Pink writes:
#1. Everything is designed (there are no non-designed objects).
#2. Both designed and non-designed objects will be used to demonstrate #1.
This is not the basic position of ID. From the
wiki entry on ID:
quote:
Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
Pinky writes:
my response was specific to Hannah's arguments which started with claims that the universe was designed
Now, you typed that you were not arguing against the general ID position but specifically Hannah's position. I still don't see her as claiming that
everything is designed. If you could point it out then I totally agree with you on the logical break-down. The part I saw where she mentioned astronomy is:
quote:
Belief that the universe was intelligently designed spurred Kepler on to make sense of the previously very confusing astronomical observations.
—Hannah
I think she is saying that
Kepler thought
everything was designed, but I don't read it as her, nor ID, claiming that everything was designed. Even if she did mean that everything was designed, your argument (of pointing out the logical break-down) doesn't hold up against the
actual position of ID, just her twisted ID position, if that is what she meant (which I don't think it is).
Hopefully you see that Hannah's experiment breaks down at a basic, logical level - there is simply no way to carry out such an experiment, because by Hannah's definition the control group does not exist.
Yes, if she did mean that
everything is designed, then you are correct that we would not be able to find
anything that is non-designed to compare it with. But, that still cannot be used as an argument against ID, in general.
There is no room for personal bias in pointing out such a basic flaw.
Personally, I don't think you were being biased. I do think you misunderstood her position though.
™ Version 4.2
