Intelligent Design == Human Design?

I generally believe that Intelligent Design is simply unscientific, not so much because there's evidence against it, but rather because it doesn't propose an objective scientific question to begin with.There's one aspect about Intelligent Design that shows my point, and I wanted to hear any creationist responses to it. The issue is this: any and every argument that I've ever heard in favor of Intelligent Design could also be made in favor of Human Design.The argument goes something like this: Logical systems, languages, and "specified complexity" are only known to come from humans. Since we see these aspects within life systems, we can therefore conclude that humans designed life.The basic defenses of Intelligent Design work here as well:Argument: "That doesn't explain anything, because it doesn't explain where those humans came from."
Defense: "My 'Human Design' theory doesn't address that. It simply shows that life was designed by humans."Argument: "There's no evidence of humans on earth 3.5 billion years ago."
Defense: "The complexity of life is excellent evidence of humans on earth during this time."Argument: "Humans today cannot design life."
Defense: "That makes no comment on humans in the past."Etc.This shows in several ways why I consider Intelligent Design to be lacking in the basic requirements of a scientific hypothesis. Thoughts?

Thread copied here from the Intelligent Design == Human Design? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

Hi, Fiver.Welcome to EvC!Are you living in Provo on purpose?How do you stand living around all those Mormons?----- The general response of a creationist/IDist to such a challenge would be that the existence of those prior humans does not have to be explained, because we know something had to exist before everything else, otherwise there would be nothing around to make everything else exist.The typical creationist/IDist argument that generalizes human to intelligence is slightly more logically consistent simply because it doesn’t propose that humans created themselves. In other words, it’s a little better because it’s only a minor paradox, rather than a direct, blatant paradox.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

To have any wisdom, and gain any ground, I personally must accept what I do not know.There is more proof in favor of an intelligent directed design, in my opinion, than proof against it. The misunderstanding that acceptance of God; limits Human advances, further limits human advances. Again, in my opinion.The greatest proof I have discovered being my belief of God, is simply that no singular energy with ZERO variables to interact with, can become more than what it is, or evolve, without intelligence to direct ordered structures to form from disorder. Or, that the first energy was ordered and evolved, needing again, intelligence as a variable to change, since there are no other variables available.The data that has led me to this conclusion is:Observations of "living" things: a living organism is comprised of living organisms. those living organisms aid and maintain the functions nessecary for the greater living creature to exist. ie: bacteria in your bowels break down food. from the perspective of the bacteria, its area is infinite. the bacteria is unaware of its greater purpose, yet does its work based on its own desire to exist.more data:The data that the big bang theory is based on say's T-0 is inevitable, and at that point all the energy of all that is existed singularly. there is no environment at T-0. yet it DID evolve. with nothing to interact with.now many arguments to or for my observations have been passionatly discussed. and anyone who accepts true science will come to the conclusion: There is much yet to learn. and God, being neither proven, nor disproven, remains a potential Truth.I discuss and debate for the sake of all, that one day the truth will be known. however, it is difficult when possitions get in the way of individuals accepting or finding new ways to explore data that might lead to the understanding of the universe we inhabit, and the bodies we exist inside of.The atheistic argument is just as foolish to argue as the christian argument, since it is based on belief and not scientific observations of the universe we inhabit.If the debates truly are to seek the truth between intelligent design, and random evolutions, the choice of our belief should be overlooked in discussions concerning the data and research possabilities to credit or discredit one or the other for the sake of true science. That whatever the belief of the individual, if the discovery is that God IS, it will be accepted by the atheistic community, just as God IS NOT should be accepted if undeniable evidence to support it were found. and never have i seen such evidence to support evidence of no God.the opinions are what i see argued. and who is wrong? what does the data of all we observe show? let that be the work of science. and God or atheism a work of our own. that if God IS, let those who believe and work to the blessing of God. and to those who choose God is not, let them live by their law and bless themselves. But whatever the personal choice, the work of science should remain true to its goal of advancment of the human race for the truth of our existence. Though it is not proven now, perhapts in time it will be.Edited by tesla, : No reason given.Edited by tesla, : no spell check, blast my spelling. *searches for a dictionary*Edited by tesla, : No reason given.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

That seems comparable to: water carved the Grand Canyon. The water is unaware of its greater purpose (creating the beauty of the Grand Canyon)...Was water intelligently designed? Was the Grand Canyon intelligently designed?Is the lowly bacteria ("unaware of its greater purpose") the thing that is intelligently designed? Is it the larger organism (the one served by the bacteria) intelligently designed? Or do you just want to say that everything is intelligently designed, and be done with it? Indeed, if you look again at all your "data", can you point with certainty to anything that was not intelligently designed? If you can, what is the (objective?) basis for making this distinction? If you can't, then you're not talking about science at all.In any case, your references to God in the context of trying to argue in favor of ID serves to reinforce the common perception that ID "theory" is simply an attempt to push religious dogma into science classrooms. Therefore, to argue against ID is to argue against adopting religious doctrine into the practice of science. Does this necessarily mean that arguments against ID are "atheistic"? Or could it simply mean that, in order to be objective, science must not adopt the supernatural "explanations" that ID is pushing?

