Something other than a god being the intelligent designer?

[Robert Oz]

Since the ID crowd try to avoid mentioning God when discussing their "scientific theory", are they open to the possibility that someone or something other than a god is the intelligent designer?

Here are a few options I've thought of on the spur of the moment (feel free to add any you can think of):

1. A god created the universe.

2. Multiple gods created the universe.

3. A highly advanced alien life form created the universe.

4. Humans from the distant future travelled back in time to create the universe (I know, major paradox, but I liked this one too much not to include it).

5. Humans from a parallel dimension created the universe.

6. Something unimaginable - but certainly not a god - created the universe.

If evidence of any of the above - apart from number 1 - were to come to light to prove the "Theory of Intelligent Design", would the IDers accept it and say, "See, we told you so", or would they reject their own theory?

[MattusMaximus]

From what I understand, most garden-variety IDers (i.e. Christians) tend to distance themselves from IDers who advocate for an "alien-intelligence" Designer. For instance, I'm not thinking the folks at the Discovery Institute particularly like being equated with the Raelians (http://www.rael.org) :)

[aviolet4u]

I think one that I've read on sites is some kind of a source/unimaginable energy started it, got the ball rolling. Then civilizations after civilizations later highly advanced aliens or you can say "many gods" created what we are now.

That goes along with #1, #2, #3 and #6.

[fromdownunder]

Asimov had the best explanation for who created the universe in his short story The Last Question.

We did!

Norm

[aviolet4u]

^that would go with the spiritual thinking that God is inside all of us..we are God experiencing life on earth.

there ya go lol.

[fromdownunder]

^that would go with the spiritual thinking that God is inside all of us..we are God experiencing life on earth.

there ya go lol.



Not really - Asimov's take on this was totally idifferent to Heinlein's groking that thou art God, or the more generic Gaia hypothesis (which is something else again)

Norm

[Beerina]

Since the ID crowd try to avoid mentioning God when discussing their "scientific theory", are they open to the possibility that someone or something other than a god is the intelligent designer?

Here are a few options I've thought of on the spur of the moment (feel free to add any you can think of):

1. A god created the universe.

2. Multiple gods created the universe.

3. A highly advanced alien life form created the universe.


I still don't see how the first two differ from the third. The typical concept of a god as not just infinite, but the ultimately infinite creature possible, is mathematically not possible (thanks to Cantor and transfinite numbers.) Hence that kind of god doesn't exist, and can't.

That only leaves Odin-style creatures that are akin to advanced aliens rather than the infinite type of god. And the difference from said alien is academic to the point of vanishing.

[TaoMacGuy]

Well as there is absolutely no evidence for a designer in any of the alternate ID "hypothesis," they are all equally (un-)likely.

I'm guessing the point of the thread is to come up with creative ways of getting under an IDer's skin?

[Psi Baba]

If evidence of any of the above - apart from number 1 - were to come to light to prove the "Theory of Intelligent Design", would the IDers accept it and say, "See, we told you so", or would they reject their own theory?
Probably the latter, or more precisely, they would hastily modify their "theory" to exclude that possibility. The Wedge Strategy makes no bones about who the "designer" is:
Phase II . . .Alongside a focus on influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Christians. . .
Governing Goals

* To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
* To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

Five Year Goals

* To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory.
* To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science.
* To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda.

Twenty Year Goals

* To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.
* To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its influence in the fine arts.
* To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.
If real, scientific evidence pointing toward design by an alien race, a pan-dimensional being, or an artisanal planet-building contractor began to mount, the ID'ers would undoubtedly scramble to reconfigure their manifesto.

[Myriad]

7. Evolutionary processes are a form of intelligence.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[MikeSun5]

The actual correct answer to the question, "Who or what created the universe?" is very simple and quite obvious:

I don't know.

Nobody does, and until science gets better, nobody will.
Welcome to agnosticism. Please... stay a while. ;)

[Ron_Tomkins]

To be more specific, "I don't know whether the Universe was created at all in the first place", since the first one seems to imply that someone must have created the Universe and we just don't know who

[MikeSun5]

To be more specific, "I don't know whether the Universe was created at all in the first place", since the first one seems to imply that someone must have created the Universe and we just don't know who

Good call.

[Holler Hoojer]

Maybe we should settle for "Universe happens" and let it go at that.

