Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,571 Year: 4,828/9,624 Month: 176/427 Week: 89/85 Day: 6/20 Hour: 1/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   ID, one designer or many designers?
Mr. Davies
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 8 (25316)
12-02-2002 9:43 PM


I read with much interest that the major proponents of ID do not feel that the nature, or number, of designers need be discussed. I find that rather disturbing.
Why is the nature, numbers, quality of the designers, or if it/they had designer/s of their own not up for discussion in the ID community?

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by David unfamous, posted 12-03-2002 9:17 AM Mr. Davies has replied

  
David unfamous
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 8 (25344)
12-03-2002 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Mr. Davies
12-02-2002 9:43 PM


Because these questions spawn answers that contradict their arguments. It's the old 'who designed the designer' question. Creationists steer well clear of that one.
[This message has been edited by David unfamous, 12-03-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Mr. Davies, posted 12-02-2002 9:43 PM Mr. Davies has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Mr. Davies, posted 12-03-2002 9:24 AM David unfamous has not replied

  
Mr. Davies
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 8 (25345)
12-03-2002 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by David unfamous
12-03-2002 9:17 AM


Is that to keep the "big tent" of Creationism functioning like one big happy family. I would figure that's why and OEC/Theistic Evolutionist like Behe is so widely quoted even though his base beliefs, Old Earth and common decent are so easily glossed over.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by David unfamous, posted 12-03-2002 9:17 AM David unfamous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Jeff, posted 12-03-2002 2:40 PM Mr. Davies has replied

  
Jeff
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 8 (25354)
12-03-2002 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Mr. Davies
12-03-2002 9:24 AM


Please also have a viddy of the thread: Exactly 'HOW' intelligent must a Designer be ?
http://EvC Forum: Exactly 'HOW' intelligent must a Designer be ? -->EvC Forum: Exactly 'HOW' intelligent must a Designer be ?
These are valid questions that any valid scientific theory should be able to answer, but the thread fell off the board from a lack of rational responses from creationists & IDists.
It appears nothing supports the facade of the alleged 'intelligent design' theory. Not even the IDists themselves.
regards,
jeff
------------------
"Freedom of Religion" equates to Freedom -FROM- those religions we find unbelievable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Mr. Davies, posted 12-03-2002 9:24 AM Mr. Davies has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Mr. Davies, posted 12-03-2002 5:46 PM Jeff has not replied

  
Mr. Davies
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 8 (25363)
12-03-2002 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Jeff
12-03-2002 2:40 PM


Thanks for the link Jeff.
That is something else I find so interesting is the liberal use of the "X is just so" arguement. Instead of seeing that life, especially the type of life we are most familiar with, is built to take advantage of the special properties of the universe, such as:
1: The Earth - Sun Distance
2: The properties of water
3: The Properties of Carbon
4: Etc.
and not fight against it. If the properties of Carbon were not like they are now, that does not mean life will not form. It may mean that life could be nothing like we see today nor even Carbon based.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Jeff, posted 12-03-2002 2:40 PM Jeff has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Syamsu, posted 12-04-2002 10:06 AM Mr. Davies has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5667 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 6 of 8 (25422)
12-04-2002 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Mr. Davies
12-03-2002 5:46 PM


If we would follow the arguments of ID-skeptics we would end up denying the existence of human intelligence and design.
First establish what it means to design, what the minimal requirements are to call something intelligence or design, what intelligence means with humans as an example, then see if you can apply the established meanings of intelligence and design in a broader context then human design. This will neccessarily be seen to be the case, since the events in a human brain are not absolutely different then events elsewhere in the universe. They are comparative.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Mr. Davies, posted 12-03-2002 5:46 PM Mr. Davies has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Peter, posted 12-11-2002 7:44 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1556 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 7 of 8 (26280)
12-11-2002 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Syamsu
12-04-2002 10:06 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:
If we would follow the arguments of ID-skeptics we would end up denying the existence of human intelligence and design.
First establish what it means to design, what the minimal requirements are to call something intelligence or design, what intelligence means with humans as an example, then see if you can apply the established meanings of intelligence and design in a broader context then human design. This will neccessarily be seen to be the case, since the events in a human brain are not absolutely different then events elsewhere in the universe. They are comparative.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

The problem is being able to identify design at all ... it's
not trivial.
I often feel that 'Intelligent Design' is an oxymoron anyhow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Syamsu, posted 12-04-2002 10:06 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
lpetrich
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 8 (29550)
01-19-2003 2:47 AM


Taken from two postings in the thread "The Multi-Design Inference" over at the Internet Infidels.
This is an inference that multiple designers had designed some entities; this is a natural extension of Dembski's "Design Inference". And it is an inference often made about human designers.
This is an essential part of efforts to detect forged signatures; handwriting styles are individualized, and a close examination of a signature may reveal whether it was written with an imperfect imitation of someone else's style.
Handwriting analysis has also been useful in archeology; by that means, it was shown that the various Mycenaean Linear B tablets had been written by several scribes, each of whom had written several tablets.
Such stylistic analyses have been used in other fields; much of the debate about the authorship of various parts of the Bible has been based on stylistic analyses -- characteristic vocabulary, preoccupations, etc. More recently, the Unabomber was identified when someone recognized some familiar styling in the text of his manifesto.
Applying that to the world of life, one concludes that if many features had been designed, then there had likely been more than one designer. Camera-like eyes are sometimes pointed to as examples of design, but those of vertebrates have one characteristic architecture and those of cephalopods have another. So could there have been a separate designer for each? Charles Darwin himself, in his creationist years, had concluded that Australia's distinctive fauna might suggest that "there had been two Creators at work."
Likewise, predator-prey relationships suggest multiple designers, one for the predators and one for the prey, because predators are adapted for finding and catching prey, and prey are adapted for avoiding and resisting predators. Multiple food-chain levels suggest additional designers. Thus, in a grass-deer-wolf food chain, with deer eating grass and wolves eating deer, the grass, deer, and wolves had had separate designers.
Host-parasite relationships are a close analogue of predator-prey relationships, with parasites being adapted to live off of their hosts and hosts being adapted to resist their parasites. Thus, in this example, the wolves can be afflicted with fleas, heartworms, and distemper viruses, adding yet another designer to the list.
In an attempted rebuttal, Walter ReMine has claimed to have demonstrated that there had only been one designer, but I've yet to see his "proof".
The multi-design inference must be an embarrassment for the Intelligent Design movement, because it goes against the theological predilections of many of its participants. However, I doubt that those like the Raelians would be terribly bothered by a multi-design inference.
However, it must be conceded that single superpowerful designer can imitate several less-powerful designers. But the trouble is that such a hypothesis tends to lack falsifiability; for sufficiently powerful designers, it would be difficult to rule out hypotheses like creation with apparent age, like Philip Gosse's Omphalos hypothesis.
Also, there is a parallel to the single-powerful-designer hypothesis in Biblical criticism.
Among present-day scholars, the favorite hypothesis of the authorship of its first five books is the JEDP hypothesis, which posits four separate sets of authors, each with a characteristic vocabulary and preoccupations.
The traditional hypothesis, however, is that all those five books had been written by Moses and only Moses, and its present-day defenders maintain that he had repeatedly switched stylistic gears as he wrote.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024