Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9071 total)
41 online now:
dwise1, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Phat (3 members, 38 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Upcoming Birthdays: Percy
Post Volume: Total: 893,075 Year: 4,187/6,534 Month: 401/900 Week: 107/150 Day: 0/38 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why only one Designer
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 377 (612144)
04-13-2011 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by slevesque
04-13-2011 12:39 PM


slevesque writes:

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!

I'll admit that I like discussing ID, and that the primary entertainment in doing so is exposing the inevitable flaws in logic required to defend ID as science. For me the fun ends when the proponent elects instead to defend ID on religious grounds.

My personal opinion is that there was little point to this thread, because we all know why IDers assume a single designer. I'll note that Frako's question was answered about one or two posts into the thread. But despite the logic blunders, Frako does get to what little point there is.

The controversy is not that ID proponents insist on a single designer, but that some of those proponents pretend that there is nothing religious about ID when it is only religious belief that mandates a single designer.

Frako's logic errors are, IMO irrelevant as is his entire OP. Dembski's and Behe's logic errors are both relevant and entertaining. If we get to discuss those things here, I'm all for it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by slevesque, posted 04-13-2011 12:39 PM slevesque has taken no action

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 1360 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 17 of 377 (612146)
04-13-2011 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by frako
04-12-2011 5:24 PM


frako writes:

Using ID and creo logic .

Acording to intelligent design complex stuff need a designer . If you see a watch in the forest you know its designed. Well yea you have a point tough that watch was not designed by 1 person some designed the parts some designed the shape and some people put it together.

If you find a computer in the forrest you know it is designed well sure but there where tonesof people involved in the design of the computer

Just about everything designed that we see is designed by lots of designers and the more complex it is the more designers we have. So why do you assume that only one designer designed a universe as complex as ours your own logic points to there being tones of designers some designers designed stars, some rocks, some planets, some plants, some bacteria, some animals .......


For those IDists whose argument is simply "complex stuff needs a designer," I think you make a valid point. One could perhaps invoke Occam's razor to argue for a single designer, but this doesn't seem very persuasive based on the human analogies that you point out.

But I think many ID arguments go further than simply claiming "complex stuff needs a designer." E.g. William Lane Craig's "kalaam" argument goes back to a "first cause." Logically, there can only be one "first cause."


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by frako, posted 04-12-2011 5:24 PM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by frako, posted 04-13-2011 2:38 PM kbertsche has replied

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 18 of 377 (612156)
04-13-2011 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by slevesque
04-13-2011 12:39 PM


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 ...

Ok i admit that i never read any ID books though i always thoguht that the Core of ID is

"certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

Yes, they sometimes use human designs as analogy, but their arguments do not rest on this analogy

Can you give a few other arguments just a footnote of them would do fine

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 ...

Well yes humans can design simple things on their own, but the more complex the designed thing is the more humans are involved, im not saying that there absolutely has to be multiple designers by ID logic though im asking the question why do you presume there is only one designer.

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!

No again im only asking why IDists automatically assume there is only one designer, and not multiple designers or the possibility of multiple designers being the same as a single designer.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by slevesque, posted 04-13-2011 12:39 PM slevesque has taken no action

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 19 of 377 (612158)
04-13-2011 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by kbertsche
04-13-2011 1:45 PM


But I think many ID arguments go further than simply claiming "complex stuff needs a designer." E.g. William Lane Craig's "kalaam" argument goes back to a "first cause." Logically, there can only be one "first cause."

Yes logically there can be only one first cause but not only one first causer.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by kbertsche, posted 04-13-2011 1:45 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by kbertsche, posted 04-14-2011 9:03 AM frako has taken no action

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 280 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 20 of 377 (612169)
04-13-2011 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by slevesque
04-13-2011 12:39 PM


Yes, they sometimes use human designs as analogy, but their arguments do not rest on this analogy (contrary to what Ringo claims).

Really? What else have you got?

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 ...

It remains a fair question.

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!

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.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by slevesque, posted 04-13-2011 12:39 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by slevesque, posted 04-13-2011 8:33 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 3869 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 21 of 377 (612209)
04-13-2011 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Dr Adequate
04-13-2011 4:17 PM


Really? What else have you got?