[Mojo]

Since the ID crowd try to avoid mentioning God when discussing their "scientific theory", are they open to the possibility that someone or something other than a god is the intelligent designer?

Here are a few options I've thought of on the spur of the moment (feel free to add any you can think of):

1. A god created the universe.

2. Multiple gods created the universe.

3. A highly advanced alien life form created the universe.

4. Humans from the distant future travelled back in time to create the universe (I know, major paradox, but I liked this one too much not to include it).

5. Humans from a parallel dimension created the universe.

6. Something unimaginable - but certainly not a god - created the universe.

If evidence of any of the above - apart from number 1 - were to come to light to prove the "Theory of Intelligent Design", would the IDers accept it and say, "See, we told you so", or would they reject their own theory?


The problem with the idea of a non-supernatural "designer" is that ID is based on the assumption (or as IDers would have it "law") that complexity or information cannot appear spontaneously, so therefore life must have been designed. However, this also means that the designer must have been at least as complex as life and so cannot itself have arisen spontaneously, and must therefore have been designed by another at least equally complex designer. Unless you invoke a supernatural designer, it's turtles all the way down.

[Tricky]

Since the ID crowd try to avoid mentioning God when discussing their "scientific theory", are they open to the possibility that someone or something other than a god is the intelligent designer?

Here are a few options I've thought of on the spur of the moment (feel free to add any you can think of):

1. A god created the universe.

2. Multiple gods created the universe.

3. A highly advanced alien life form created the universe.

4. Humans from the distant future travelled back in time to create the universe (I know, major paradox, but I liked this one too much not to include it).

5. Humans from a parallel dimension created the universe.

6. Something unimaginable - but certainly not a god - created the universe.

If evidence of any of the above - apart from number 1 - were to come to light to prove the "Theory of Intelligent Design", would the IDers accept it and say, "See, we told you so", or would they reject their own theory?

Front office: Hey guys, we're going to need another turtle to slip into the stack.

Shop: What do you want it to look like?

Front office: Well, we've been shown six different models, but in the end, it's just another turtle.

[MG1962]

The problem, if we found any being or beings capable of creating a Universe, would we truely be able to distinguish them from a deity?

[kbm99]

If evidence of any of the above - apart from number 1 - were to come to light to prove the "Theory of Intelligent Design", would the IDers accept it and say, "See, we told you so", or would they reject their own theory?

ID proponents have already proven able to simply ignore evidence that doesn't support your option #1, I am sure they would have no difficulty ignoring anything that supported any of the other options you offer.

[shuttlt]

Does the designer have to be more complex than the thing he/she/they/we/it designs? Is this really an assumption of the ID community? It doesn't seem to me at all the same as saying complexity can't arise spontaneously.

I remember it coming up in an Azimov story where a robot didn't believe it was designed by a human based on this argument.

[Mojo]

Does the designer have to be more complex than the thing he/she/they/we/it designs? Is this really an assumption of the ID community? It doesn't seem to me at all the same as saying complexity can't arise spontaneously.


See the "law" of conservation of information.

The entire premise of ID is that life has to have been designed by God a complex designer.

[catbasket]

Here are a few options I've thought of on the spur of the moment (feel free to add any you can think of): ...
The universe was created by Hesheit. Unfortunately for the universe Hesheit is the equivalent of a five year old child. One who has somehow gotten into the stock room while hesheit's parents are busy in the shop.

If one day scientists should find evidence of the approach of the Intelligent Mop & Bucket which comes to clean up the mess created by Hesheit ... it would almost be worth it just to see the expressions on the fundies' faces :D

[Mojo]

If one day scientists should find evidence of the approach of the Intelligent Mop & Bucket which comes to clean up the mess created by Hesheit ...


I'm more concerned about the coming of the Great White Handkerchief (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Races_and_species_in_The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_t he_Galaxy#Jatravartids).

[Soapy Sam]

I heard it was an accident.

