Why only one Designer

I'll give the short answer:There is nothing in ID that compells someone to posit only one designer, and IDer could very well believe there are many designers.Many IDers posit a single designer simply because most are monotheists.It's as simple as that.Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

If you want to critic the intelligent design movement, I would suggest reading at least a book or two from an Ider explaining what ID is.Because rarely do you show anything other then simple gross misunderstanding about it ... This is a perfect example of the gross misunderstanding I am talking about, and a rather obvious strawman of what the IDers say.Yes, they sometimes use human designs as analogy, but their arguments do not rest on this analogy (contrary to what Ringo claims). Humans design complex things, simple things, random things, weird things, and they do all those either alone or with in collaboration with others.If you would want to show that an IDer would have to logically believe in multiple designers, you would have to show that a designed thing absolutely requires multiple designers. Which would be quite an astonishing feat, considering all the counter-examples of things built by a single designer that I can think of ...But what is really more interesting in this thread is how blatantly illogical the reasoning in the OP is, and yet no atheist/evolutionist here bothered to tell you you were wrong. Everything is fine as long as you can bash ID in the process it seems, and who cares about basic logic!Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

Dembski's claim that specified complexity is an indication of design has nothing to do with the 'human design things analogy'. He claims that it would be efficient to apply it to microwaves coming from space, for example. But the 'single designer' hypothesis does not come intrisincally from ID, it comes from other areas of the IDers life.An IDer isn't strictly and IDer, he's a lot of other things too.A guy like Berlinski, who thinks that ID makes lots of valid points, would have no problem saying that multiple designers is a possibility. As I said, nothing about ID compells anyone to think there was only one designer(and stop equivocating creationism and ID, we both know they are not the same thing)PS Exam tomorrow, then I'll be able to get back to our GD

Yeah well I haven't showed the contrary a thousand times yet, but I'm getting close so can assume it's a PRATT

I'm a creationist, and the difference seems pretty clear.It's a matter of all creationists are IDer, but not all IDers are creationist. This simple fact should be enough to show that the two aren't the same.It's just like a square is a Rhomb, bu a Rhomb isn't necessarily a square (what a strange word. Rhomb, just looked it up lol)

Hi Jar,You would probably rethink that oft-repeated notion that ''Id is the same thing as creationism''.The simple fact that Behe, one of the main proponents of ID, is a theistic evolutionist should be enough to at least make you consider that you may be wrong on this.

This is such an obvious red herring ...All I'm saying is that ID and biblical creationism isn't the same thing, if theistic evolution is scientific or not is totally irrelevant.I brought it up to show that ID and creationism wasn't the same thing.Repeating the same old PRATTs doesn't make them true, jar.

And now your just lying (unknowingly, I hope), because Behe is very clearly a theistic evolutionist and always has been.And theistic evolutionism is, by definition, not creationism.

Behe believes in the fact of evolution (nested hierarchy, fossil record, etc.) but not on the Neo-Darwinian mechanism.He instead proposes directed evolution as the mechanism through which things evolved.You don,t get any more theist evolutionist then that ...

Do you, or do you not, agree that they are not the same thing ?Sure, they have similarities, and they have the same sort of connection as a rhombus and a square, but at the end of the day, this does not justify claiming that they are the same thing, because they clearly aren't.

You really are the kind of all humpty-dumpties, playing with definition and words as to fit your needs.Sorry, but putting in some 'outside magic' does not make someone automatically a creationist. It may make an idea none-scientific, but to actually be a creationist you have to think God poofed things out of nothing, not simply changed things incrementally over time.Creationism Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

Depends on how you define evolution, but in any case Behe goes far beyond any limit a creationist accepts about the ToE.For example, he believes that apes and humans share a common ancestor who lived 5 or so millions years ago. This is what I mean when I say he accepts the fact of evolution I agree creationism isn't science. But that's the red herring in question here, because that is not what we are talking about.All I'm saying is that ID and creationism isn't the same thing. You can't interchangebly use both words to talk about the two.ID is one thing, creationism is another. Having common similarities doesn't make them the same thing.God it's so hard to pass such an easily understable point around here sometimes. I probably feel like you do when you talk to a creationist who keeps repeating the same PRATT ...

I don't understand this. ''cdesign proponentsists'' ?? Well my point is simply pointing to the dictionary and saying words already have definitions, and that these definitions very clearly disagree with what you are saying here ...

The point isn't if they both involve magic or not, the piont is they aren't the same thing.In all honesty, you are particularly looking pathetic right now, just repeating the same things and hoping each time they'll become true. Plugging you fingers in your ears about everything else.I'll take one final example and hopefully it'll pass: Francis Collins. He accepts absolutely everything about evolution, and all other origins-related scientific theories (big bang, etc.)But he also believes in magic, particularly Jesus's ressurection. Does that make him a creationist ?