Why only one Designer

Straggler writes: The possession of intelligence is an explicit comparison. Any further comparison is of your own extrapolation.

Nonsense. The application of intelligence to design is the essence of the ID argument. Comparison of biological "designs" to mechanical designs is an inextricable part of their argument. It's their (albeit lame) attempt to connect their mumbo-jumbo to reality. Without that comparison, they have nothing but woo-woo.

Straggler writes: Then the question as posed in this thread inevitably boils down to asking - How many humans would it take to design our universe? Doesn't it?

Of course not. The thread accepts the ID argument to the point that "the universe is designed by a process comparable to human design". At that point, IDists make a quantum leap to "God did it". That's where the comparison ends. We're not accepting that conclusion and we're not accepting your quantum leap to "man did it" either.

---

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

ringo writes: The thread accepts the ID argument to the point that "the universe is designed by a process comparable to human design".

Comparable in what sense exactly? Be explicit.

ringo writes: We're not accepting that conclusion and we're not accepting your quantum leap to "man did it" either.

So you have concluded that a multiplicity of non-humans who are comparable to humans only as far as multiplicity is concerned.

I think you will find this is called "cherry picking".

Why you need to cherry pick to produce a straw man version of Intelligent Design remains a mystery.

Straggler writes: Comparable in what sense exactly?

Read the OP:

quote:

---

If you see a watch in the forest you know its designed.

---

That's the argument that the thread is accepting, that if you see something as complex as a watch, you know it's designed.

Straggler writes: So you have concluded that a multiplicity of non-humans who are comparable to humans only as far as multiplicity is concerned.

Are you really that obtuse or are you trolling?

---

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

ringo writes: That's the argument that the thread is accepting, that if you see something as complex as a watch, you know it's designed.

OK. So how many designers are required to design a watch?

ringo writes: Straggler writes: So you have concluded that a multiplicity of non-humans who are comparable to humans only as far as multiplicity is concerned. Are you really that obtuse or are you trolling?

Are you comparing the designer(s) of our universe to humans or are you not?

If you are making that comparison then in what ways are you saying these designers are comparable to humans aside from multiplicity?

If you are not making a direct comparison with humans on what basis are you concluding a multiplicity of designers is the evidenced conclusion?

Straggler writes: So how many designers are required to design a watch?

"Reguirement" is irrelevant.

Straggler writes: Are you comparing the designer(s) of our universe to humans or are you not?

For the umpteenth time, it's the IDists who are making that comparison, not me. For the purposes of this thread, we're being asked to accept that comparison, to the point and only to the point that we conclude that the universe is designed.

---

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

Straggler writes: Are you comparing the designer(s) of our universe to humans or are you not?

ringo writes: For the umpteenth time, it's the IDists who are making that comparison, not me.

For the umpteenth time - No they are not. Not beyond the possession of intelligence. Any further extrapolation is yours and not theirs.

ringo writes: For the purposes of this thread, we're being asked to accept that comparison, to the point and only to the point that we conclude that the universe is designed.

If you asked a geneuine advocate of ID how many humans it would take to design our universe and how relevant this comparison is to their IDist conclusions what do you think they would say?

Straggler writes: ringo writes: For the umpteenth time, it's the IDists who are making that comparison, not me. For the umpteenth time - No they are not. Not beyond the possession of intelligence.

Tell it to the OP. The watch example assumes that the comparison is being made by IDists.

---

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

ringo writes: Tell it to the OP. The watch example assumes that the comparison is being made by IDists.

Then by the terms of the OP the question "How many humans does it take to design a watch?" is entirely relevant isn't it?

As is the question "How many humans does it take to design our universe?"

The trouble is that such questions, inevitable as they are if we take the premise of the OP as you have described it, highlight the fuckwitted straw man nature of the question being posed.

We don't need to make straw men versions of ID. It has enough real flaws without you (or the OP) inventing them.

ringo writes: Tell it to the OP.

My much stated position throughout this thread is that the entire premise of the OP (which you have so embraced) is deeply flawed.

Straggler writes: My much stated position throughout this thread is that the entire premise of the OP (which you have so embraced) is deeply flawed.

Then you can stop wasting everybody's time with your flawed interpretation of it.

---

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

ringo writes: Then you can stop wasting everybody's time with your flawed interpretation of it.

My flawed interpretation.....?

ringo writes: The thread accepts the ID argument to the point that "the universe is designed by a process comparable to human design".

Comparable in what sense exactly? Be explicit.

ringo writes: So yes, they most definitely are claiming that their designer is comparable to the designers of those things, humans.

If that direct comparison really is being made then the question "How many humans would it take to design our universe" is both entirely legitimate and wholly inevitable isn't it?

You just don't like the question because it highlights the flaws in your own silly straw man version of ID. But we don't need to make straw men versions of ID. It has enough real flaws without you (or the OP) inventing them.

Straggler writes: ... your own silly straw man version of ID.

Show me the strawman.

---

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

ringo writes: Show me the strawman.

Your strawman is to directly compare the hypothetical designer(s) of the universe with humans/zebras/elephants/ice caps when no genuine IDist is claiming that any of these entities (least of all ice caps) could design the universe no matter how many of them team up to do it.

ringo writes: So yes, they most definitely are claiming that their designer is comparable to the designers of those things, humans.

How many humans would it take to design our universe?

If you don't think this question is relevant to this thread can you explain why it isn't relevant? Bearing in mind that it is you who is insisting that a direct comparison with humans as designers is inherent in the premise of this thread.

Your strawman is to directly compare the hypothetical designer(s) of the universe with humans/zebras/elephants/ice caps when no genuine IDist is claiming that any of these entities (least of all ice caps) could design the universe no matter how many of them team up to do it.

You are right: no IDist claims that any of those entities could design the Universe. But, IDists do make comparisons between known designers and (what they believe to be) known designs.

Yes, it is a strawman to claim that ID leads to the conclusion that humans/zebras/elephants/ice caps designed the Universe; but it is not a strawman to take the comparisons between human designers and known designs made by ID and follow those comparisons out to their logical ends, namely the conclusion that the number of the Universe designer(s) should also be comparable to human designers.

You've yet to show how this is faulty.

Jon

---

Love your enemies!

Jon has answered your strawman accusation pretty well.

Straggler writes: Bearing in mind that it is you who is insisting that a direct comparison with humans as designers is inherent in the premise of this thread.

IDists are making that comparison. If there's anything else to their claims beyond that comparison, go ahead and present it.

Edited by ringo, : Fixed quote.

---

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

Jon writes: But, IDists do make comparisons between known designers and (what they believe to be) known designs.

No comparison is made with humans beyond the possession of intelligence. Any further extrapolation is yours and not theirs.

Jon writes: but it is not a strawman to take the comparisons between human designers and known designs made by ID and follow those comparisons out to their logical ends...

Logical ends being that this hypothetical designer possess intelligence. Any further extrapolation is yours and not theirs.

Jon writes: namely the conclusion that the number of the Universe designer(s) should also be comparable to human designers.

So How many humans would it take to design our universe?

If you don't think this question is relevant to this thread can you explain why it isn't relevant? Bearing in mind that it is you who is insisting that a direct comparison with humans as designers is inherent in the premise of this thread.

Jon writes: You've yet to show how this is faulty.

Yes I have. You are making unwarranted extrapolations and coming up with a straw man version of ID.