Even if there was a Designer, does it matter?

Thank you, Rahvin; bingo on the nose, for that one! With this great explanation, I'll wait for some of the other votes to come in before continuing on to the next question.Jon

---

Check out Apollo's Temple!

I think I understand what you mean now, although your formulation still does not satisfy me. If at time T there was D, then is it true between T and now that there was D at T? Yes, of course it is, historical facts do not change.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

If this is true, and we have to find out what "methods" can be "used" to effect changes, then current science is on the wrong track, because we think things happen naturally, without someone using methods. Therefore it still makes a huge difference whether ID is true or not, because if it isn't we know pretty much how things happened, and if it is, we know nothing.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

We have been wrong before, that is how advances happen.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Good. Very sorry for the poor wording, by the way.But with that in mind; time for the next question (easier one):If something is true, is it true?Jon

---

Check out Apollo's Temple!

Self-referential sentences that assert their own falsehood aside, yes.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

If evolution by means of natural selection is true, then it is true? If the Big Bang is true, then it is true? In fact, we could say this about any thing for which science has put forth an opinion: if that opinion is true, then it is true, no?Jon

---

Check out Apollo's Temple!

Another strange concept: a true opinion. But let's not dwell on that. In fact let's not dwell, period. Cut to the chase, please.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

HOW ... THE FUCK ... WOULD WE KNOW?!?Sheesh.

This last question is the chase. Your answering it will cut us straight there Jon

---

Check out Apollo's Temple!

Whom is chasing whom? Perhaps a better question?1) What are we chasing? (The truth, perhaps)If so, does it matter IF there is a designer or not? (Only if the desired outcome changes) As Adequate succinctly stated: How would we know? (We wouldnt) Thus...what are we chasing again??

If by "true opinion" you mean a belief held in something that is indeed the case, then I can still not see a logical connection. A fact is not a fact because one believes in it. Also, one can believe something to be true for the wrong reasons.Anyway, let's have it.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

I did not say a 'true opinion'. If what one holds as an opinion on something is in fact true, then it is true. If I think something is one way, and it is indeed that way, then it is true that it is that way. The fact that I had an opinion on it does not rule out my opinion being wrong. But, this is going beyond the point.As the point I wanted to make: If it is true that there was a designer, then it is true that there was a designer; and if it is true that the opinions of science are accurate, then it is true that the opinions of science are accurate.These two things do not exclude one another. Thus, even if there WAS/IS a designer, it has no bearing on the things we have already or will discover as truths about our world.Jon

---

Check out Apollo's Temple!

Well, as it stands, if the "opinions" of science are accurate, then there most probably was no designer. And if there was a designer after all, then it's very curious that the consensus of the scientific world would be about 180 degrees opposite to the truth. Mind you, I'm not saying that the scientific community says that there definitely is/was no designer/god. Science simply has no reason to contemplate the possibility, because simpler explanations suffice.Most of us trust the results of scientific inquiry enough to "risk" our lives in flying contraptions controlled largely by electronic devices that rely on quantum mechanics, which is a branch of science that possibly nobody understands completely. Or we ingest impressively named chemicals prescribed by our doctors to cure even more impressively named diseases that would have killed us only half a century ago. In short, we have great faith in the methods by which science acquires its "opinions". This faith is justified because, generally, scientific explanations work.In the case of biology, the explanation in question is the theory of evolution, which even explains things that, when viewed from the point of view of Intelligent Design, can only be called "anomalies", for bearing such remarkable likeness to bad design. So, if there was a designer, then this must have repercussions for the way we acquire knowledge, because our current way of doing so tells us that no designer was involved. If we are wrong about that, what else are we wrong about?

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

We are likely wrong about much of what we know, or at least our knowledge is only as good as it can be so far.But that has always been true, we learn from the things we get wrong, and it is the knowledge that what we know is wrong that leads us to the next step.BUT...my initial question is slightly different.If there is some designer then that designer has some method of effecting change. Now determining how change is effected is what Science has shown us time after time. Questions like that are grist for the Scientific method.Once the method is known, then the designer itself becomes irrelevant, relevant in only the two areas I have mentioned.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!