Why only one Designer

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

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

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

I don't think a "first cause" has any relevance to the design hypothesis. The designer(s) that we're talking about are essentially the last cause, not the first. IDists are reasoning back from the designed to the designer. They're not taking into account the designer's supervisor or the chief engineer or the CEO of the company.ID is as bad an idea from a (monotheist) religious viewpoint as it is from a scientific viewpoint.

---

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

Every creationist accepts evolution to some degree (though I'm old enough to remember when they rejected "microevolution" too). You can't use that as a criterion for separating evolutionist from creationist.What separates creationism from science is postulating a creator/director/designer.

---

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

It has already been pointed out that the cdesign proponentsists disagree with you.Your point has been refuted a thousand times.

---

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

Google it. "Creationist" and "design proponent" are completely interchangeable. They have been used interchangeably - i.e. a whole book had "creationist" edited to "design proponent" and if it hadn't been for that one pesky typo, nobody would have noticed the difference.

---

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

Double post.Edited by ringo, : Removed double post.

---

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

Wouldn't it be parsimonious to suggest that there is only one zebra in Africa?

---

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

As I understand parsimony, it has less to do with counting individual entities and more to do with counting "kinds" of entities. Given that zebras exist, parsimony doesn't suggest that one zebra is more likely than a thousand. Similarly for designers.

---

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

That isn't the topic though. The OP suggests that if the universe was designed, multiple designers are more likely than one. I'm saying that that isn't contrary to parsimony.In fact, a single designer requires the extraneous assumption that an individual can exist without a supporting population, which is contrary to everything we know about reality. A population of Loch Ness monsters is more likely than one.

---

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

As far as I'm concerned, "first cause" is a complete non-issue. In itself, it's an extraneous assumption.As I mentioned in an earlier post, we're looking backward from design to a designer. If the designer itself can't be susbstantiated, what point is there in speculating about its boss?

---

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

It's a tactic for staying on topic. We were talking about the number of designers and you claimed that one is more parsimonious than many. You have since, I think, admitted that that claim was incorrect.

---

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

I don't see why. I'm sticking with the idea that putting a number on it requires an extraneous assumption. I've already said, "No." The one who brought up first causes was kbertsche, not the OP.

---

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

As I said, my understanding is that that applies to different kinds of entities, not multiple instances of the same kind. That isn't the topic here. We're considering the hypothetical if there is at least one designer. Not at all. As I've already said, if we see design in the universe, that only points to the last cause, not the first. There could have been near-infinite generations of "causes".Some causes might have cooperated with each other. Some might have competed with each other. Some might be extinct. In the case of life on earth, we have evidence of common descent. In the case of phantom designers, we don't.

---

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