To argue for intelligent design as a scientific method, let's just look at the mistakes, that is evidence, is it not? Let's say hypothetically that everything in our known scope has an intelligent designer. That designer has made some mistakes, true, but also has made some incredible designs, most of which we are still attempting to understand. We are intelligent, yet not perfect. Who is to say that our hypothetical designer is not also intelligent, yet not perfect either? Who is to say that our designer is not a product of a design? In fact, it would almost make no sense at all if our designer, should there be one, is not the product of another design.
Getting philisophical here, but why should we believe that intelligent design describes a snapshot of time, creating beings and rocks as they are, as if that's all they'll ever be?
Evolution is a fact. Life changes, it evolves, no doubt about that. But isn't that proof of intelligent design? Why not use the evidence we have for evolution to trancend into our understanding of an intelligent designer?
Even if I, as a computer programmer, could design the perfect program, it would still never be perfect unless I built within it the ability to continually change and adapt over time, surviving on its own with further contact from me at all, except for maybe a few archaic white papers that I left behind, and the occasional re-compile.
An argument might be that one could eliminate intelligent designer from every sentence in my statement and still be able put the pieces together for life 'being'. In other words, if evolution occurs, then why even talk about a designer at all? The fact that evolution occurs, and has scientific evidence means that we can use it to describe systems of life, even spiritual systems and that is important. It is important for the reason that just because evolution occurs, does not mean that I can reduce it to explain how life got here in the first place. There is a scientific disconnect in being able to prove how far species can evolve. To use evolution to explain how energy evolved into all life as we know it is not scientifically based, it is philosophically based.
In other words, we must use philosophy when we extrapolate the discussion to the root of origins. Therefore, the use of an intelligent designer is a plausible scientific placeholder at the least, because as we can observe, it takes life to produce life.
Hold on. Humans are designed with two eyes, not one, a fact which renders your experiment impotent. If our design was such that we had only one eye, your experiment would be more valid. However, our design is such that we are never naturally in the position of having to locate a pencil tip while covering one eye, keeping our heads perfectly still so that we can identify a blind spot in this carefully designed experiment. It could be said that the design is much more intelligent with two eyes than one.
Also, there are at least two fundamental problems with asking a squid to perform the same experiment. For one, the squid won't be able to understand you, because it lacks the design of speech. Also, a squid has no ability to cover an eye, at least not in the manner in which you describe. True, the squid has less of a blindspot. However I bet humans eat more squid than vice versa. Humans win in the design comparison here.
You are suggesting that for an intelligent designer to exist, then 1 perfect species, and only 1 perfect species should exist. Why would an intelligent designer bother with so many mistakes? It seems to me that you are an intelligent person, yet the design of your argument here is relatively flawed. But, I'm betting with practice you'll get better.
Slashdot Mirror
To argue for intelligent design as a scientific method, let's just look at the mistakes, that is evidence, is it not? Let's say hypothetically that everything in our known scope has an intelligent designer. That designer has made some mistakes, true, but also has made some incredible designs, most of which we are still attempting to understand. We are intelligent, yet not perfect. Who is to say that our hypothetical designer is not also intelligent, yet not perfect either? Who is to say that our designer is not a product of a design? In fact, it would almost make no sense at all if our designer, should there be one, is not the product of another design. Getting philisophical here, but why should we believe that intelligent design describes a snapshot of time, creating beings and rocks as they are, as if that's all they'll ever be? Evolution is a fact. Life changes, it evolves, no doubt about that. But isn't that proof of intelligent design? Why not use the evidence we have for evolution to trancend into our understanding of an intelligent designer? Even if I, as a computer programmer, could design the perfect program, it would still never be perfect unless I built within it the ability to continually change and adapt over time, surviving on its own with further contact from me at all, except for maybe a few archaic white papers that I left behind, and the occasional re-compile. An argument might be that one could eliminate intelligent designer from every sentence in my statement and still be able put the pieces together for life 'being'. In other words, if evolution occurs, then why even talk about a designer at all? The fact that evolution occurs, and has scientific evidence means that we can use it to describe systems of life, even spiritual systems and that is important. It is important for the reason that just because evolution occurs, does not mean that I can reduce it to explain how life got here in the first place. There is a scientific disconnect in being able to prove how far species can evolve. To use evolution to explain how energy evolved into all life as we know it is not scientifically based, it is philosophically based. In other words, we must use philosophy when we extrapolate the discussion to the root of origins. Therefore, the use of an intelligent designer is a plausible scientific placeholder at the least, because as we can observe, it takes life to produce life.
Hold on. Humans are designed with two eyes, not one, a fact which renders your experiment impotent. If our design was such that we had only one eye, your experiment would be more valid. However, our design is such that we are never naturally in the position of having to locate a pencil tip while covering one eye, keeping our heads perfectly still so that we can identify a blind spot in this carefully designed experiment. It could be said that the design is much more intelligent with two eyes than one. Also, there are at least two fundamental problems with asking a squid to perform the same experiment. For one, the squid won't be able to understand you, because it lacks the design of speech. Also, a squid has no ability to cover an eye, at least not in the manner in which you describe. True, the squid has less of a blindspot. However I bet humans eat more squid than vice versa. Humans win in the design comparison here. You are suggesting that for an intelligent designer to exist, then 1 perfect species, and only 1 perfect species should exist. Why would an intelligent designer bother with so many mistakes? It seems to me that you are an intelligent person, yet the design of your argument here is relatively flawed. But, I'm betting with practice you'll get better.