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-13-2011 4:17 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by jar, posted 04-13-2011 8:36 PM slevesque has replied
 Message 23 by arachnophilia, posted 04-13-2011 8:39 PM slevesque has replied
 Message 30 by ScientificBob, posted 04-14-2011 7:51 AM slevesque has taken no action
 Message 35 by Taq, posted 04-14-2011 11:06 AM slevesque has taken no action
 Message 74 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-14-2011 5:31 PM slevesque has taken no action

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33887
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 22 of 377 (612210)
04-13-2011 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by slevesque
04-13-2011 8:33 PM


slevesque writes:

(and stop equivocating creationism and ID, we both know they are not the same thing)

Sorry but "we" do NOT know that ID and Creationism are not the same thing.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by slevesque, posted 04-13-2011 8:33 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by slevesque, posted 04-13-2011 8:40 PM jar has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 573 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 23 of 377 (612211)
04-13-2011 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by slevesque
04-13-2011 8:33 PM


slevesque writes:

But the 'single designer' hypothesis does not come intrisincally from ID, it comes from other areas of the IDers life.

yes, generally, (christian) church. a polytheist would have little trouble accepting multiple designers.

(and stop equivocating creationism and ID, we both know they are not the same thing)

you might want to ask a creationist about that.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by slevesque, posted 04-13-2011 8:33 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by slevesque, posted 04-13-2011 8:46 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 3869 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 24 of 377 (612212)
04-13-2011 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by jar
04-13-2011 8:36 PM


Sorry but "we" do NOT know that ID and Creationism are not the same thing.

Yeah well I haven't showed the contrary a thousand times yet, but I'm getting close so can assume it's a PRATT


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by jar, posted 04-13-2011 8:36 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by jar, posted 04-13-2011 8:50 PM slevesque has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 25 of 377 (612213)
04-13-2011 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Taq
04-13-2011 1:28 PM


At least two sides in an arms race.
Taq writes:

IMHO, assuming that ID is true for the moment, the nested hierarchy screams multiple designers.

What we would see as the evolutionary arms race would also be very strong evidence for a minimum of two designers. The attack and defense mechanisms are often highly complex, and only designers in competition would go to such lengths.

Taq writes:

Either that, or a single designer that slightly modifies pre-existing species and then suffers amnesia after designing the new species.

Your "amnesia" hypothesis could cover the evidence, I suppose. The designer keeps forgetting which side of the arms race he's on.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Taq, posted 04-13-2011 1:28 PM Taq has taken no action

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 3869 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 26 of 377 (612214)
04-13-2011 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by arachnophilia
04-13-2011 8:39 PM


you might want to ask a creationist about that.

I'm a creationist, and the difference seems pretty clear.

It's a matter of all creationists are IDer, but not all IDers are creationist. This simple fact should be enough to show that the two aren't the same.

It's just like a square is a Rhomb, bu a Rhomb isn't necessarily a square (what a strange word. Rhomb, just looked it up lol)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by arachnophilia, posted 04-13-2011 8:39 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by arachnophilia, posted 04-13-2011 8:59 PM slevesque has taken no action
 Message 29 by NoNukes, posted 04-14-2011 6:23 AM slevesque has taken no action

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33887
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 27 of 377 (612215)
04-13-2011 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by slevesque
04-13-2011 8:40 PM


slevesque writes:

Sorry but "we" do NOT know that ID and Creationism are not the same thing.

Yeah well I haven't showed the contrary a thousand times yet, but I'm getting close so can assume it's a PRATT

The only difference between the two MIGHT be that the Creationists are slightly more honest.

Intelligent Design is simply another attempt to get Creationism past the Supreme Court, into the schools and to redefine science.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by slevesque, posted 04-13-2011 8:40 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by slevesque, posted 04-14-2011 1:01 PM jar has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 573 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 28 of 377 (612216)
04-13-2011 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by slevesque
04-13-2011 8:46 PM


slevesque writes:

It's a matter of all creationists are IDer, but not all IDers are creationist. This simple fact should be enough to show that the two aren't the same.

It's just like a square is a Rhomb, bu a Rhomb isn't necessarily a square (what a strange word. Rhomb, just looked it up lol)

okay.

please define your terms. what is a "creationist" and what is an "IDer"?


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by slevesque, posted 04-13-2011 8:46 PM slevesque has taken no action

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 377 (612218)
04-14-2011 6:23 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by slevesque
04-13-2011 8:46 PM


slevesque writes:


It's just like a square is a Rhomb, bu a Rhomb isn't necessarily a square (what a strange word. Rhomb, just looked it up lol)

Most people call that shape a rhombus.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by slevesque, posted 04-13-2011 8:46 PM slevesque has taken no action

  
ScientificBob
Member (Idle past 3492 days)
Posts: 48
From: Antwerp, Belgium
Joined: 03-29-2011


(1)
Message 30 of 377 (612221)
04-14-2011 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by slevesque
04-13-2011 8:33 PM


slevesque writes:


(and stop equivocating creationism and ID, we both know they are not the same thing)

Cdesign proponentists disagree.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by slevesque, posted 04-13-2011 8:33 PM slevesque 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