Unanswered Questions Concerning Intelligent Design.

[Furrowed Brow]

One of the stock evolutionary rhetorical retorts to intelligent design is to ask the question who designed the designer? I say rhetorical because I’ve never seen a pro Ider offer an answer. So would any proponent of intelligent design care to take a stab at any of the following questions. (Or would anyone else care to play devil’s advocate). However, the proponents of ID say it is a science, and not a religion. That Intelligent Design does not necessarily imply God. So any answer requiring God is off bounds.

1) Who designed or how was the designer designed?
2) From where or from what did does the intelligent designer draw their intelligence?
3) From where or from what muse did the intelligent designer get their design aesthetic?
4) By what manner, mechanism or method does the intelligent designer ensure the universe follows their design?
5) If intelligent design were true - does that mean only one designer, or could there be more than one? (Explain your answer).

[QED]

Evolution is origins science. http://www.sandpoint.net/tknapp/bias.htm

An important point to bring up is that all people are biased...

Accepted for the purposes of this debate, given that the definition of people is one that excludes a small percentage of the population that, for physiological reasons, are incapable of holding an opinion.

When it comes to origins science, evolutionists claim that only naturalistic explanations are allowed. For example, if we are able gather considerable data that points to the intelligent design of life, this would not be allowed because it implies a supernatural designer.

Such data is under no obligation to point to a supernatural designer whatsoever. The data might be as compelling as finding the programmer's comments alongside the genetic code. That would leave no doubt as to life having been intelligently designed. We could then engage science in seeking out this intelligent designer. The comments might even tell us where to look.

[Furrowed Brow]

McCulloch, I do not really disagree with your reply. Evolutionist presupposes there is no God and Creationism presupposes there is. The same data is used for both, but how it is interpreted depends on the starting postulate.

This so misrepresents the logical terrain of the debate. Naturalism and supernaturalism do not have an equal logical footing. Naturalism attempts to explain physical phenomena in terms of the simplest model available, and without importing unnecessary metaphysics. Thus Occam’s razor. Which as someone has already pointed out seeks the simplest explanation and not a simple explanation. (That the world rests on the back of a giant turtle is a simple explanation of what holds the world up)

The difference in the two conclusions naturalism v supernaturalism is not a preconception about the answer, but a commitment to a method. The method being to arrive at an answer that provides predictions, can be tested, and can be falsified, whilst applying Occam’s razor. If that method demanded the introduction of necessary metaphysical entities then that is the answer to which the method would lead.

Ok you want to talk up the scientific credentials of Creationism, but the route you take is ill chosen. By the same lights astrologists can say they interpret the evidence from their starting precepts. Ultimately astrology and creationism are interpretative frameworks until they start making predication that can be tested, and sign up to the falsification principle and Occam’s razor. Science, and evolution are naturalstic because that is so far the limitation demanded by method.

[micatala]

McCulloch, I do not really disagree with your reply. Evolutionist presupposes there is no God and Creationism presupposes there is. The same data is used for both, but how it is interpreted depends on the starting postulate.

I would add my voice to the chorus disagreeing with this.

Evolution does not presuppose there is not God. In my view, this is a canard thrown out by creationists in order to mischaracterize and demonize evolution and those who accept it as a fact.

Evolutionary scientists, like all scientists, investigate physical phenomenon without considering the possible effects of God because to include God would essentially negate any logical basis for the science. By only considering natural explanations for natural phenomenon, scientists can create effective, cohesive, and logical systems of knowledge. However, scientists do not take any a priori position on whether God actually exists or not.

[Cathar1950]

McCulloch, I do not really disagree with your reply. Evolutionist presupposes there is no God and Creationism presupposes there is. The same data is used for both, but how it is interpreted depends on the starting postulate.

I would add my voice to the chorus disagreeing with this.

Evolution does not presuppose there is not God. In my view, this is a canard thrown out by creationists in order to mischaracterize and demonize evolution and those who accept it as a fact.

Evolutionary scientists, like all scientists, investigate physical phenomenon without considering the possible effects of God because to include God would essentially negate any logical basis for the science. By only considering natural explanations for natural phenomenon, scientists can create effective, cohesive, and logical systems of knowledge. However, scientists do not take any a priori position on whether God actually exists or not.

I know many evolutionist that believe in God.
When did evolution and atheism become equated?

[Jose]

The debate about evolution OR creation, and the notion of equating evolution with atheism, pre-supposes that there are no other choices. This is part of the problem with the whole controversy--it is painted as if believing in god forces you to fight against evolution, while accepting evolution forces you to abandon god. There are actually a great many stances in between, as our DCR colleagues demonstrate. Indeed, there are even creationist viewpoints that make other creationists look like godless liberals. Genie Scott presents it this way:

[Furrowed Brow]

The debate about evolution OR creation, and the notion of equating evolution with atheism, pre-supposes that there are no other choices. This is part of the problem with the whole controversy--it is painted as if believing in god forces you to fight against evolution, while accepting evolution forces you to abandon god. There are actually a great many stances in between, as our DCR colleagues demonstrate. Indeed, there are even creationist viewpoints that make other creationists look like godless liberals. Genie Scott presents it this way:

Hey Jose,

I really like the diagram. I think it would make a good topic of its own. Like where do you fall on the line? Me. Atheistic evolution.

[Revelations won]

I will respond to your list of questions individually, as it would become to lengthy to cover all at once.

