Monday, October 06, 2014

Explaining Intelligent Design Creationism: Who is the designer?

I'm told that the Mark IX irony meter is still being tested. It's been almost two years and those of us with the older Mark VIII meter have to be very cautious. There are just too many IDiot posts that will fry them [Turn Off Your Irony Meters Before Reading This!!!].

Here's one, for example. It's a post on Uncommon Descent that begins with a quote from a reader and is completed by Barry Arrington [Quote of the Day]. I'm not sure if either part will be safe for the Mark IX but I know my Mark VIII can't survive.

Let's look first at the quote from a reader named "logically_speaking." You need a little background in order to understand the quote.

Recall that Intelligent Design Creationism is relatively new even though some of the basic ideas have been around for centuries. It's only been about fifteen years since they claim to have developed proof of design in nature. What that means is that before about 1995 nobody was ever convinced about design so nobody ever though about a possible designer.

Here's how logically_speaking explains it ....
logically_speaking says:
In my opinion questions such as who was the designer and who designed the designer are only important after design has been detected. In fact this is how many branches of scientific endeavor must proceed. Ask any detective at a crime scene, do they ask who was the murderer before answering the question of was any murder committed in the first place.
I wonder how that's working out? If design was only detected by Bill Dembski and Michael Behe then they've only had a few years to think about who the designer might be. I wonder what they've come up with? Who are the leading suspects?

It can't be anyone from the past since, according to logically_speaking, it would have been silly to speculate about the designer before design was detected.

Or is it possible that people believed that design was detected hundreds of years ago so they have already identified the designer using the scientific endeavor? If that's true then the modern Intelligent Design Creationism detection unit has wasted its time.

Barry Arrington clarifies ....
There are two separate questions (1) was there design and (2) who was the designer. It really is a common sense observation that the second question is logically downstream from the first. It is a corollary to that common sense observation that anyone who insists that one cannot address the upstream question until one has resolved the downstream question is either deeply confused or has an agenda unconnected with discovering the truth of the matter.
Imagine that! Some people have an agenda that's unconnected with discovering the truth!

Who knew?

Don't say I didn't warn you about turning off your irony meter.


22 comments :

  1. Okay, I think you may be on to something really big here, Larry. Imagine the line of human beings. They don't undergo evolution, but they do have microevolution, right? So, imagine 6500 years of microevolution, except run that in reverse, which cleverly brings us back in time.

    Well, back then, the Christian God hadn't been invented yet. But the Gods that were worshipped for their ingenuity in creating the world and humans were the Sumerian Gods, and here is the account of their creation design:

    "When in the height heaven was not named,
    And the earth beneath did not yet bear a name,
    And the primeval Apsu, who begat them,
    And chaos, Tiamut, the mother of them both
    Their waters were mingled together,
    And no field was formed, no marsh was to be seen;
    When of the gods none had been called into being,
    And none bore a name, and no destinies were ordained;
    Then were created the gods in the midst of heaven,
    Lahmu and Lahamu were called into being... "

    I hope that clears things up.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Why this is flipping brilliant!

    "Ask any detective at a crime scene, do they ask who was the murderer before answering the question of was any murder committed in the first place."

    Now that's just flipping genius! Consider the Phil Spector case. He takes a blonde home, later she's found dead in his foyer with her brains blown out by Phil Spector's gun.

    Would the cops ask, who, oh who, could have killed her? Nah. Cops never ask that, unless they're evllutionists. If the cops are as scientific as ID creationists, first they say, "Now you just HOLD ON.You just STOP RIGHT THERE and STOP with your attempt to identify the designer of the dead blonde. That question is logically downstream and anyone who says we have to identify the designer must be confused, therefore evilutionist. No, first thing is, we must call in Bill Dembski and use his equations to compute the Complex Specified Information of the crime."

    Yeah, that's how the cops do it. Every time... Several times... At least once... I'd bet.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I am confused. Have the IDiots come up with a way of detecting design in biology or not? If so (and I thought they had been claiming to for, like, at least 10 years) then isn't it about time they started seriously addressing the second question? Or are they tacitly admitting that they haven't answered the first one yet?

    Or do they have "an agenda unconnected with discovering the truth of the matter"?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Or are they tacitly admitting that they haven't answered the first one yet?"