---

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

quote:

---

That seems comparable to: water carved the Grand Canyon. The water is unaware of its greater purpose (creating the beauty of the Grand Canyon)...

​

Was water intelligently designed? Was the Grand Canyon intelligently designed?

---

It is possible. Although my reference to the bacteria was to show how living things are structured to feed other living things. such as a cow eats grass and feeds the carnivors. the bacteria has very little intelligence next to man, yet without it, man could not survive. and its size being so tiny, finds its area inside a man or beast to be infinite.
In this way, im simply pointing out that the purpose of mankind in the earth could be beyond our sight. and the earth and its purpose,. or the universe and its purpose, could all be a part of a greater body we cannot comprehend or see.
There is no proof against ID. Only opinions. same as any atheistic approach bearing the opposite opinion, that since there is no proof God is, they reject God as a possability.The truth is: God is a possability. and one that should not be ignored. Especially if it turns out to be true.

quote:

---

In any case, your references to God in the context of trying to argue in favor of ID serves to reinforce the common perception that ID "theory" is simply an attempt to push religious dogma into science classrooms.

---

Given the very limited capabilities of human observation, and the size of the universe we inhabit, and how small a part of it this earth really is; Keeping intelligent design out of the classroom is a very foolish and arrogant act. Only when there is proof there is no God, should ID be rejected. Without that proof anyone who rejects ID is doing so purely for the sake of a biased opinion based on NO facts. Edited by tesla, : typo

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Tesla, you seem to be asserting that ID has something to contribute to scientific research. Can you clarify what that contribution would be? When we look at the mechanics -- the physical implementation -- of how blood solidifies into clots, or how food is broken down in a digestive tract, or how erosion operates, in what way would our research be improved by assuming that a supernatural agency is involved?If we posit assertions that some component or other in a given process was designed by some purposeful entity (an entity that we cannot perceive directly, whose purpose we cannot know), can you describe any sort of research scenario where these assertions would help us in developing methods to treat hemophilia or reduce the risk of coronary thrombosis? or in improving the efficacy of medicines that are administered orally? or in establishing better land-use policies?Try to be specific: how would any assertion of ID promote a more detailed and useful understanding of physical processes in any branch of science? I'd like to see if you can come up with even a single case -- it can be hypothetical, but try to be specific -- where ID solves a problem in science. That is the main point of science, you know, to solve problems...

---

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

"Logical systems, languages, and "specified complexity" are only known to come from humans. Since we see these aspects within life systems, we can therefore conclude that humans designed life."Interesting point. Lets see if I can take a stab at this. Supposing your theory is true (which we all know it is not), Humans created all of life.There are a few fundimental problems with this. Firstly, if humans did create all of life, they would only be able to use the complexity available to them. Let me explain. The structure of the human anatomy is simple by comparison to the immense diversity on earth. Humans have the capability to breathe oxygen. So if humans created all of life, we would expect all organisms to breathe oxygen. This is not the case. The sun is the source of all energy for everything humans know. But there are organisms that live in immensely deep parts of the ocean that do not use the sun as a source of energy. This would surpass the knowledge of humans. Humans though complex, would have limitations, as is true with any organism. Since there are organisms that exist in climates that the human could not possibly know or understand, it's illogical to assume that humans created life.If there is a creator (in my opinion there is), we should assume based on the diversity of organisms that he would understand each habitat and create the organisms to fit it perfectly.Close?Dennis.

"Tesla, you seem to be asserting that ID has something to contribute to scientific research. Can you clarify what that contribution would be? When we look at the mechanics -- the physical implementation -- of how blood solidifies into clots, or how food is broken down in a digestive tract, or how erosion operates, in what way would our research be improved by assuming that a supernatural agency is involved?"Your right, even if there is an intelligent designer, and it's proven, we shouldn't accept it as fact, because it's far better to accept a naturalistic lie. The nature of science is to experiment, document, and observe. If the earth isn't billions of years old, what will you do? Buy into instant evolution? Eat whatever they put on the hook?

Why should we include God in science and our description of how life works and has changed over time? Why should ID be included in science education? Which scientists are using ID to do original research? Can you point to one scientific peer reviewed paper where a scientist has used ID to design experiments and refine conclusions? Can you point to a single clinical trial of a new drug that was developed using ID? Can you name a single scientist that has submitted and NIH research grant that includes methodologies used for testing ID? What use, other than religious indoctrination, is there for teaching ID in the science classroom or in scientific research? False. Only when there is evidence of ID should it be considered. You are using a negative argument which is a logical fallacy. Assertions made without evidence can be rejected without evidence. That's the way science works.

You are so totally missing the point, dennis. The sole and essential basis for ID "theory" is that it is intended to make assertions about an entity that by definition cannot be proven. That's the point.The notion of "proof" does not exist in ID. It doesn't even exist in real science. Real science draws conclusions based on evidence, and when new evidence comes along that contradicts previous conclusions, those conclusions are re-examined, adjustments and corrections are applied as needed to accommodate the new evidence, and once in a very great while, people figure out some completely new way of looking at and organizing the data: plate tectonics instead of geosyncline, general relativity instead of Newtonian physics.Meanwhile, the conclusions of ID are not even based on evidence. They are based on a dogmatic belief that all this stuff couldn't have come about from purely natural causes, that there must be some supernatural entity responsible for it, and it's just a matter of picking one or another process or physical configuration and saying "goddidit".

