by Issac Asimov back in the fifties. It chimes somewhat with your thoughts.The Last QuestionSuffice to say, humanity has barely begun to learn about the universe!

Of course, but to stretch the analogy, you'd still have to know what a painting is in the first instance. We have still to establish what constitutes "design". If it's so "obvious", why is it only obvious to people with a very particular religious outlook to defend? Surely it should be obvious to a whole range of people? Also, why are these people unable to provide any evidence whatsoever beyond apologetics based on their favoured religious text or ad-hoc criticism of science done by others? This is speculation of course, but if humans did continue to advance their technology and were one day able to create life, does that mean that humankind would one day collectively reach the status of God?(Here's a fun Asimov story based on this very idea. The Last Question) Ever seen a close-up of a snowflake? Those structures arise from the chemical properties of water. Of course, you might argue that God intervenes in all chemical reactions, but you'd need a some kind of evidence to back that up! I like the TalkOrgins definition:- "Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations." Certainly, evolution doesn't work with a particular outcome in mind, but then perhaps God doesn't want a particular outcome! Maybe God's just experimenting...Thanks for taking part in the thread.

Then you need to show either a design or a designer. Picking at the ToE does not automatically support your position. Heh, that's a complete fudge, Beretta. You're blaming science for the fact you have no evidence of a creator! Science is, or course, not equipped to deal with superstition - it deals with what is observable. However, the identification of who did the design should certainly belong in ID "science" in the same way as water is identified as a major cause of erosion in Geology.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.