A question for Intelligent Designers

Hi, I am not trying to incite a riot or get into the evolution/ID debate. I will be open and say I am currently stacking my chips behind evolution. Please don't disregard me just on the basis of that.

The truth is I am very sympathetic to ID. Equal time for all theories is something I can get behind, because being able to decide things for yourself is what America is all about to me. And don't get me started on my problems with education in America (i.e. mostly brainwashing you to be a good drone.)

That being said, my question for ID'ers is this:

1) Do you believe in equal time for all credible theories?

2) If so, what theories would you exclude?





Please try to stick to these questions or this will just become another overwrought ID vs. evolution thread.

Originally posted by CallMeMaury
1) Do you believe in equal time for all credible theories?

Maybe because I'm such a reactionary, I find myself increasingly sympathetic to some of the components of Intelligent Design, although not the poorly defined part that has to do with some vague, supernatural creator entity. I tend to favor the idea that directed change on a quantum or molecular level could come from a variety of conscious sources, given that spacetime is not nearly as linear as it appears.

Is there any debate that consciousness intentionally and directly modifies energy and matter? I don't think so. Once you get rid of the mistaken restriction imposed by linear time, Intelligent Design becomes a perfectly workable theory, that can be tested scientifically.

That's the rule of thumb. Can the theory be tested scientifically? If so, then sure, why not explore it? What can it hurt?

2) If so, what theories would you exclude?

As I said, I'd exclude theories that are so poorly defined that there's no way to test them. Any theory that includes "God" or a "Creator" is not worth considering, because nobody can adequately define those terms well enough that they can be used as a variable in a test. They're not really even theories, per se, but rather statements of belief.

[edit on 12-3-2009 by Nohup]

Thanks for your reply. And while it's clear you aren't an intelligent designer, your answer was very interesting. By consciousness having an ieffect on the quantum level do you mean like a god or some sort of collective human unconscious.

Would definitely love to hear from some ID supporters.

Let's get one thing out of the way right now.

ID or Creationism is not a Theory. A Theory is falsifiable. You can not falsify (disprove) God.

Yeah, I have definitely heard that before.

I am technically looking to hear from some supporters of ID though.

I want to know what criteria they would use for inclusion and exclusion.

Genuinely interested and don't want to get into the same old debate.

Originally posted by CallMeMaury
By consciousness having an ieffect on the quantum level do you mean like a god or some sort of collective human unconscious.

I'm talking about you sitting at your computer keyboard, forming concepts in your mind that stimulate a cascade of electrical and chemical reactions, eventually culminating in muscle movement and typing out letters. It all happens because you are conscious and have a point of view. It wouldn't happen otherwise.

As for me being an Intelligent Designer, like I said, I am interested in the possibility that a consciousness, working in what would essentially be "reverse time," could structure and manipulate energy and mass on a level that would both allow for the direct building of other life and consciousness, and direct changes in DNA (or related morphic resonance fields) that would guide evolution apart from strictly natural processes or random chance. I'm talking about consciousness influencing the dice.

Thus, there is an intelligence behind the design. It's just not "God," or any other supernatural force. It doesn't necessarily have to be a collective consciousness; it could just be one. It could be yours. Or Steven Hawking's. Or that of a dreaming baby. Or it could belong to an alien brain the size of a planet in some distant star system. Either way, the mechanism can be tested to see if it's plausible.

I don't see where any kind of God is required in the theory, and it actually works better without it. But it's still Intelligent Design.

If there was an intelligent design then that raises the question of the designers IQ;

Who created the designer? If the designer does not have to be created, why can't the universe also not have to be created?

Why did the designer create dinosaurs and then killed them all?

If the designer is so perfect, why do men have nipples?

Why didn't the designer create teeth in a way that we don't have to go to a dentist?

Why does almost every description of the designer also equal non-existence? (i.e. incorporeal, immaterial, ineffable, unfathomable, incomprehensible, etc.)

Religions assert that since we and our Universe are an intelligent design, we must have been created by an intelligent designer. But then this intelligent designer is an intelligent design also, so who created it? Isn't the intelligent designer complex enough to require a intelligent designer in minds of theists?

If the intelligent designer is almighty, can he make a rock so big that he can’t lift it?

Do you really think a merciful intelligent designer and an eternal hell can exist?

