Why only one Designer

Using ID and creo logic .Acording to intelligent design complex stuff need a designer . If you see a watch in the forest you know its designed. Well yea you have a point tough that watch was not designed by 1 person some designed the parts some designed the shape and some people put it together.If you find a computer in the forrest you know it is designed well sure but there where tonesof people involved in the design of the computerJust about everything designed that we see is designed by lots of designers and the more complex it is the more designers we have. So why do you assume that only one designer designed a universe as complex as ours your own logic points to there being tones of designers some designers designed stars, some rocks, some planets, some plants, some bacteria, some animals ....... Edited by frako, : No reason given.

Thread copied here from the Why only one Designer thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

Because creationism and ID are (very) thinly veiled attempts to get Genesis into science classes, and there's only one designer in Genesis.Don't bother trying to point out flaws, non sequitors or fallacies in their reasoning. They don't reason. They obfuscate and lie. In fact, pointing out arcane errors in their arguments only makes matters worse. To anyone who can't follow an argument (most of their target audience), that only makes it all seem more complicated, and more reasonable to just say, "let both sides be heard." When that happens, they win.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

​

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

​

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

​

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

Still i was hoping for an ID-ist or Creo to tell me why there is only one designer. Hm i guess since none of them will bite that the hindus and their 1000 and more god theory is right

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.

Well using their logic there is a reason to believe there are more designers."Everything complex has to be designed because we see that in the things humans make"
OK then everything complex must have multiple designers because we see that in everything we make.

If you can 'explain' it with one designer, why try to explain it with one thousand?JonEdited by Jon, : typ0

---

Love your enemies!

As frako already said, they're using human design as an analogy. For all intents and purposes, that's the only argument they have.Human design is usually done by committee (or it evolves over a period of time with a series of designers). If IDists were honest about their "conclusion", that's what their Designer would be like.But of course it isn't a conclusion at all. They start with the Designer they want to prove and work their way back through the analogy, blatantly ignoring the parts that don't fit.

---

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

Indeed, but that is driven by the limitations of a single human doing the designing, and the fact that there are more than enough humans to do the collaborating.From what I can tell, there are two ways that the designing could take place: a single, rather powerful, designer working alone; or a group of less powerful designers working together.I think the human analogy only goes so far; if we can look at the nature of the 'design', we should be able to figure out the competence of the designer(s) and from there make a rough guess as to how many there were(/are).I think...Jon

---

Love your enemies!

And that's a major flaw in the design hypothesis. The analogy doesn't take them where they want to go. Once they have the predetermined answer, they have to stop the inquiry lest it bring up any pesky complications, like a pantheon. Of course the last thing that IDists want to do is figure out something that they already "know".

---

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

The last thing IDists want to do is figure out something that they already "know" is wrong.But that's no problem. Their "method" is perfectly suited to their purpose.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

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.

Feel free to point out how it is contrary. Show us how ID thinking is independent of the fact of human design.

---

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

The Wedge Document seemed to sum it up nicely. I would argue that the nested hierarchy is much more consistent with multiple designers that are blind to each others designs. I see no other way to explain the nested hierarchy from a design perspective. Either that, or a single designer that slightly modifies pre-existing species and then suffers amnesia after designing the new species.IDer's like to cite archaeological artifacts as an example of evidence. If they were to stay true to this example they would use the same techniques. For example, there are many types of arrowheads. Differences in arrowheads are due to differences in cultural origins. That is, separate designers for different designs that originated from a shared historical archetype. Why shouldn't this same technique be used for life? Each life design group was given the basic metazoan layout and then each life design group changed things from there. This would be a much better explanation for why the cephalopod and vertebrate eye are so different, yet perform the same function. A single designer would have no problem mixing and matching different design units between cephalopods and vertebrates.IMHO, assuming that ID is true for the moment, the nested hierarchy screams multiple designers.

Ahem:

quote:

---

Jon in Message 7:

​

If you can 'explain' it with one designer, why try to explain it with one thousand?

---

Jon

---

Love your enemies!