      It looks that way to me, and I doubt that they have thought of the consequences of their tacit admission.

      What the IDiots want is the stamp of approval for ID from the 'scientific community'. The IDiots have their feeble minds made up that their chosen, so-called 'God' is THE designer-creator sky daddy. They aren't actually interested in scientifically testing and verifying their beliefs and assertions. They just want what they see as the 'authority' of science to completely support their 'ID movement', i.e. their dominionist agenda. They know that they can't beat legitimate science so they use dishonest, pseudo-scientific BS in their attempts to make it look as though legitimate science supports their claims.

      The IDiots constantly claim that intelligent design is obvious and that they have shown it to be reliably detectable and measurable, yet they get all bent out of shape when anyone asks them the "second question [that] is logically downstream from the first". If they really believe that intelligent design is obvious and that they have shown it to be reliably detectable and measurable, then they should be more than willing to move on to openly and honestly answering that second question. Of course everyone with a clue already knows what their answer is because the IDiots have given away the answer many, many times.

      Delete
    2. Id proponents do claim to have a scientific method to detect design in nature, championed by Dembski. trouble is, they never apply it empirically to any real situation. They never test their hypotheses.

      The 15+ year history of this is niceley summarized and referenced here:

      http://recursed.blogspot.com/2014/09/calling-all-id-advocates-employment.html

      Delete
  4. There are two separate questions (1) how did life begin and (2) what process brought forth the diversity we see today. It really is a common sense observation that the second question is logically downstream from the first. It is a corollary to that common sense observation that anyone who insists that one cannot address the upstream question until one has resolved the downstream question is either deeply confused or has an agenda unconnected with discovering the truth of the matter.

    It seems to me all you morans are working from the same position.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Beau said:

      "There are two separate questions (1) how did life begin and (2) what process brought forth the diversity we see today."

      Those questions are not the same as asking "Who is the designer?"

      Legitimate scientists either answer the questions you brought up or they are working on the answers. They don't run away from those questions. IDiots constantly run away from answering questions. Legitimate scientists WANT to find the answers to questions and they are eager to publish the answers they find.

      As I said above, IDiots claim that intelligent design is obvious and that they have already shown it to be reliably detectable and measurable. In other words, they claim to have already demonstrated THE answer to whether design is detectable and measurable, so there is NO good excuse for them to avoid the 'downstream questions'.

      The only reason that IDiots avoid the 'downstream questions' is because they are DISHONEST about their actual motives and agenda. Maybe what amazes me the most is that they believe that their religious motives and agenda aren't constantly revealed by their own words and actions. No one with a clue is fooled.

      Delete
    2. The two questions: "(1) how did life begin and (2) what process brought forth the diversity we see today." are independent and totally separate. Work on those questions proceeds without any cross reference to the other question. Beau Stoddard seems not understand basic scientific proceedings.

      Delete
    3. "(1) how did life begin and (2) what process brought forth the diversity we see today."

      Wait..how are those the same? The true equivalent would be (1) does life exist , (2) is it diverse, (3) what process brought forth the diversity we see today? Answers 1 and 2 are yes. We don't need to know how life began in order to know that life exists and/or is diverse and that there are natural processes involved in that diversity. But when you claim that things appear designed, you do need to know what constitutes "design," and you do need to know if a designer exists and what it is in order to know what constitutes design.

      Delete
  5. Larry, I'm not sure what you're saying in the second paragraph betow the logically_speaking box. The fact that it's a recent development to speculate about who the designer is doesn't mean that the designer can't be ancient.

    I am excited to hear who this designer might be. Surely they will get to this question soon, right?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I don't think for a minute they've being dishonest. As far as I know those at the Discovery Institute don't hide their religious beliefs. If the ID folks claim the designer to be God, that destroys the minuscule chance of their ideas being considered in academia. I'm sure if they had the answers they'd love to provide them. I'm also sure that if any of morans had the answers to the origins of life they would present them. It's funny you'll allow "real scientists" the gratuity of time to work on the problem. Why do you not allow the same courtesy for those in intelligent design? You morans ars asking the supporters of ID to shoot themselves in the foot. I know you don't think highly of their intelligence but come on.........

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Excuse the typos. I'm certainly an idiot.

