Intelligent Design - Why not SEVERAL designers?

[MrIntelligentdesign]

The new Intelligent Design predicts that the Designer is only One.

[MichaelLV99]

Geez... God just snaps his Fingers and things exist. It's so simply that I must ask myself how you can be so stupid not to see the truth :D

[bensorah]

The Quran says:

"Allah hath not chosen any son, nor is there any god along with Him; else would each god have assuredly championed that which he created, and some of them would assuredly have overcome others. Glorified be Allah above all that they allege."

23:91

[cursingyorick]

We "know" Slartybartfast was one of the designers. Won an award for the fjords too.

D. Adams showed us "truth"?lol.

[johnsmithbsc]

Indeed, why not.

I assume you're just going to spend eight and a half minutes saying what the title says effectively enough, so it doesn't seem worth watching, but I will point out that the Bible implies several designers - notice the plural pronoun in Genesis 1:26. The only time in that account that God uses a pronoun, it's plural, implying that while he's coordinating the creation, he isn't working alone.

[EJTJ04]

Man makes God complicated. It is not suppose to be too complicated for even the basic person to understand. I don't want God involved in governemnt, b/c religion should be personal. Religion should not be involved in politics, or the other way around. We would not be talking about this if we hadn't infused religion into politics. Separate the two b/c no one can legislate morality, nor should we try.

[DaniHunt987]

I completely did, and am dreadfully sorry.

[ByTor190]

Ben Stein would have to have knowledge of the functioning universe in order to prove him wrong.

[irir123]

hmm - my fundamental problem with the intelligent design proponents is that they support the design of God as perceived by them! do they read/understand other religions and faiths ? if they did so with an open mind and accepted that the design is the result of many components, then we can get any further! in other words, intelligent design is the synoym for intelligent/manipulative evangelism!

[mar8les]

I agree, well said.

[Purushadasa]

Nice straw-man fallacy. Actually, ID does not state that everything in the universe was designed.

Also, there are indeed many designers, and this fact is consistent with ID. There are dependent designers, such as you and me, and there is also an Independent Designer. God is Absolutely Independent, and this includes existential independence.

We design using intelligence, and so does God. The difference is that we are dependent on God and His design, whereas He is fully independent in every way.

[Purushadasa]

The atheist, if honest (good luck on that one!) would also have to admit some independent principle in regards to existence. If not, then he falls prey to the logical fallacy of the existential inter-dependence of all things without any existentially independent principle to originate that process.

Theists are simply honest enough to admit that this existentially independent principle happens to be a person (God).

[mordinvan]

I'm sure you have a testable hypothesis by which we may prove/disprove god. A theory which will account for all the evidence, contradict none of it, and make useful and testable predictions about what facts we may find in the future right?

If yes, then publish them, and you will be rich beyond measure. If not, then please shut up and stop wasting the time of everyone with more then 2 braincells to rub together.

[Purushadasa]

When you develop 2 brain cells, then get back to me.

[mordinvan]

So, since I have ~ 100 billion, I guess I'm doing ok.

Or did you mean have grown in a petri dish?

Why are you interested in some replacements? Yours don't seem too be working too well.

Also, where is this testable hypothesis of I.D.?

An over arching theory to explain design perhaps?

Evidence to base the theory on?

Predictions your theory will make?

Got anything for us?

[Purushadasa]

Your anger issues bore me.

I will pray for you.

In the meantime, look into anger management courses. They are known to help individuals with your problem feel better.

[mordinvan]

And it would seem answering my questions are beyond you. You have again avoided providing any evidence, for I.D., explaining its over arching theory, suggesting testable hypotheses, or any useful predictions. Even if you were correct, and I was a very angry person, this does not change the fact you keep avoiding the question. Also, please don't pray for me. If there is a God, we wouldn't recognize each other.

[Purushadasa]

You don't recognize Him, but He recognizes you.

I have glanced at your posts, and in them I find absolutely no signs of intelligent design, or of intelligence, for that matter.

I am moving on now; your anger issues bore me.

[mordinvan]

Yet again, "You have again avoided providing any evidence, for I.D., explaining its over arching theory, suggesting testable hypotheses, or any useful predictions."

[Purushadasa]

::yawn::

[mordinvan]

Looks like I win by default. Thanks.

[Purushadasa]

Actually, God wins. The atheist always loses.

I will pray for you.

[mordinvan]

If you say so...

[prer0gative]

Mordinvan, it's clear from Purushadasa's 2 ratings-disabled videos that he can't handle disagreement, let alone discuss the real world.

People like him, who love to parrot the phrases which atheists have used effectively against them ('logical fallacy' etc) always embarrass themselves by completely misapplying them.