Sounds like you should start your own thread northerngate.

Stop derailing this one.

Originally posted by northerngate
If the designer is so perfect, why do men have nipples?

And what's the deal with airline food? Am I right, folks?

I'm speaking from a believer's point of view now. Since these questions were meant for believers.

Originally posted by northerngate
Who created the designer? If the designer does not have to be created, why can't the universe also not have to be created?

It can in theory.

Why did the designer create dinosaurs and then killed them all?

Because Creation fell and must succumb to death.

If the designer is so perfect, why do men have nipples?

Women came from men. So both have nipples.

Why didn't the designer create teeth in a way that we don't have to go to a dentist?

He did. Before man fell.

Why does almost every description of the designer also equal non-existence? (i.e. incorporeal, immaterial, ineffable, unfathomable, incomprehensible, etc.)

Because our minds can't comprehend Infinity.

Religions assert that since we and our Universe are an intelligent design, we must have been created by an intelligent designer. But then this intelligent designer is an intelligent design also, so who created it? Isn't the intelligent designer complex enough to require a intelligent designer in minds of theists?

Same thing works for ANYTHING. If a Creator didn't create the universe you still run into the same problem, infinity.

If the intelligent designer is almighty, can he make a rock so big that he can’t lift it?

Nope. You said it yourself he is Almighty. He could create a rock who's size goes on for infinity. Therefore the rock would never stop growing, unless he stopped it from growing.

Do you really think a merciful intelligent designer and an eternal hell can exist?

Yes, his mercy is in all the time he's given you to believe and yet you rejected him. Therefore you deserve whatever he decides to dish out.

Start your own thread and ask your own questions.

Answer your own questions too if you like, but do it on your own thread.

You can't just change the topic.

Any moderators watching please help me out here.

I don't think I'm being unreasonable.

Originally posted by CallMeMaury
I don't think I'm being unreasonable.

I'm not an IDer, so don't be too peeved, as I'll try to help out in a way. As I agree there are enough inane and unproductive evo/creo threads.

I would be quite happy for people to teach whatever they like outside of science in the right place. Thus, ID and creationism can easily fit in other classes. Indeed, my son gets introduced to such ideas in RE classes.

However, they are not science and therefore do not belong in science classes.

You would need to cover the creation beliefs of all the major religions to be fair, and also minority religions. As they all have the same status as non-science. Otherwise, it would be state-favour of a particular religious faith - which is a no-no in the US. Thus if you wanted to outline them in some detail, you would have a load of religious rambling taking the place of actual science - which underpins later science education, just to satisfy religious sensibilities. It is difficult getting over scientific concepts in the time available.

Could potentially be pretty quick though: 'Hello children. Goddidit. Catch you next week!'

Then, what about flat-earth? Do we have flood geology? Holocaust denial in history? Conspiracy theories about moon-landings? Aether? Steady-state theory? Nessie as contemporary dinosaur? How far does it go?

Or do we pick out the realm of evolution and the contrary religious thinking as a 'special' case for attention?

[edit on 12-3-2009 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin


I agree. Creationism and ID isn't a Science. It shouldn't be presented as such, though I may get a lot of backlash for this, this is IMHO.

Although, we do question a lot of Science to support our claims, or to at least open peoples eyes to the fact that Science can't answer all the important questions people have.

Scientists sometimes try to use their research to make us seem like irrational folks, when in reality never the twain shall meet.

Faith has nothing to do with Science. Questioning Science does have something to do with Science. This should be encouraged and not snuffed just because of someones belief.

reply to post by Nohup

Originally posted by Nohup
Is there any debate that consciousness intentionally and directly modifies energy and matter? I don't think so.

On the contrary. Like other naturalists and materialists in general, I believe that it is energy and matter which modify - indeed, produce - consciousness, not the other way around.

As for who's debating what, I give you P.W. Anderson:

The reductionist hypothesis may still be a topic for controversy among philosophers, but among the great majority of active scientists I think it is accepted without question.

More is Different: Broken symmetry and the nature of the hierarchical structure of science Science vol. 177 no. 4047, pub. 1972

Note the date of publication. The lay world is decades behind.

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Women came from men. So both have nipples.

Here we have a typical example of a powerful creationist intellect at work.