      Delete
    2. Hey Beau, no need to worry.

      It's not the typos that make you look like an idiot.

      Delete
    3. Beau said:

      "I don't think for a minute they've being dishonest. As far as I know those at the Discovery Institute don't hide their religious beliefs. If the ID folks claim the designer to be God, that destroys the minuscule chance of their ideas being considered in academia."

      As I already pointed out, IDiots do reveal their religious beliefs (often inadvertently) but they DISHONESTLY try to hide them when they're asked: Who is the designer?, How, when, and where did the designer (aka designer-creator-god-yhwh-isho-holy-ghost, or allah, etc.) do the designing?, Who designed the designer?, and other questions. And why should "academia" consider ridiculous, monstrous, religious fairy tales as evidence or an explanation of reality?

      "I'm sure if they had the answers they'd love to provide them."

      But IDiots DO CLAIM to have the answers for the origin of the universe and Earth, life, life's diversity, etc. They claim that everything was/is designed (i.e. created and controlled) by 'The Designer' (i.e. their chosen, so-called 'God'). Of course they often conveniently play their DISHONEST game of claiming that ID is separate from their religious beliefs and agenda, but it's obvious that it is NOT separate.

      "I'm also sure that if any of morans had the answers to the origins of life they would present them."

      Legitimate scientists (not ID pseudo-scientists) have found and presented many answers to many questions about the origin of life and evolution, and more discoveries are regularly made. There's a lot of information available that shows what is known and what is being worked on. No evidence of any so-called 'designer-creator-God' has ever been found or presented by anyone. Religious fairy tales are only evidence of deranged imaginations.

      "It's funny you'll allow "real scientists" the gratuity of time to work on the problem. Why do you not allow the same courtesy for those in intelligent design?"

      Surely you jest? 'God' pushers have had thousands of years to find and present evidence that supports their religious claims. The only 'evidence' that IDiots are looking for is something in the work of real scientists that they can distort in their attempts to make it look as though real scientists are wrong about abiogenesis or evolution, and as though the work of real scientists supports ID.

      "You morans ars asking the supporters of ID to shoot themselves in the foot."

      So, asking or expecting IDiots to openly and honestly answer relevant questions is asking them to shoot themselves in the foot, eh? Hmm, that's very revealing.

      "I know you don't think highly of their intelligence but come on......."

      What intelligence?

      Delete
  7. "I am excited to hear who this designer might be"

    1) according to Alvin Platinga, the designer gave man the Sensus divinitatis - the ability to sense the divine = the ability to sense the designer

    2) According to the experts at the Discovery Institute, the direction of micro evolution, ever since god created the world and mankind 6500 years ago, has been toward devolution, maladaptation, and chaos.

    Therefore, mankind's sense of the designer would have been most accurate 6500 years ago. And that means that ID tells us that the True Designer was the Sumerian gods.

    If I understand it correctly.

    ReplyDelete
  8. We don't know exactly who the designer is.... so.. evolution must be true... since evolution is totally not related to the origins of life that we have no clue about... that just proves that evolution is a god... or ...we have no idea what we believe in... but that doesn't matter... who cares where... or what the truth is... Larry likes the word the truth... he Must know the meaning of it well,...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In no way, shape, or form do scientists--as you suggest--say the theory of evolution is fundamentally justified by the lack of evidence of a designer (which is almost entirely what IDers do to propagandize design: "science doesn't have all the answers to everything right now, therefore it is all false and my beliefs are Truth").

      Delete
  9. Quest, are you sure that you are not really Barry Arrington? You both have the same debating style.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I take it as a complement...? l guess people who see logic... or the lack of...have similar trains of thought.... especially when exposing ideologies that are simply ridiculous...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You see being compared to Barry Arrington as a compliment? Well, OK then.

      Delete
    2. I see it better than being compared to a hydrothermal ventologist like you...

      Yeah...you are better off than Barry all right..

      Delete
  11. Quest: "I take it as a complement...? l guess people who see logic... or the lack of...have similar trains of thought.... especially when exposing ideologies that are simply ridiculous..."

    What is logical about Barry writing several OPs about his disagreement with JS over whether one string of characters is more random than another? Especially in a situation where Barry has clearly been proven to be wrong.

    ReplyDelete