[catbasket]

I'm more concerned about the coming of the Great White Handkerchief (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Races_and_species_in_The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_t he_Galaxy#Jatravartids).
:D

From the article - 'A similar concept was used in the short story "God's Nose" by Damon Knight'. I may well have read that one, though I think the first time I came across the idea was in a Stanislaw Lem novel or short story, which I (mis)remember as containing a line about sneezing "the :rule10ing breath of life" onto the early Earth. Sounds like something Pirx The Pilot may have done, but it could well be the Knight tale I'm half-remembering. Was there also a similar idea in one of the Red Dwarf novels? I seem to recall one of Lister's mouldy old sandwiches being the origin of life.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Because Intelligent Design is based on an analogy to human design, it is not necessarily the case that the Designer is the Christian God. Humans can only design and construct things using existing materials. We cannot create things from nothing. Therefore, by strict analogy, neither can the Designer.

~~ Paul

[Bill Thompson]

Ugh.

God is that which no greater can be thought.

[Robert Oz]

Ugh.

God is that which no greater can be thought.


Holy s***! Elvis is God?

[Kernel Hapablap]

All I know about IDers I learned from "Expelled". I don't know if Ben Stein is considered a moderate Ider, but at the end of the movie, when he gets Richard Dawkins to admit the possibility of an alien designer, he makes it seem like the triumph of the century. I got the impression it wasn't all about God, but just the layman frustration of being unable to comprehend how complex life started by natural means.

[shuttlt]

See the "law" of conservation of information.

The entire premise of ID is that life has to have been designed by God a complex designer.
I have a sneaking suspicion that this may have been covered elsewhere in the forum ad nausium, but.... do they have a consistent definition of 'information' and 'complex'? I suspect they're playing the old different definitions shell game.

What a lot of nonsense!

[shuttlt]

Ugh.

God is that which no greater can be thought.
Are two Gods greater than one God?

[Tapio]

Brought this thread up, because I'm having an email conversation with an ID proponent. While discussing this and that, the exact same question arose that I remembered was posted here.

Does the designer have to be more complex than the thing he/she/they/we/it designs? Is this really an assumption of the ID community? It doesn't seem to me at all the same as saying complexity can't arise spontaneously.

I remember it coming up in an Azimov story where a robot didn't believe it was designed by a human based on this argument.

As an answer to the question I was led to this reply:

Original:WEAK ANTI-ID ARGUMENTS: (http://www.uncommondescent.com/faq/)

23] The Designer Must be Complex and Thus Could Never Have Existed

This is, strictly speaking, a philosophical rather than a scientific argument, and its main thrust is at theists. So, here is a possible theistic answer from one of our comment threads:

“[M]any materialists seem to think (Dawkins included) that a hypothetical divine designer should by definition be complex. That’s not true, or at least it’s not true for most concepts of God which have been entertained for centuries by most thinkers and philosophers. God, in the measure that He is thought as an explanation of complexity, is usually conceived as simple. That concept is inherent in the important notion of transcendence. A transcendent cause is a simple fundamental reality which can explain the phenomenal complexity we observe in reality. So, Darwinists are perfectly free not to believe God exists, but I cannot understand why they have to argue that, if God exists, He must be complex. If God exists, He is simple, He is transcendent, He is not the sum of parts, He is rather the creator of parts, of complexity, of external reality. So, if God exists, and He is the designer of reality, there is a very simple explanation for the designed complexity we observe.” [HT: GPuccio]

Broadening that a bit, we are designers, we are plainly complex in one sense, but also we experience ourselves as just that: selves, i.e. essentially and indivisibly simple wholes. Thus, complex but also simple designers can and do exist. The objection therefore begs the question of first needing to demonstrate that the complexity in human designers is the condition required to allow the design process. It also fails to see that we also experience ourselves as having indivisible — thus inescapably simple — individual identities, and that such a property could well be necessary for the design process. So, it begs the question a second time.

Before giving some feedback to him, I thought it'd be nice to hear some comments from our local mob as well.

[TaoMacGuy]

Brought this thread up, because I'm having an email conversation with an ID proponent. While discussing this and that, the exact same question arose that I remembered was posted here.



As an answer to the question I was led to this reply:

Original:WEAK ANTI-ID ARGUMENTS: (http://www.uncommondescent.com/faq/)



Before giving some feedback to him, I thought it'd be nice to hear some comments from our local mob as well.

I whittle it down to this: Why stop at a designer? Who/what designed the designer? And who/what designed that? And how far back do we want to go with this (completely unsupported from a scientific point of view) nonsense?

To me, I'd rather use Occam's Razor and say the Universe has always just "existed." If "God is eternal" why can't we just cut out the middle man and just say the Universe is eternal?