Purushadasa tries to disguise his lack of argument as boredom - an understandable strategy I suppose, when you want to try to save face. He's all bluster and no substance.

[SAsgarters]

Are you kidding? That god of yours has lost every time by forfeit.

[maurieer]

Great video nickGis0001.

5+

[dagda825]

Absolutely fascinating: Young Earth derives it's conclusion for a 6,000[ish] year old Earth in part by genealogy. HUH? So, basically, because Jesus' line goes back a few thousand years, Earth must not have existed before then? WOW! What illogic!

[teenspirit1]

Hey Gisburne, actually the Kuran talks about intelligent design all over the book. In an argument, a muslim will first tell you that "look around you, it is so complex, therefore Allah did it."

I was brought up in a muslim society, so I know these things. They have been using this "argument" since hundreds of years. Christians recently stumbled upon it and decided to adopt it.

[zmart4ever]

The "intelligent designer" is the christian god from the Bible, any way you slice it.

That's the bottomline. Even thought they try to cover that fact with calling it the "designer", it comes down to the same ole thing again - God.

I have never heard the ID suporters admit the designer is the "flying spagetti monster".

[SpazzDog]

Brilliant video.

[chimstership]

wow, after you guys refuse to believe in intelligent design, now you come up with y not many designers,,,seems to me you wil accept anything except GOD

[dagda825]

He's being facetious.

[maurieer]

chimstership: I would except your god if it appeared before me in public for all to witness. Also a miracle or two ie: stop all the ongoing wars, heal the wounded, bring all the dead soldiers back to life etc.

I know that this won`t happen because your god

is a delusion.

[judarama]

Watch Judgement Day, proved ID is creationism in hiding.....guess you all have been lied to again...

[Krippers]

I think there is a point you may be missing here. The ID stance that watches, computers, etc are evidence of design and so are we is a failure to recognise one of the fundamentals of evolution. For evolution to work, a system must be capable of reproduction. Quite obviously watches, computers, etc do not reproduce. ID delusionists (sorry, just had to call em that) tying to equate life to a watch and claim that it's obvious god did it is a non starter.

[maurieer]

Krippers: I don`t mind at all in referring

to ID believers as delusionists.

For over 50 yrs now I`ve felt that god was an invention of man and the church.

Dawkins` book "The God Delusion" fits the bill.

[Krippers]

I think one point you may be missing here is that the examples you are talking about, computers, watches, etc, these cannot be used in comparison to evolution because they are inanimate and one of the fundamentals of evolution is that the system (whatever it is) must be able to reproduce. Inanimate objects of course can't do that so even the very idea that watches and computers are evidence of a 'designer' is in it's own right null when trying to explain a living systems existence.

[InfoJunkieHolland]

"God did it" is the ultimate conversation killer

[azizi3929]

but there is no absolute truth in darwin's to start with

...if there is a mechanism that explain natural selection itself...boy.. i would love to hear that

[Gjeorje]

-My left leg was designed by some of Santa`s elves, my nose was made at an old car factory and I found the rest of myself in a skip near Hull. You`re not facing up to the really big questions like - If there IS a God, why the Spice Girls?

[geniocracynow]

"Intelligent Design - Why not SEVERAL designers?"

It was, a lot of designers.

ELOHIM

[Bueller007]

I think a stronger point than "teams are required" would have been "evolution is required". When we look at a designed watch, it's the result of technological evolution by trial-and-error and artificial selection (where "fitness" means better accuracy telling the time, more appealing design & higher sales).

Sounds more like the "watch must have had a watchmaker" argument supports evolution.

[amarbleinspace]

faith exist's because people realize that their loved one's and themselve's are going to die, this is why. it grow's out of misery. it isnt about investigating science " religion isnt a kind of failed science" i wish he would realize this.

[BloatedSensations]

What exactly are you on about? I.D. simply has no comment on how many designers their might have been. I.D. has two tenets: (1) The universe appears to display evidence of intelligent design. (2) The presence of this evidence may be empirically tested. That's it! End of story! Since we know nothing about the nature of any potential designer(s), it is simply provisionally more parsimonious to speak in the singular when referring to the possible "it."

[amarbleinspace]

BloatedSensations. regarding many designers. economy of explanation isnt appropriate for life-forms because they are so complex, its ok for simple objects and concepts but not objects of great complexity.

[BloatedSensations]

What are you talking about? Of course it's appropriate. It's just a matter of simplicity to refer to a possible designing force as an "it", instead of explaining in depth, in each instance of conversation, that which should be taken as already given by any reasonable person. To say otherwise is entirely absurd.

[themadhair]

(1) The universe actually displays evidence of coming from a singularity (Hubble's law/COBE). The formations of stars, galaxies and nebulae have been pretty well explained at this stage. And all this has (and continues to be) rigorously tested.

