Does the Designer have to be "God"?
As I have stated many times now, the designer could be "God" and that it doesn't matter if it was/ is.
But does the designer have to be "God"?
Absolutely not.
The designer(s) need not have anything to do with eternal salvation nor eternal damnation.
The designer(s) need not have any requirement for worship.
All religions could be man-made nonsense and the designer(s) wouldn't care.
The designer(s) need not have supernatural powers.
The designer(s) need not be supernatural.
The designer(s) need not be caring, loving nor judgemental.
The designer(s) need not have a personal relationship with anything nor anyone.
The designer(s) need not be omnipotent, omniscient nor omnipresent.
Any questions?
But does the designer have to be "God"?
Absolutely not.
The designer(s) need not have anything to do with eternal salvation nor eternal damnation.
The designer(s) need not have any requirement for worship.
All religions could be man-made nonsense and the designer(s) wouldn't care.
The designer(s) need not have supernatural powers.
The designer(s) need not be supernatural.
The designer(s) need not be caring, loving nor judgemental.
The designer(s) need not have a personal relationship with anything nor anyone.
The designer(s) need not be omnipotent, omniscient nor omnipresent.
Any questions?
posted by Joe G @ 1:26 PM
6 Comments:
At 2:53 PM,
Matteo said…
But, but, it's obvious that your post is nothing but thinly veiled Christian proseletyzing. I mean it's OBVIOUS!!!
At 3:47 PM,
Joe G said…
Yes, I can see how one would come to that conclusion.
In future topics I will further restrict my talks of Jesus, I mean the designer behind the curtain...
:)
At 12:01 AM,
Unknown said…
Hi,
I am a 15-year-old, high school dropout (I mean home-schooled) student. I have been surfing through various ID blogs, journals, and discussion groups for the last week or so. I may add that I have absolutely no scientific credential nor philosophical reasoning most people in this movement, or even the opposing views, possess.
Although I cannot speculate whether these particular views restrictly and exclusively conveys your personal conviction in the realm of Intelligent Design, but if it indeed portraits ID movement/community, please confirm my suspicion.
In this regard, I "appreciate" the little subtleties you managed to inject into the list, most notably the plural usage of the word "designer." And I believe that ID community can offer a substantial wealth of information to the science community if it does away with religious nits and bits which usually spills over at the end of the discussions.
So once again, just to clear the smoke and ambiguity, are these assertions popular in proponents of ID?
At 10:19 AM,
Joe G said…
Hello young squire and welcome to IR.
Many, if not most, IDists are religious- Christianity, Islam or Judaism- and as such have the "God" of the Bible in mind when they speak of the designer. Most, if not all, of those people hold that position not from a scientific PoV rather they do so from faith.
With that said, even those IDists would support my assertions about the designer not having to be "God" and that there could indeed be multiple designers.
That is because ID does not say anything about the designer(s), rather ID's focus in on the design.
The issue with religion and ID is as I have already stated- many ID proponents are religious so the ID opponents seize upon that to connect religion to ID.
However if all religions in the world were falsified (somehow) ID would not be affected.
At 10:36 AM,
Unknown said…
What bothers me with ID's approach is the undeniable "philosophical" implication that it carries with the message. Not only that, there is a proclivity to beat evolutionists with the club of "immorality" under the umbrella of "materialism" or "naturalism." They first associate evolution with aforementioned school of philosophies, then hammer their stand-point by asserting how the humanity, as we know it, would dangerously come to extinction if these school of thoughts are promoted through "Darwinism." Oh for crying out loud! I thought we are talking science not philosophy! Straw man fallacy at its worst.
Another aspect of ID that baffles me is why the proponents, especially the religious people who do not necessary cognizant of its various parameters, are perturbed by the mention of evolution theory as if there is an attempt to snap "God" away from them and throw him down the abyss of evanescence. To my limited knowledge, evolution does not question the existence of deity of any sort -- it merely pursuits to assay the existing set of data and to draw the best educated assessment according to the evidence; right or wrong in the sense of scientific conclusion, I am not going to venture in that as I have limited knowledge in such field. It could well be concluded by religious community that "God" has concerted the universe based on a set of fundamental principles (i.e. Anthropic Principle) which would construct itself in such a way that it is perceived today.
Which brings us to another point I would like to establish here, a blatant, affronted political motivation of ID which is strongly backed by religious institutions. Here is why such assumption is strongly devisable; Evolution by itself does not shake the foundation of theism, that is, it does not contrive to take the possibility of existence, not in a natural sense, of supernatural being out of the equation -- we leave that to philosophers. But the gist of TE does go up against what religious dogma has been preaching and what it has offered as a fact. This would congenitally would ultimately paint a fraudulent picture of religion as we know it. To no surprise, this "upsets" the religious community which in turn would back an opposing movement, ironically Intelligent Design. So it is not discriminatory to state that religious folks have a political gain in their support for ID.
Such credence is mostly highlighted by the fact that, due to religious background of ID members, it is not naive to assume that their belief system is influencing the process of what is considered a norm in scientific methodologies. That is, the assumption has already been established (there is a God), now the premise must be contrived by all means. I thought the science works the other way around, you state a hypothesis, then try to establish that point! So once again, it is bewildering to witness all these philosophical raving being thrown around while the actual scientific finding is being discarded -- not saying ID or ToE are being disingenuous with regards to presenting the "data" but rather when it comes to battling off the details, the discussion is swayed to philosophy.
Besides, what would be a tantamount to evolution when it comes to the actual putting down Intelligent Design for school curriculum? If ID is ONLY "negating" the evolution argument, then ID has no discourse for teachers to go on. In other word, if ID is stating "evolution" is wrong, then what is it presenting in its replacement? God created all the life form and...? That's it? Well, aren't we getting that from religious institutions already? Unless ID's finding vouches to take evolution out of the program in its entirely! Please note that I am not, in any shape or form, suggesting evolution is "the" answer and Intelligent Design Theory is bluntly wrong, but if ID reproaches evolution, then allow this "challenge" to be examined in its scientific domain because augmenting the "designer" into the discussion adds no value in the scientific disquisition.
Moreover, if ID is only disproving evolution, then I think anyone can see its offering would be entirely devolutionary to the science curriculum because in one hand we are telling students this is how we have evolved and the next thing you know, well... "it didn't really happen that way!!!" What is the student to write on the final paper? So at the end, it's either evolution or ID -- we cannot have both at the same time. Just imagine going to church and a pastor/bishop states that there is a God and he wants you to follow this set of dogma... And at the end, he turns around and says, well, you know what, there is a possibility that what I just told you is riddled with fallacy!!! You could wonder what would be people's reaction to such ceremony. Am I missing something here? Again, I hope my point is clear that I am not suggesting one theory is more valid than the other (not yet at least) but rather absurdness of "both" theories being presented in the educational bubble.
At 2:05 PM,
Joe G said…
What bothers me with ID's approach is the undeniable "philosophical" implication that it carries with the message.
Pretty much like the implications of the "big-bang".
Another aspect of ID that baffles me is why the proponents, especially the religious people who do not necessary cognizant of its various parameters, are perturbed by the mention of evolution theory as if there is an attempt to snap "God" away from them and throw him down the abyss of evanescence.
Is there a differnce from a "God" who "creates" via blind watchmaker processes and no "God" at all? I don't think so.
Many religious folks don't like ID because it does not mention "God". I know of two Creation institutions that have written critiques of ID.
See also:
ID is NOT anti-evolution
and Intelligent Design- The Design Hypothesis
Post a Comment
<< Home