Sigh.

Of course, if presented with peer-reviewed evidence of a "designer," I'll change my "opinion" in a second.

Long live the FSM!

[Tapio]

I whittle it down to this: Why stop at a designer? Who/what designed the designer? And who/what designed that? And how far back do we want to go with this (completely unsupported from a scientific point of view) nonsense?

Thanks for your response. Seems like our minds work in somewhat same kind of ways, for that's another question I've asked this ID proponent.

Here's his answer.

Original (http://www.uncommondescent.com/faq/)

22] Who Designed the Designer?

Intelligent design theory seeks only to determine whether or not an object was designed. Since it studies only the empirically evident effects of design, it cannot directly detect the identity of the designer; much less, can it detect the identity of the “designer’s designer.” Science, per se, can only discern the evidence-based implication that a designer was once present.

Moreover, according to the principles of natural theology, the designer of the universe, in principle, does not need another designer at all. If the designer could need a designer, then so could the designer’s designer, and so on. From the time of Aristotle till the present, philosophers and theologians have pointed out that what needs a causal explanation is that which begins to exist. So, they have concludes that such a series of causal chains cannot go on indefinitely. According to the principle of “infinite regress,” all such chains must end with and/or be grounded on a “causeless cause,” a self-existent being that has no need for a cause and depends on nothing except itself. (Indeed, before the general acceptance of the Big Bang theory, materialists commonly thought that the logically implied self-existing, necessary being was the observed universe. But now, we have good reason to think that it came into existence – is thus a contingent being — and so must have a cause itself.)

Ultimately, there can really be only one final cause of the cosmos.

To ask, therefore, “who designed the designer,” is to ask a frivolous question. Typically, radical Darwinists raise the issue because, as believers in a materialistic, mechanistic universe, they assume that all effects must be generated by causes exactly like themselves. This leads to a follow-up objection . . .

[TaoMacGuy]

Thanks for your response. Seems like our minds work in somewhat same kind of ways, ...

No problem. I'm here to help where I can. ;)


Here's his answer.

Ultimately, there can really be only one final cause of the cosmos.

Ah. Essentially the very heart of one of Thomas Aquinas' five "proofs" of God's existence, all of which require agreement to some unprovable assumption.

This guy is asking me to assume that every effect (e.g. The Universe) has a cause (e.g. God, and I don't care how people try to deGodify this, they are talking about proving the Christian God designed the Universe). This assertion is unprovable and one to which I most decidedly do not subscribe.

So, logically, his argument is lost on me, and I might add, to any serious student of logic.

For example, why can't The Universe™ have merely always existed? Why does it have to have had a creator/designer/cause? The fact that we can't understand that doesn't make it so. There's a lot of stuff we don't understand which is the way it is. I for one, am very thankful the Universe doesn't depend upon our logical arguments for its very existence.

And me?

I'm perfectly comfortable not knowing and probably never knowing in my lifetime who/what if anything "designed" the Universe.

Next victi.... ID proponent? ;)

[hamelekim]

That is likely exactly what the great deception could be in the Bible. All the ufo's and alien abductions are Satan's way of putting doubt in peoples hearts.

Then one day we have massive ufo's over every major city in the world speaking about peace and that they seeded the earth millions of years ago.

People like you would believe this and be lost.

Something to be aware of.

[yy2bggggs]

That is likely exactly what the great deception could be in the Bible. All the ufo's and alien abductions are Satan's way of putting doubt in peoples hearts.
Why would Satan need such a complicated conspiracy to get people to doubt, when he could simply show the evidence?

[hamelekim]

Why would Satan need such a complicated conspiracy to get people to doubt, when he could simply show the evidence?

What are you talking about? The "conspiracy" is the fake evidence to convince people.

All I'm saying is that if you find a 3 mile wide ufo over your city one day don't believe what they are saying.

[yy2bggggs]

All I'm saying is that if you find a 3 mile wide ufo over your city one day don't believe what they are saying.
But aren't you being a bit contradictory? You're saying I should doubt, but you're saying that the purpose of this is to get people to doubt.

I think it's already working. Without even making this a reality, it is successful in getting you to doubt.

Maybe you should doubt more.

ETA: To help you understand my last comment... I'm challenging directly that there's something there for Satan to make me doubt in the first place.