(2) The essence of ID is about making a judgement call that something is too complex to arise naturally. Behe's idea was ripped to shreds during the Dover trial.

[BloatedSensations]

#1 Doesn't conflict with the ID hypothesis - nothing about the big bang model precludes intelligent design. And, #2, is just wrong. The essence of ID is about making an observation - When I look at the natural universe, I see what appears to me to be intelligent design - it has little to do with general complexity.

[Censeo]

But ID does comment on one thing about the design though. And that is that the design isn't still going on, and didn't take a lot of time either to become this. Evolution doesn't contradict that it could have been designed. It just doesn't matter in the study cause it is the study of the process.

[BloatedSensations]

You appear to be confusing ID with Creationism. ID has no comment on whether or not design is still taking place, nor any comment about how long it took. The ID hypothesis simply says: The universe appears to display characteristics suggestive of intelligent design. If such characteristics are indeed the product of intelligent design, then the presence of intelligent design may be empirically tested.

[Censeo]

If you are right, then all of ID internet pages I've read (4) have got it wrong. So why don't you give me an a webpage in my youtube inbox wich explains it right?

[themadhair]

"The ID hypothesis simply says: The universe appears to display characteristics suggestive of intelligent design." If this is true then it is even more scientific than I first thought.

[BloatedSensations]

Yes. It's called the "default argument," and it's used in science all the time, across every branch of science. It's never a problem... unless the default argument conflicts with the philosophical views of materialists - then it's labeled pseudo-science. Of course, materialists seem to have no problem with, say, the default arguments of abiogenesis, or memetics. Why do you think that is exactly?

[themadhair]

"Of course, materialists seem to have no problem with, say, the default arguments of abiogenesis, or memetics. Why do you think that is exactly?" Because there is evidence suggesting abiogenesis is a possibility and memetics is an attempt to hypothesise for observed phenomena that can be tested.

In the absence of any evidence both these would be rejected by science but they both have some evidence. Not enough for theory status but evidence never the less.

[BloatedSensations]

Oh really? Care to point me in the direction of some empirical evidence for abiogenesis, or memetics that goes beyond hard conjecture? Of course, there is evidence suggesting ID is a possibility as well. You just don't want to accept it because of your philosophical bias. Your religion blinds you.

[themadhair]

(w ww . talkorigins . org/indexcc/CB/CB050 . h t m l)

(pespmc1 . vub . ac . be:8000/ECCO-web/uploads/14/Me­meOperationalization . pdf)

Note how both of these indicate how both these hypotheses make testable predictions I something ID has yet to do even once.

(w ww . pamd . uscourts . gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342 . pdf)

[BloatedSensations]

The second document is a transcript of the Dover trial?!?! A search of that document turned up no mention of the words "memetics" nor "abiogenesis." The first document lists a few examples of biology and chemistry work which have tenuous links at best to the base tenet of abiogenesis, but are nevertheless attempting to be passed off as fully supportive of that hypothesis by the, ever true to form, brain-waves over at T.O.

[BloatedSensations]

Nice try. But, neither of the documents you posted contain any mention of any sort of empirical evidence supportive of either abiogenesis or memetics - which was your claim.

[themadhair]

The first link references SEVEN scientific papers connected with abiogensis. Look them up and stop bullshitting that research into long protein formation, for example, isn't connected to abiogenesis.

The second link is for a paper entitled "Methodologies to Empirically Test Memetic Predictions" which is what you were asking for.

The third link is of the Dover trial to highlight why ID is not scientific.

When I posted these links I didn't know I would have to walk you through them.

[Thunderf00t]

Welcome back dude! Keep rubbing those fundies the wrong way! ;-)

[Fred88902]

You do not grok ID. ID has 2 parts; part 1 is a refutation of self-config. via naturalism. It requires Darwinists to show their math to overcome odds dismal at dozens of orders of magnitude beyond impossible that a NOVEL protein could self-gen RANDOMLY. If no self-made protein, then no function, then natural selection never gets its chance to conserve. Darwinists refuse the math, and ID shows that random mutation cannot explain complexity. Check mate, mate. > 1 designer? Sure.

[bansheegta3]

The universe is not completely "random". When studying the most diverse natural phenomena, data that appears to be random at first, is found to have an order within the disorder.

The theory that deals with that is known as "Chaos".

A youtube reply is too short, so I would suggest you to read "Chaos and Life

Complexity and Order in Evolution and Thought" by Richard J Bird.

It's got nice ideas on how nature manages to create complex things...without the intervention of a supernatural being.

[amarbleinspace]

isnt that illegal. and then the earth is banned hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, genius.

[Idiron]

twat

[askquestions]

5 stars just for the intro :D