I am just curious as to what thinkatheist has to offer on the possibilities of intelligent design vs abiogenesis.
Remember that ID is NOT religion and doesn't even imply the existence of a deity. It is simply the idea that even the most basic theoretical form of sustained life is so complex, it couldn't possibly have started by itself without any intelligent intervention.
Thank you for your replies :)
If it's "designed", how can you say it's anything other than someone that designed? Intelligent design is religious, sorry. It's also not a theory. It's just made up BS with no evidence at all.
Intelligence seems to require a certain level of complexity. Intelligence capable of "designing" life would necessarily be quite complex itself. If the complexity of life implies an intelligent designer, how did the intelligent designer come to be? Magic? Abiogenesis?
No the designer always existed, because the designer doesn't exist inside time and space but entirely transcends these lowly natural confinements of the world we experience. The designer is perfectly transcendental. Complexity or simplicity are naturalist concepts and do not affect the true nature of the designer. The mind of the designer is at once unimaginably complex but irreducible and so much simpler than a single electron. The designer is beyond that sort of thing, because in the end it comes down to the this that the designer designed himself as a designer of himself. It was the most perfect thing the designer ever designed. The design was perfect but the execution faltered and along the way mistakes accumulated until enough of it was created that it morphed itself into a adversarial talking snake that later turned into the antagonistic undesigning entity who infallibly accepts all the blame for the designers numerous shortcomings.
Right, so the designer exists outside of time and space and yet directly affects things in time and space, but we can't detect it unless we believe with all our might, and it totally is unknowable due to its mindbogglingly simple/complex mind, yet somehow its believers know exactly what sorts of sexual activities it disfavors, and it is absolutely perfect in every way yet messes up its own creation because of free will or something.
Yeah, there's not enough WTF? in the whole world.
I think this comment just created a paradox in the WTF matrix of the universe and spawned a new hyper-reality beyond spaced-out time.
If I recall correctly, Smith sufficiently addresses the philosophical problems with a "transcendental god" in "Atheism- the Case Against God."
Please ... ID is Christianity on a silver platter. You can't spread this propaganda on this site.
Name me one proponent of intelligent design that does not believe in God.
Yes, but this is why believing in God leads one automatically to real science.
Just one tiny example. How would evolution explain horses don't have wheels? Wheels are very energy efficient for a horse and would have been selected for. Wheeled horses would have been the first to arrive at the sporadic green pastures on the plains where they live. And since there weren't any fences put around them yet, legs weren't needed to jump over them. A wheeled horse could drive right through, spend less energy so wouldn't have to eat as much and have way more leisure time to spare to create new wheeled foals than his poor tired legged cousins.
But only an intelligent designer would have known there weren't any roads built yet. And so he made horses with legs despite them being better off with wheels. Besides he would have foreseen big accidents happening with humans driving their horses before inventing traffic regulation, which in turn proves that the designer is a supremely benevolent designer. (I feel a syllogism coming up.)
This sort of intelligent deliberation and weighing of pros & cons form a much simpler explanation of apparent "designer flaws" than evolutionists can and therefore Ockhams razor resolutely excises gradual adaptations gone awry and unnecessarily complicating things from time to time from serious scientific consideration. The designer has reasons for clumsy designs, because why else wouldn't he as the omnipotent, omniscient and all foreseeing designer that he is have done a better job?
And so ID is a science because it predicts correctly that horses come with legs instead of wheels, while Darwin can't explain it. And this is why Hitler was a Darwinist.
I very much doubt it, but thanks and thanks for pointing me to Phil Hendrie. I'm going to have a wonderful time catching up. He is absolute master!!