[hamelekim]

But aren't you being a bit contradictory? You're saying I should doubt, but you're saying that the purpose of this is to get people to doubt.

I think it's already working. Without even making this a reality, it is successful in getting you to doubt.

Maybe you should doubt more.

ETA: To help you understand my last comment... I'm challenging directly that there's something there for Satan to make me doubt in the first place.

This is the problem with going off of nothing but your scientific reasoning. It ignores the supernatural aspects of life and would allow you to be deceived.

[yy2bggggs]

This is the problem with going off of nothing but your scientific reasoning. It ignores the supernatural aspects of life and would allow you to be deceived.
You don't need to quote me to flatter yourself.

Meanwhile, this thread is about ID.

[Foster Zygote]

That is likely exactly what the great deception could be in the Bible. All the ufo's and alien abductions are Satan's way of putting doubt in peoples hearts.

Then one day we have massive ufo's over every major city in the world speaking about peace and that they seeded the earth millions of years ago.

People like you would believe this and be lost.

Something to be aware of.

Watch the skies! James Arness is comming!

[Towlie]

Since the ID crowd try to avoid mentioning God when discussing their "scientific theory", are they open to the possibility that someone or something other than a god is the intelligent designer?The intelligent designer? Not designers?

I saw a documentary on TV once where lions in Africa hunted down a gnu and began eating him while he was still alive. It was very unpleasant to watch. With nature full of examples like that, where life exists at the expense and suffering of other life, wouldn't it make more sense to assume that there must have been thousands of separate intelligent designers competing against each other, with each designer caring only about the survival of his own creation?

After all, why would a single creator design predators that have to hunt and kill prey to survive and then design prey with mediocre defenses against those predators? Why design lions who eat gnus alive? Does this single creator enjoy watching life struggle and suffer, or what? Wouldn't it be more intelligent to create life forms that share the planet in peace and harmony?

It seems to me that my "several thousand competitive intelligent designers" hypothesis makes more sense than the popular single intelligent designer scenario, although I really don't think these "ID" people would be willing to accept it any more than they accept evolution.

[TaoMacGuy]

The intelligent designer? Not designers?

I saw a documentary on TV once where lions in Africa hunted down a gnu and began eating him while he was still alive.

And perhaps even more to the point, what's the deal with all the useless body parts we have? If you ask me, that is not indicative of a very intelligent designer.

Here's a few:


The Appendix
Male Nipples
Body Hair
Wisdom Teeth
Male Uterus


There are others (I think you get the idea). You can go here (http://www.bloggingwv.com/20-useless-body-parts-why-do-did-we-need-them/) to see a brief description of the above.

And the appendix! It sometimes kills people for crying out loud. What, did "the designer" have some spare parts lying around it needed to use?

Oh and by the way, insofar as we understand all of the above useless parts, evolution explains them quite nicely, thank you very much. Insofar as we don't understand these useless parts... well, we have more to learn and understand.

[TimCallahan]

Maybe the intelligent designer of our universe is a super-intelligent ichnoumenid wasp, which is why they're part of our creation. These are the creatures who probably served as the source of the life cycle of the monster in "Alien."

On the other hand, maybe the whole thing was designed by a committee.

[TaoMacGuy]

Maybe the intelligent designer of our universe is a super-intelligent ichnoumenid wasp, which is why they're part of our creation."


Dolphins, it's the dolphins. ;)

[Geezer]

Intelligent designer...pfft!
How intelligent is it to put an entertainment section between two sewage plants?Worst placement of penis/vagina ever!

[realpaladin]

Ok....

I confess.... I did it.... but it was not on purpose and anyway it was not supposed to look like this.... sorry... will not happen again....

[rain]

It seems that the strongest argument of the ID community is that the universe seems fairly fine-tuned to support the possibility of life. However, even this idea is not very compelling if one considers the Many Worlds quantum interpretation that would make some universes like ours appear specially tuned to facilitate life whereas the vast majority would be dead.

When scientists reach the point of being able to create baby universes, which seems possible, I think we will be able to learn more about the possibility that our own universe may or may not have been created in a similar way.

[TimCallahan]

Intelligent designer...pfft!
How intelligent is it to put an entertainment section between two sewage plants?Worst placement of penis/vagina ever!

Yeah, that definitely had be a committee decision.