Eventually, they are going to say there was a magical wizard who was the first designer and that they don't need to explain where he came from because it's magic.
Well what if they don't do that? What if they cite the evidence on which they believe Intelligent Design? What if after you demonstrate to them why this evidence is not as good as the evidence for naturalistic answers they say "Fair enough. My previous belief was based on poor evidence. I realise this now"....?
Did they previously believe ID on the basis of faith or just poor reasoning and/or ignorance regarding evidence?
Well let's consider a hypothetical IDist. An IDist who has genuinely concluded ID on the basis of what he genuinely (albeit wrongly) considers to be objective empirical scientific evidence. He is asked - "Who designed the designer?"
After some thought our evidence based IDist responds - "I don't know. But parsimoniously I guess something has to exist first. And there is good evidence for a designer so it might as well be that designer. If any evidence of a prior designer to that one comes to my knowledge I will revise my answer accordingly".
Now to my mind his isn't faith. This is evidence and reasoning (albeit evidence which isn't as reliable as he believes it to be).
Do you think this is faith?
Looks like he's on his way to being a #4 to me:
quote:(4) Other previous ID designer(s) designed the ID designer(s) to replace\assist them. Now move up to that level and repeat the sequence again (computer programmers will recognize this as a “DO LOOP”). If there is no other answer than an endless cycle of designers, then this too is a supernatural (see #2 above) cycle akin to the Hindu faith of infinitely recurring universes, all the designers are gods by default, and ID again ends up being a form of faith. (This is the "turtles all the way down" version).
But I suppose if he's in limbo and hasn't actually taken a position on who designed the designer, then he might not actually be in a position of faith... I dunno.
Well what if they don't do that? What if they cite the evidence on which they believe Intelligent Design?
Fruit of the poisonous tree.
You are creating a "hypothetical IDist", but that person is merely exposing a position they've been tricked into by Creationists intent of installing a theocracy.
He may not feel as though what he is saying is a religious belief, but that doesn't change what it is.
Strike "religion" and replace it with "racism" and let's have another look.
What if a hypothetical Jew hater complained about their wickedness, their horns, their tails? What if he were quoting off pro-Hitler webpages? Would he be racist? Even if he said, "No, I really believe these things are true. I don't dislike Jews, they are just an inferior race and must be exterminated. Honestly."
His position is racist. He comes to it from information give to him by racists. His arguments are coached for him by racists. It's racism top to bottom.
The same is true here.
A Creationists is a creationist is a creationist. Deep down, they are all saying that the Bible is literally verbatim true and that the Earth is 6000 years old.
Some of them pretend to say otherwise because they've found that their real argument is unconvincing.
But none of them ACTUALLY believe anything but YEC. The rest is all just dishonesty.
His tentative position is taken on the basis of the objective empirical scientific evidence that he genuinely believes to exist plus parsimony.
It can certainly be wrong. But How can that be faith?
Looks like he's on his way to being a #4 to me:
Look RAZ can make a load of flawed definitions, provide a bunch of scales based on those flawed definitions and then construct a deductive proof based on these definitions and scales. It is all internally consistent and kinda convincing in it's own circular RAZlike way.
But the idea that you can prove that a particular belief must be faith based rather than derived from poor reasoning or poor evidence or whatever is just silly.
Deep down, they are all saying that the Bible is literally verbatim true and that the Earth is 6000 years old.
Obviously not if the Intelligent Design proponent in question is a Hindu (or indeed any other form of non-Christian IDist)
quote:The phrase “intelligent design” gets a lot of currency these days, from both its champions and foes. Its proponents contend that the organized structure found within the universe indicates an intelligent cause whereas its opponents claim that undirected natural processes are enough. I have heard some people claim that the notion of intelligent design is merely an attempt to repackage Christian creationism in a respectable way. But, this is clearly false. It’s a Hindu notion as well.
People with an interest in Indian philosophical and religious traditions will find it noteworthy that many of classical Hinduism’s greatest thinkers subscribe to a notion of intelligent design. To my knowledge, one of the earliest instances of the term intelligent designer is found in Sanskrit philosophical literature.
It is unimaginable to me how not one but thousands of well educated academics can entire lifetimes debating and researching how things have come to be. I’m talking about the evolution vs. creationism vs. intelligent design vs. whatever conundrum. It’s really a simple topic and not worthy of the time and energy expended on it. I can say with certainty that I have never researched this topic none and never will because there is nothing to research. It’s all conjecture and always will be. I know with 100% certainty that the answer not attainable because of one simple unarguable truth: Since all beginnings have a beginning, there is no true beginning to anything. Since there is no true beginning, you can never ascertain the essence or “how” of anything. You can only observe what is observable and the paradox created by the “what happened before that?” question makes the how question unsolvable - actually barely even a valid question. Simply put, there are unknown variables that can never be proven or otherwise derived. So, whether you believe in intelligent design, randomness or directed evolution, it’s irrelevant because any 6 year old can always legitimately ask: “What happened before that?”
Whether such an IDist actually exists or not has little bearing on the silliness of the idea that a deductive proof has been provided.
Can you conceive of an IDist that would do this and change their mind if they were shown their evidence was false?
Darwin himself would surely qualify?
Darwin in his autobiography writes:
The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course the wind blows. Everything in nature is the result of fixed laws.