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.
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:
5
6
15
11
13
11
10
8
6
6
9
7
6
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 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
Discovery Institute Misunderstands the Argument
- From Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights
By Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights - Advancing Objectivism
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Are you serious?
Should we just reject the big-bang as being unscientific since it would require a supernatural cause (according to the 2nd premise you list)?
Is the best you can really come up with is "Who designed the designer?"
- F2XL
November 9, 2008 11:18AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
BTW on Designer Rhetoric
"Why would consideration of the “designer” necessarily introduce “religious discussions about theological questions”? Clearly, it is because his concept of the “designer” is a supernatural one—which was exactly what I was arguing."
If discussion and consideration on the source or identity of the designing force are NOT a part of ID then how would that argument hold?
- F2XL
November 23, 2008 12:22PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
huh?
The Ayn Rand Center says:
- ID claims that design can be inferred merely from observed complexity (“specified complexity”)—i.e., that complexity is prima facie evidence for design.
- But on this premise, any natural being capable of designing the complex features of earthly life would exhibit sufficient complexity to require its own designer.
---------------------------------
yes.. a scientist who creates life requires a designer. still
-- this is really your argument? That's really unimpressive. Or is this just the same old 'who made God' argument' dressed up.
as a sidenote - a scientist creating life is not that impressive either.. it's the equivalent of burning a cd and saying 'look... I made music!'
- lux113
July 21, 2009 9:45AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Impressive
“ this is really your argument? That's really unimpressive. Or is this just the same old 'who made God' argument' dressed up.”
Well yes. If God is a natural agent, and for a natural agent to be alive it must be designed, then God must have a designer… ergo if God is a natural agent then God must have a designer.
If God is supernatural, and cannot be tested for using natural means, then there is no way to detect God… exists outside of Science, and thus is not part of a scientific argument.,
"as a sidenote - a scientist creating life is not that impressive either.. it's the equivalent of burning a cd and saying 'look... I made music!'
If creating life is not impressive then what in Science is?
- MrBook
July 21, 2009 5:53PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
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.
language tricks
That argument is using a trick of semantics. If we document something it is no longer 'supernatural'.. it then becomes 'natural'. A 'supernatural' agent CAN be documented... evidence of a ghost for example...to say we shouldn't look for 'supernatural' agents is to say we shouldn't look for anything we haven't seen already. It's like the idea of 'don't talk to strangers'... well if you don't talk to strangers.. how would you ever meet anyone?.. This whole argument is just using flaws in our definitions.. science looks for 'supernatural' things all the time.. and sometimes we find them.. and they become natural.
'If creating life is not impressive then what in Science is? '
Science is useful... but my point is simply that science is based around documenting what we see in nature.. and then mimicking it - The dragonfly gave us ideas on how to build a helicopter.... but our helicopters suck in comparison. Nature is impressive.. man, not as much. (keep in mind I use the word nature.. but of course imply design)
- lux113
July 22, 2009 5:36AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
dragonflies
“This whole argument is just using flaws in our definitions.. science looks for 'supernatural' things all the time.. and sometimes we find them.. and they become natural.”
Science does not look for things outside of nature (Super natural) it makes an observation of a phenomena and (under the assumption that there is a natural explanation for the phenomena) attempts to produce a theory that can be used to explain the phenomena, and to predict when the phenomena occurs.
“The dragonfly gave us ideas on how to build a helicopter.... but our helicopters suck in comparison.”
How so? Our helicopters are far more useful then the dragonfly. We can ride in it and have them lift massive objects. Also the principals behind dragonfly flight (and all insect flight) is drastically different from how helicopters fly.
“Nature is impressive.. man, not as much. (keep in mind I use the word nature.. but of course imply design”
Nature is incredibly amazing, that does not mean that the telescopes that let us see back billions of years are not also impressive… also, I in no way imply design when I use the word Nature.
- MrBook
July 22, 2009 4:36PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
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.