1. Who designed or how was the designer designed?

The designer was designed by the previous designer! LOL!

Seriously though that might not be far from the mark. The question is certainly a valid one for which there is an answer. The answer though may require one seeking it to exercise a soul searching journey of such reaching depth that many may not want to venture therein. The answer in all probability cannot be fully explored or comprehended by mere intellectual or philosophical means. You are asking a question here that is as deep as all eternity and yet at least part of the answer may verily lie in something so small and basic that one would be shocked to discover it.

But first things first. The bible clearly teaches that: “for what man knoweth the things of a man save the spirit of man which is in him, even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the spirit of
God." IOW we must first obtain the spirit of God to fully understand the things of God.

This is one of the great and grand keys to understanding the mysteries of the kingdom of God.

The essentials and formula to do this are contained in contained in James Chapter 1. If one is not fully prepared to apply completely this formula contained in James chapter 1, then you are not prepared to receive the most full and complete answer.

The second question pertaining to the answer, is the seeker of the answer of an open mind set that is ready to receive the deeper answer (s). ?

The third question pertaining to the answer, is the person seeking the answer a dedicated follower of Jesus Christ?

Since I do not know your background, please be candid enough to enlighten me before I proceed with some possible answers to question # 1.

Also what is your ultimate motive and reason for seeking the true answer?

Is this answer necessary and vital to your eternal salvation?

If you were to receive the answer, how and in what manner would it affect or change your life and acceptance of the teachings of our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ?

Kindest regards,

[Furrowed Brow]

I will respond to your list of questions individually, as it would become to lengthy to cover all at once.

1. Who designed or how was the designer designed?

The designer was designed by the previous designer! LOL!

Seriously though that might not be far from the mark. The question is certainly a valid one for which there is an answer. The answer though may require one seeking it to exercise a soul searching journey of such reaching depth that many may not want to venture therein. The answer in all probability cannot be fully explored or comprehended by mere intellectual or philosophical means. You are asking a question here that is as deep as all eternity and yet at least part of the answer may verily lie in something so small and basic that one would be shocked to discover it.

But first things first. The bible clearly teaches that: “for what man knoweth the things of a man save the spirit of man which is in him, even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the spirit of
God." IOW we must first obtain the spirit of God to fully understand the things of God.

This is one of the great and grand keys to understanding the mysteries of the kingdom of God.

The essentials and formula to do this are contained in contained in James Chapter 1. If one is not fully prepared to apply completely this formula contained in James chapter 1, then you are not prepared to receive the most full and complete answer.

The second question pertaining to the answer, is the seeker of the answer of an open mind set that is ready to receive the deeper answer (s). ?

The third question pertaining to the answer, is the person seeking the answer a dedicated follower of Jesus Christ?

Since I do not know your background, please be candid enough to enlighten me before I proceed with some possible answers to question # 1.

Also what is your ultimate motive and reason for seeking the true answer?

Is this answer necessary and vital to your eternal salvation?

If you were to receive the answer, how and in what manner would it affect or change your life and acceptance of the teachings of our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ?

Kindest regards,

Hi Revelations Won.

I'll point you back to the OP.

However, the proponents of ID say it is a science, and not a religion. That Intelligent Design does not necessarily imply God. So any answer requiring God is off bounds.

There's been quite a few threads here exploring intelligent design from different angles. My questions were really aimed at drawing out some of the implicit axioms of ID, and testing their own internal consistency.

The third question pertaining to the answer, is the person seeking the answer a dedicated follower of Jesus Christ?

No.

Since I do not know your background, please be candid enough to enlighten me before I proceed with some possible answers to question # 1.

Well I have an interest in logic, the nature of belief, and quality of argument. I am also an atheist.

[QED]

But first things first. The bible clearly teaches that: “for what man knoweth the things of a man save the spirit of man which is in him, even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the spirit of
God." IOW we must first obtain the spirit of God to fully understand the things of God.

This is one of the great and grand keys to understanding the mysteries of the kingdom of God.

Hi, welcome to the DC&R forums. This "grand keys to understanding the mysteries of the kingdom of God" sounds like "please leave your critical faculties with the receptionist" . Isn't it tantamount to saying "here, I've got a load of stuff for you to believe -- and all you have to do to get the enjoyment in believing it is don't treat it with the same caution that you normally apply to stuff that people want you to believe". We all get SPAM asking us to believe that we're the "millionth visitor" and hence deserve a wonderful gift -- and we'd surely all like to receive a wonderful gift, but our critical faculties tell us (I hope!) that it's just a scam that trades on our wishfulness and will do us more harm than good.

How can we tell a scam from an honest scheme without falling for it first?

[Revelations won]

Hi Furrow brow, I will respond to you first.

"Furrowed Brow wrote:
However, the proponents of ID say it is a science, and not a religion. That Intelligent Design does not necessarily imply God. So any answer requiring God is off bounds."

Can you identify the proponents who claim ID is a science and not a religion?

You also indicate that any answer that includes God in the equation is off bounds. If I understand your position correctly, it appears that you are open to consider all possibilities as long as they exclude God. Is this correct?

Also I get the impression from the foregoing that you are not willing to consider all scientific sources. To clarify this, suppose I take the position that the master scientist is none other than God himself. IOW is your premise to consider all scientific sources except those that have been, are now, or yet to be revealed by the master scientist?

Is it also your position that you reject all scientific premises or theories set forth by those who take the position of Divine ID ?