---

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

quote:

---

Why should we include God in science and our description of how life works and has changed over time?

---

Because the difference between a Godless dynamic and a God dynamic, is that rules can change if God IS, which makes God a very important variable. If God was proven, then perhapts there is a method for more direct communication that could lead to acts in favor of humanity. If that is, we discover what God likes or dislikes. and of course the purpose of mans existence. which is not apparent in the way the infrastructure of the rest of the planet; which feeds the other dynamics for thier existence . There is way more unanswered questions than answered. The fact God is a possability is foolish to ignore considering we do not understand the plane of thought and emotion. phsychic phenomenon and the like. which i'm sure is natural and would compliment the physical planes of existing if we can somehow figure out where the link is.Consider this: a man who accepts what he does not know, has the opertunity to know more. IF all that is was a directed creation for a purpose, then we are no longer just looking at what can possibly happen at random within natural understood laws and dynamics. We are then seeking to understand how something intelligent put it together. and its going to take alot more brain power to disassemble and reasemble an alien spacecraft then it is going to be to discover how two objects of matter can melt together to form a new element.

quote:

---

Why should ID be included in science education? Which scientists are using ID to do original research? Can you point to one scientific peer reviewed paper where a scientist has used ID to design experiments and refine conclusions? Can you point to a single clinical trial of a new drug that was developed using ID? Can you name a single scientist that has submitted and NIH research grant that includes methodologies used for testing ID? What use, other than religious indoctrination, is there for teaching ID in the science classroom or in scientific research?

---

It should be included because its a potential truth. Science cannot afford to be in the buisness of ignoring potentials. if it is a potential, its a variable. Science not built on truth is useless science. until the truth is known as a FACT, it needs to be taught so the younger new generations can hopefully take the data we discover, discover more, and answer the questions. advance science. If you don't teach the probability, and a bright mind sees science ignoring possabilities, then it could discourage the faith of the new potential scientist in the work of science. This could be a great loss for a scientist to abandon science as a tool and become a pastor because science would be following an agenda instead of the work to advance mankind by understanding the truth of how everything works, and for what purpose.

quote:

---

False. Only when there is evidence of ID should it be considered. You are using a negative argument which is a logical fallacy.

---

You EXIST. And have NO idea why. what more evidence is needed?If science was built on asking questions about somthing already proven, what could have been discovered?

quote:

---

Assertions made without evidence can be rejected without evidence. That's the way science works.

---

You can't find evidence your not looking for.I see all the time the same argument: show me ID science. As if somhow that ID means there is some specific new dynamics to science that should appear like magic. ID is a variable, not a new type of science.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

I won't quote you, please refer to your post if you need. You asked alot and i will try to deliver.Assertion : God is a possability. If God is, we have an undefined purpose. We have no idea What God, if IS, can or cannot do, will or will not do.If God is, then all the dynamics we now know could change at his whim, since he made it.The improvment that could change science forever would be linking non physical planes mathmatically. ie: thought and matter. If linked with relativity, understanding that connection would revolutionize physics, and explain psychic phenomenon.Remember; somthing is only supernatural until you understand it. Then its natural.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

You make a wonderful case for teaching kids astrology and how to read tarot cards, too. Should we teach them magick tricks? Should we include fairies and trolls in science as well?You are welcome to your "ID science" type stuff all you want. You do, however, need SOME evidence. Until then, all you've got is some "just so story" with ALOT of unvalidated, unsubstantiated, hypotheses (most of which have already been debunked). As do the FSM and the IPU and the Tea Kettle orbiting Alpha Centauri. Shall we give them equal time as well? Sure it can. Especially when a) the "potential" is ...IS religion (any attempt to say ID is anything other than creationism is a lie) and b) the "potential" has ZERO evidence. Put up or shut up. See, there's that "truth" word again. You know who spouts the word "truth" a whole bunch? You guessed it, religionists. Science is based on facts and evidence. Oh, and reality too. So...Zeus, Thor, Ra, and Hermides should be taught in science class as well? GODDIDIT....GODDIDIT....GODDIDIT. That's your best evidence? Because YOU have no explanation, there must be some magickal sky cake named YHWH that farted out a baby muffin named jeebus? People spouting off about ID can't find evidence they supposedly ARE looking for. What's your point?

---

"A still more glorious dawn awaits
Not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise
A morning filled with 400 billion suns
The rising of the milky way"
-Carl Sagan

Here is where you start to encounter problems in your exploration of the issues: If you don't know something, try to find out. Accepting something you don't understand is foolish. Word salad. You need to explain your terms! 'Singular energy'? So symbiosis means I.D.???? Again, this is gibberish. What are you trying to say? You do know that evolution is not random, don't you? What have you seen to support the evidence of no Flying Spagetti Monster?The rest of your post is even further off topic than the above.Edited by Larni, : no to know