The Flaw(s) in Intelligent Design...

docphin5

Well-known member
is that it presumes "intelligent design" happened later in earth's history rather than at the beginning of (or before) cosmic history, ie. before the Big Bang.

Again, it erroneously presumes that the "Designer" intervened supernaturally during the history of our planet when actually the Designer and his "Design" is the Cause of our planet, not only, but the Cause of Cosmos itself.

Think about it...

Everything that happens in our visible cosmos is caused by something, beginning with the Cause of our visible cosmos (aka, third Cause). Therefore, evolution and development of consciousness and moral values in humans, developed for a Reason (Greek: Logos) or Cause, (aka, second Cause).

The First Cause is THE "Designer" and the causes bringing order to our cosmos, that is, the formation of elements from stars, coalescing on earth forming life through the mechanism of evolution is THE "Design". It is 100% backed by science.

No reputable scientist can refute this Design, versus the erroneous, false design presumed to come later put forth by "Intelligent Design" proponents, as if the Designer realized his mistake in making a lifeless cosmos and purposely, directly, intervened in a supernatural way (BTW, presumably overturning the very laws governing our cosmos that were designed in the beginning) on our sole planet to manipulate DNA to produce humans. It is so absurd on the face of it and the correct answer so simple that I don't know how somebody has not figured this out long before now.

Here is an illustration of the flawed intelligent design versus the correct intelligent design (supported by science).

I. Flawed "Intelligent Design"
Designer Snoozing
too busy to design anything, confused as to why the Big Bang did not produce life
Designer Snoozing
not sure why there is no life in the cosmos; waiting to make his Grand entrance
* Designer Wakes Up
and "Intelligently Designs" DNA 13.8 billion years later;

* conducts molecular engineering on a grand scale for millions of species of animals, microbes, fungus, and viruses.
* Designer Wakes Up
and "Intelligently Designs" himself on earth 13.8 billion years later;

* Designer walks on water, reassembles his decomposing corpse, and flies through the air like superman
Big Bang13.8 billion years cosmic historyPlanet EarthPlanet Earth visited by Mythical Jesus



II. Correct "Intelligent Design"
* Designer Intelligently Designs Ideal World through Reason (Greek: Logos);

* Design Includes Contingency (Potential) for Correcting Nature's Free-will (Fallen Nature)
Ideal World (Fullness, Greek: Pleroma) separated from Nature

Designer's Design (i.e. Reason, Greek: Logos) begins contingency to bring order to nature and produce life
Designer's Design (ie. Reason, Greek: Logos) produces life, consciousness, and moral concern on planet earth.

*Son of God reborn in soul(s) of pious, virtuous soul(s)
Future:
Designer's Design (ie. Reason, Greek: Logos) recalls the sensible cosmos into a perfect singularity.

* Son(s) of God "bodily" resurrected

* Ideal World Fulfilled
Nature in Perfect Union with DesignBig Bang: Nature shreds Reason resulting in Big Bang and lifeless, sensible, cosmosLifeless Nature produces consciousness and moral concern in the cosmos through mechanism of evolutionFuture:
Nature in Perfect Union with Design


Here is a Good article on the "Flaws of Intelligent Design" although it does not mention the root cause of Intelligent Design's failure as I have done above. I propose that Intelligent Design is correct when understood as being the Designer's Design from BEFORE the beginning of our sensible cosmos, rather than the Designer directly manipulating DNA 13.8 billion years after the beginning.

IOW, evolution of the human spirit is part of the Designer's "Intelligent Design".

The failed theory of Intelligent Design fails because its proposed design and cause of Good in the cosmos comes MUCH TOO LATE in the history of the cosmos, which is why its proponents have the designer overturning his own design to manipulate DNA on planet earth in order for it to work. It really is absurd in its current presentation.

The Flaws in Intelligent Design
 
Last edited:

rossum

Well-known member
I sometimes use the illustration of two pool players. The better pool player knows where the balls will go before she takes her shot. She takes her shot and everything works out exactly as she had planned beforehand. No need for any further intervention.

The less good pool player only has a rough idea where the balls will end up. He takes his shot and needs to nudge a ball or two part way through to get the result he wanted.

The second player is like the ID designer. After the universe was started, things didn't work out as expected, so he/she/it had to intervene directly in order to get the required result. This shows that the ID designer is either not omnipotent (so couldn't set up the right initial conditions) or is not omniscient (so did not foresee the outcome correctly) or both.

