Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9072 total)
76 online now:
jar, kjsimons, PaulK, Percy (Admin), PurpleYouko, Theodoric (6 members, 70 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Happy Birthday: Percy
Post Volume: Total: 893,118 Year: 4,230/6,534 Month: 444/900 Week: 150/150 Day: 4/16 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why only one Designer
Peter
Member (Idle past 710 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 221 of 377 (613033)
04-21-2011 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by frako
04-12-2011 5:24 PM


Am I stating the obvious?
ID does not require a single designer.

I assume that a significant proportion of ID proponents come from a mono-theistic religous background, and they therefore assume their designer to be a single entity.

Those individuals when asked to consider multiple designers will probably reject the idea and come up with some reason for doing so (e.g. multiple designers are not necessary to explore the 'theory').

Since it is hard to point precisely to what it is about the Universe around us that screams 'I was designed', finding the conceptual differences one would expect from a multi-designer as compared to a single-designer hypothesis is ... well ... a bit tricky.

ID (for me) makes little sense in any case; after all if all complex entities must be designed, so was the designer ... then who designed it ... and who designed it's designer ... ad nauseum.

If we can get back far enough to find a complex, yet not designed entity then ID is, by definition, false.

And since that is the ONLY possible starting point ... ID is clearly false.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by frako, posted 04-12-2011 5:24 PM frako has taken no action

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 710 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 349 of 377 (614694)
05-06-2011 5:32 AM
Reply to: Message 315 by SavageD
04-29-2011 10:28 PM


Re: Evidence for an Only Designer
Since our only reference point for design is the design that we (humans) perform, the link between common components and a single designer is not present.

When we design an automobile it consists of a large number of interacting systems, each of which has a separate design team, and yet each of which use common technologies.

When we design a aeroplane -- the technologies are the same as automotive technoloigies, and yet the design teams are different and numerous.

In short, designs can be interpreted as a hierarchy of increasing complexity -- each layer upwards being based upon the units underneath.

In the same way that one can consider Physics to underpin Chemistry which underpins Biology. There are 'new' features at each level, despite being based upon a common set of 'rules' under-the-hood.

So is there any other evidence that there is a single designer?

Also, is there actually anything in ID theory(?) that precludes mulitple designers -- or in fact makes any comment on the number of designers necessary?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by SavageD, posted 04-29-2011 10:28 PM SavageD has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 362 by Straggler, posted 05-09-2011 10:00 AM Peter has seen this message

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 710 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 368 of 377 (701957)
06-28-2013 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 366 by Taq
05-23-2011 3:23 PM


Isn't that the problem ?
Since any intelligent designer(s) would be capable of designing in any way they chooose ... spotting the difference is impossible.

For ID it's not even necessary.

The argument (if you want to call it that) is that biological systems are just too darn complex to have arisen by natural processes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 366 by Taq, posted 05-23-2011 3:23 PM Taq has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022