Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
With about 70 billion stars and as many as 100 million life forms (at least here on Earth), the universe is a stunningly complex place. Did all of this matter evolve independently, or was it guided by a larger force – as proponents of intelligent design believe? With the debate raging in living rooms, classrooms and courtrooms, the stakes are high when it comes to determining intelligent design’s merit.
5
11
15
14
12
8
11
9
7
7
10
8
6
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008-2010 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
’Who Designed the Designer?’ is a Red-Herring Objection to ID
Inconsistent
--Casey writes--
ID doesn't try to address theological questions about the identity, nature, or origin of the designer. The question "Who Designed the Designer?" is outside the scope of the scientific theory of ID, and is thus a philosophical or theological question that can only be addressed via philosophy or theology.
---
This is inconsistent because ID argues that information and complexity requires a designer and thus if they invoke a Supernatural entity, they have to explain who or what created this complex form.
Dawkins has done a great job at turning ID's 'argument' against itself.
And again Casey continues to make the same flawed argument
--
In fact, we can detect design without any knowledge of the designer’s identity or origin.
--
We cannot detect design reliably when we lack any positive data to constrain the designer. It's that simple. And yet that is what ID is attempting to do. Just ask any IDer, how does ID explain the bacterial flagella and you will be amazed that they provide nothing. That's because 'design' as defined by ID is at best a position of ignorance.
It's sad to see how ID keeps using 'bait and switch' between design as defined by ID and design as more commonly understood by the layperson.
And finally this fallacious claim
--Casey
This point illustrates the fact that someone drawing larger philosophical implications from ID does not disqualify it from being scientific. In fact, many Darwinists have argued that neo-Darwinism has larger anti-religious philosophical implications, but that does not make neo-Darwinism unscientific.
--
Of course not, because Darwinism is a scientific theory that stands on its own evidence. However, ID fails not only to present a scientific hypothesis, but worse cannot stand on its own legs. The vacuity of ID at a scientific level is explained easily by ID's appeal to the supernatural.
It's the religious motivations which caused ID to be developed, mostly as an outcome the Edwards ruling, to circumvent the law of the land. It's the religious motivation which has caused ID to remain scientifically vacuous.
Needless to say, the quote mining of Casey deserves more scrutiny but I am taking his suggestion and will retire to my lovely bed. If ID has to resort to this kind of quote mining then the state of affairs are even worse than I thought.
- PvM
September 12, 2008 9:26PM
Reply to this Recommend
(2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.