The Scope of Intelligent Design

perfessor · Post by **perfessor** » Sun Jan 23, 2005 1:50 pm

There is currently a thread seeking a working definition for evolution; another seeking to identify the indicators for "design". My questions here seek to clarify some scope for Intelligent Design Theory (it is just a theory, right?

):

So, according to the theory:
1. Are some things designed, or is everything designed? Is it enough to show that some features - say, eyeballs and flagella, are designed? Or does the theory state that all features are designed? If the former, then the theory is easier to prove but limited in scope. If the latter, then a single counterexample shoots it out of the water.

2. Does the theory allow for multiple designers? Not trying to be facetious here - but why only one designer? If we look at, say, paintings by Picasso and Norman Rockwell, we can pretty much tell that there were (at least) two designers. Likewise, if we compare octopus eyes and human eyes; or kangaroos and deer; or chlorophyll and hemoglobin, do we not see indications that at least two designers were vying for the commission?

What do some of the proponents of ID say?

The Happy Humanist · Post by **The Happy Humanist** » Sun Feb 06, 2005 12:20 pm

YEC wrote:Evos like jimspeiser like to claim this stuff happens...but when asked to present some evidence the best they can do is bang their head against a wall.....in a stubborn assertion of their very own type of "god did it" logic.

Many consider the evos as hypocrites.

I'm banging my head against the wall because the debating tactic you employ is so transparently disingenuous. You demand data, and then when it is provided, as it was by Jose, you call it rhetoric and then blithely go on demanding data. You're not fooling anyone. Here, I'll prove it.

Is anyone out there, Christian or otherwise, impressed by YEC's style of argument? Does anyone agree with him that the link Jose provided was mere "rhetoric"?

gluadys · Post by **gluadys** » Sun Feb 06, 2005 12:30 pm

Jose wrote:
ST88 wrote:[OK...so let's pretend the eye is such a thing, even though we know it isn't. What are the implications of ID, as they present it?

Well, when did the eye, as we know it, show up? That is, when was it created? We'd have to go back to the first fish. Once eyes had been created, then, well....the rest is evolution.
Picky point. We would actually have to go back much further. Ancestors of fish back to the early chordates also had eyes. And trilobites and many other invertebrates did too, long before fish arrived on the scene.

Furthermore many lineages seem to have developed the eye independently, so in an ID world there would have to be more than one creation of the eye. But then, as you say .... the rest is evolution.

That is something I have never understood about ID. Just what is the relationship between the designed form and the evolving form? Where is the design manufactured if not in the body of the organism? How do you insert a created design into an evolving form?

Do True Christians really want ID in the schools, since it forces God into just a few creative moments, and leaves the rest to evolution?
Not this Christian for sure. But then I don't think evolution leaves out God. Better to see God in evolution than in gaps.

YEC · Post by **YEC** » Sun Feb 06, 2005 2:17 pm

jimspeise, stop with the Mr. Bojangles dance...and present the evidence...if you actually have any.

If you don't have any then please stop posting in this thread.

The Happy Humanist · Post by **The Happy Humanist** » Sun Feb 06, 2005 2:19 pm

YEC wrote:jimspeise, stop with the Mr. Bojangles dance...and present the evidence...if you actually have any.

If you don't have any then please stop posting in this thread.

YEC · Post by **YEC** » Sun Feb 06, 2005 2:21 pm

We're still waiting jimspeiser

The Happy Humanist · Post by **The Happy Humanist** » Sun Feb 06, 2005 2:57 pm

YEC wrote:We're still waiting jimspeiser

YEC · Post by **YEC** » Sun Feb 06, 2005 3:33 pm

jimspeiser, I'm done playing your silly game...time to move on to a serious debator.

When you decide to reply in the interest of this forum, please do.

The Happy Humanist · Post by **The Happy Humanist** » Sun Feb 06, 2005 4:15 pm

YEC wrote:jimspeiser, I'm done playing your silly game...time to move on to a serious debator.

When you decide to reply in the interest of this forum, please do.

That's funny, I think that's what most people viewing this are thinking of you!

The name of this forum is DEBATING Christianity. Debating implies the willingness to consider evidence presented by the other side, and willingness to learn. You have done neither. You seem to view this as a place to hit everyone else over the head with your own myopic view of the way science works, and tune out any arguments contrary to your own, rather than do even the smallest speck of learned consideration of the other side's POV. Even creationists like Otseng will tell you, that is not debating.

Now, I ask you, YEC, what is your analysis of the information provided in the link supplied by Jose? What specifically is there about it that renders it "rhetorical" and falls short of being "data"? What falsifies it?

When you decide to reply in the interest of this forum - in the interest of debating - please do.

Until then,
I remain,

Post by **otseng** » Sun Feb 06, 2005 4:42 pm

jimspeiser wrote:Even creationists like Otseng will tell you, that is not debating.

OK, since I've been singled out, I guess I need to chime in here.

I would generally agree. YEC, you waste a lot of posts simply making comments about other people or how they fail to respond to your posts. I would suggest to just simply present your evidence, then leave the facts speak for themselves. Do not make comments such as:
"I'm done playing your silly game...time to move on to a serious debator."
"Many consider the evos as hypocrites."

Such comments do not add to a constructive debate.

As a fellow die hard creationist, I do believe you have a lot of valid arguments to bring to the table. But, I would suggest a change in tactic here on this forum. Avoid at all costs any comments about evos (or any poster). Stick to the arguments against evolutionism and for creationism. Present the facts and evidence for your arguments. And again, do not make any judgement calls on a fellow poster. If you will follow these steps, you will gain a more receptive audience (and this especially includes the moderators).

The Happy Humanist · Post by **The Happy Humanist** » Sun Feb 06, 2005 4:53 pm

otseng wrote:
jimspeiser wrote:Even creationists like Otseng will tell you, that is not debating.

OK, since I've been singled out, I guess I need to chime in here.

For the record, I singled you out not just because you are a creationist, but because you are a highly considerate and erudite one, AND because you started this forum and thus get the final say-so as to what you intended for it. And because I'm sucking up for a 2005 User Award.

8)