Well using their logic there is a reason to believe there are more designers.
If you want to critic the intelligent design movement, I would suggest reading at least a book or two from an Ider explaining what ID is.
Because rarely do you show anything other then simple gross misunderstanding about it ...
"Everything complex has to be designed because we see that in the things humans make"
This is a perfect example of the gross misunderstanding I am talking about, and a rather obvious strawman of what the IDers say.
Yes, they sometimes use human designs as analogy, but their arguments do not rest on this analogy (contrary to what Ringo claims).
OK then everything complex must have multiple designers because we see that in everything we make.
Humans design complex things, simple things, random things, weird things, and they do all those either alone or with in collaboration with others.
If you would want to show that an IDer would have to logically believe in multiple designers, you would have to show that a designed thing absolutely requires multiple designers. Which would be quite an astonishing feat, considering all the counter-examples of things built by a single designer that I can think of ...
But what is really more interesting in this thread is how blatantly illogical the reasoning in the OP is, and yet no atheist/evolutionist here bothered to tell you you were wrong. Everything is fine as long as you can bash ID in the process it seems, and who cares about basic logic!
Dembski's claim that specified complexity is an indication of design has nothing to do with the 'human design things analogy'. He claims that it would be efficient to apply it to microwaves coming from space, for example.
The title of the OP is actually "Why Only One Designer", not "If There Was a Designer There Must Have Been More Than One".
It's a fair question. And you have in effect given the answer, which is that creationism is a branch of religious apologetics rather than a sincere attempt to discover the truth.
But the 'single designer' hypothesis does not come intrisincally from ID, it comes from other areas of the IDers life.
An IDer isn't strictly and IDer, he's a lot of other things too.
A guy like Berlinski, who thinks that ID makes lots of valid points, would have no problem saying that multiple designers is a possibility. As I said, nothing about ID compells anyone to think there was only one designer
(and stop equivocating creationism and ID, we both know they are not the same thing)
PS Exam tomorrow, then I'll be able to get back to our GD
Do you, or do you not, agree that they are not the same thing ?
Sure, they have similarities, and they have the same sort of connection as a rhombus and a square, but at the end of the day, this does not justify claiming that they are the same thing, because they clearly aren't.
Sorry but no. As soon as you bring in some magic outside agency that meddles in the process it stops being science and becomes Creationism.
And as I said, the Creationists will call themselves anything that they think will get around the SCOTUS.
You really are the kind of all humpty-dumpties, playing with definition and words as to fit your needs.
Sorry, but putting in some 'outside magic' does not make someone automatically a creationist. It may make an idea none-scientific, but to actually be a creationist you have to think God poofed things out of nothing, not simply changed things incrementally over time.
Every creationist accepts evolution to some degree (though I'm old enough to remember when they rejected "microevolution" too). You can't use that as a criterion for separating evolutionist from creationist.
Depends on how you define evolution, but in any case Behe goes far beyond any limit a creationist accepts about the ToE.
For example, he believes that apes and humans share a common ancestor who lived 5 or so millions years ago. This is what I mean when I say he accepts the fact of evolution
What separates creationism from science is postulating a creator/director/designer.
I agree creationism isn't science. But that's the red herring in question here, because that is not what we are talking about.
All I'm saying is that ID and creationism isn't the same thing. You can't interchangebly use both words to talk about the two.
ID is one thing, creationism is another. Having common similarities doesn't make them the same thing.
God it's so hard to pass such an easily understable point around here sometimes. I probably feel like you do when you talk to a creationist who keeps repeating the same PRATT ...