Originally posted by CallMeMaury

That being said, my question for ID'ers is this:

1) Do you believe in equal time for all credible theories?

2) If so, what theories would you exclude?

Well CMM - as a scientist and an ID advocate - I, of course, believe in equal time for all credible theories.

Unfortunately, as some have said before, some theories cannot be scientifically tested within our current state of technology - and are thus non-falsifiable at present.

I don not agree, however, that this makes them unscientific - just as String Theory is not treated that way ID should not either.

There does come the issue though, if it is useful to discuss non-falsifiable hypotheses in a classroom setting - since time is limited - but I do think this is reasonable for extremely important issues - such as the Origin of Life, and say the Origin of the Universe.

(several types of "observed" astronomical phenomenna fall under this category as well)

Therefore I would exclude discussing (in detail) pure creationism in a secular classroom setting - but I think ID, and Panspermia, should be discussed intelligently when discussing Evolutionary Theory - for they are merely extrapolations of Evolutionary theory into, understandably, presently non-falsifiable areas of the theory.

In that way the scientific rigour can be maintained in the classroom, without alienating, and discounting ,strong (and potentially valid) belief systems in our species.

reply to post by CallMeMaury


Is it possible, that there may be "Intelligent Design" in the rules laid down in the underlying mechanism of Evolution?

There does appear to be rules or guidelines, in the theories of Evolution and Adaptation?

Intelligence can be broken down into sub components, that are required for Intelligence to exist?

Perhaps we can find the answers in these components?

How do we apply Scientific Tests?
I am Not sure, as often Science works in reverse...

Perhaps we need many more pieces of the "Jigsaw" before we can know factually.

I often say Ask the Right Questions and you may get the Right Answers, but if you ask the wrong questions you stand a good chance of getting the wrong answers!

But I believe we will find some form of Intelligence underlying Evolution, that is if some are correct in these theories.

A theory is put forward often as a concept, and then the proof of its validity or falsehood, is often found in researching and testing the theory and this involves Time, often a Long Time!

But really it comes down to, if Intelligence exists or not and which came first, Intelligence or something else and if it is something else then what was it?

Everything is mechanical or has mechanics in this Universe.... Even Biological machinery, such as plants birds animals and even DNA in the form of a chemical based program, has some form of mechanics.

If there are rules behind existence, then what has made these rules, or how were the established?

Are these rules Random, or are they of Intelligence???

like yourself I will consider all possibilities if they can be proven.

But proof of anything, is so conjectural and requires some degree of belief or acceptance.... This is why there is so much debate on these subjects....

Will we ever know True or Factual Knowledge???

I hope we will know one day, but how many 100's of years this will take, I can't answer...

One thing is for certain though, we don't know, or we would not be talking about this subject, and science would not be looking for answers!

Disclaimer: I'm a theist but not of the Abrahamic faiths. I have minor biblical scholar and scriptural skills. Also I am not a scientific/legal or medical expert in any field. Beware of my Contagious Memes! & watch out that you don't get cut on my Occams razor.All of this is my personal conjecture and should not be considered the absolute or most definitive state of things as they really are. Use this information at your own risk! I accept no liability if your ideology comes crashing down around you with accompanying consequences!

UPFRONT Personal Disclosure: I also believe in ID but NOT from an Abrahamic Faith POV. I also come from a highly scientific POV and as yet see NO inconsistencies. For example I accept the current scientific theory and the evidence provided for it that the universe is 13.7 [+/- 1%] billion years old and that the earth is about 4 billion years old and I agree with Paul Davies version of creation as laid out in his book "SUPERFORCE" which basically says that the "LAWS" of quantum mechanics WERE in place BEFORE the "BIG BANG" and were acting in reverse! and when you follow this "theory" you quickly realize that the "LAWS" existed without any physical foundation!!! I would allege that this is the core of all ID theories regardless of religious or scientific origins!

Explanation: Now to answer the OP's Questions....

1] Do you believe in equal time for all credible theories?..... YES! but please define the GLOBAL credible standard we are to use! [I personally use science and philosophy!]

2] If so, what theories would you exclude?..... Any theory that fails the standard of GLOBAL [read as the yardstick of consensus reality] credibility!

Person Disclosure: I feel it all comes down to the yardstick! Getting beaten by it can sure hurt, so it pays to get it right! Starred and Flagged!