Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Lack of Defining Features of Intelligent Design
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 9 of 41 (409514)
07-09-2007 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Grizz
06-08-2007 7:30 PM


I guess I'll be the first to speak on behalf of ID in this thread.
Grizz writes:
What is the nature of the posited designer? Is it supernatural or natural?
These are unfair questions. When Darwin first published his theory of evolution, he predicted that there was something to keep the traits and that these things were heredity. Mendel, being named the father of genetics, came later to show that indeed there were traits that were hereditary.
More to the point. Based on your criteria, Darwin's theory would have been thrown out the window outright if someone had asked Darwin how hereditary worked. He would have been stumped, just like the IDists today with your questions.
What relation does the designer have to the design? Does the designer sustain the process or simply make the conditions neccesary for the process to arrise spontaneuosly? Did the designer simply put together the molecular machinery and let things take their course?
If the designer is supernatural in origin is this designer omnipotent and omniscient? If so why go through the trouble of tinkering with a natural process when you could simply create it from scracth complete and whole? Why do only half the job and leave the rest to nature?
Again, these questions are unfair.
IDists claim that the designer is intelligent. Among humans, intelligent designers like engineers and archaetects usually don't design something without putting in their opinion of aesthetics. Otherwise, we'd all be living in houses with exactly the same design, skyscrapers would all look exactly the same, etc.
Some time ago, my wife and I went to chicago and went on a tour to see different types of archaetectures in the city. It was amazing to see how different archaetects had their own ideas on how to present their buildings. So, even among human engineers, we see variations of ideas on how to build something. Why on Earth would you expect a cosmic engineer to be as predictable as you've demanded?
On another note the common theme I see in the debate put forward by Creationists and ID advocates of all persuasions is the assumption that if the current naturalistic explanation were shown to be false a supernatural explanation is the only alternative.
Among the typical creationist and IDist, yes. However, I don't think the more visible IDists and creationists have made such claim.
From what I have read about the claims of ID, it seems to me that they rely more on human intuition than anything else to determine if there was any "design" in such and such organism. It's adhering to common sense.

Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Grizz, posted 06-08-2007 7:30 PM Grizz has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024