$0.02
 

docphin5

Well-known member
I am ok with this analogy.
I sometimes use the illustration of two pool players. The better pool player knows where the balls will go before she takes her shot.
The better pool player not only knows where her action will lead (i.e., where balls will go), but also the shot her opponent will choose and its results laying up her next shot (That is how good a pool player she is).
She takes her shot and everything works out exactly as she had planned beforehand. No need for any further intervention.
Exactly! She takes the FIRST shot (i.e. first Cause) knowing exactly where the balls will go, allowing the opponent to choose his shot from options already setup by the better player. The “game” goes on, strike and counterstrike (cause and effect), over and over until the game reaches a conclusion, —victory, predicted (aka “predestined”, “foreknown”, etc.) by the better pool player. She is that good!
The less good pool player only has a rough idea where the balls will end up. He takes his shot and needs to nudge a ball or two part way through to get the result he wanted.

The second player is like the ID designer.
Maybe like the ID designer proposed by current IDers, that is, soooo incompetent that he has to directly manipulate/bioengineer DNA on planet earth to get it where he wants it.

But if I am correct, and the current IDers are wrong, then the ID Designer is so good at what she does, she made the FIRST shot (i.e., first Cause) knowing exactly where Nature (i.e., the sensible Cosmos) will go (to include the evolution of human spirit), —allowing ANY AND ALL OPPONENTS to choose from their options already setup by the best pool player (i.e., Designer) of all. It matters NOT what they do because the game will reach its foregone conclusion, —victory, by the better pool player, and its rewards shared with all her cheering crowd.

Praise be to the Best Pool Player of All! Ha ha!

After the universe was started, things didn't work out as expected, so he/she/it had to intervene directly in order to get the required result. This shows that the ID designer is either not omnipotent (so couldn't set up the right initial conditions) or is not omniscient (so did not foresee the outcome correctly) or both.

$0.02
 
Last edited:

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
The failed theory of Intelligent Design fails because its proposed design and cause of Good in the cosmos comes MUCH TOO LATE in the history of the cosmos, which is why its proponents have the designer overturning his own design to manipulate DNA on planet earth in order for it to work. It really is absurd in its current presentation.

The Flaws in Intelligent Design
Hype and speculation based on your lack of science and lack of accurate observations.
 

Cisco Qid

Active member
is that it presumes "intelligent design" happened later in earth's history rather than at the beginning of (or before) cosmic history, ie. before the Big Bang.

Again, it erroneously presumes that the "Designer" intervened supernaturally during the history of our planet when actually the Designer and his "Design" is the Cause of our planet, not only, but the Cause of Cosmos itself.

Think about it...

Everything that happens in our visible cosmos is caused by something, beginning with the Cause of our visible cosmos (aka, third Cause). Therefore, evolution and development of consciousness and moral values in humans, developed for a Reason (Greek: Logos) or Cause, (aka, second Cause).

The First Cause is THE "Designer" and the causes bringing order to our cosmos, that is, the formation of elements from stars, coalescing on earth forming life through the mechanism of evolution is THE "Design". It is 100% backed by science.

No reputable scientist can refute this Design, versus the erroneous, false design presumed to come later put forth by "Intelligent Design" proponents, as if the Designer realized his mistake in making a lifeless cosmos and purposely, directly, intervened in a supernatural way (BTW, presumably overturning the very laws governing our cosmos that were designed in the beginning) on our sole planet to manipulate DNA to produce humans. It is so absurd on the face of it and the correct answer so simple that I don't know how somebody has not figured this out long before now.

Here is an illustration of the flawed intelligent design versus the correct intelligent design (supported by science).

I. Flawed "Intelligent Design"
Designer Snoozing
too busy to design anything, confused as to why the Big Bang did not produce life
Designer Snoozing
not sure why there is no life in the cosmos; waiting to make his Grand entrance
* Designer Wakes Up
and "Intelligently Designs" DNA 13.8 billion years later;

* conducts molecular engineering on a grand scale for millions of species of animals, microbes, fungus, and viruses.
* Designer Wakes Up
and "Intelligently Designs" himself on earth 13.8 billion years later;

* Designer walks on water, reassembles his decomposing corpse, and flies through the air like superman
Big Bang13.8 billion years cosmic historyPlanet EarthPlanet Earth visited by Mythical Jesus



II. Correct "Intelligent Design"
* Designer Intelligently Designs Ideal World through Reason (Greek: Logos);

* Design Includes Contingency (Potential) for Correcting Nature's Free-will (Fallen Nature)
Ideal World (Fullness, Greek: Pleroma) separated from Nature

Designer's Design (i.e. Reason, Greek: Logos) begins contingency to bring order to nature and produce life
Designer's Design (ie. Reason, Greek: Logos) produces life, consciousness, and moral concern on planet earth.

*Son of God reborn in soul(s) of pious, virtuous soul(s)
Future:
Designer's Design (ie. Reason, Greek: Logos) recalls the sensible cosmos into a perfect singularity.

* Son(s) of God "bodily" resurrected

* Ideal World Fulfilled
Nature in Perfect Union with DesignBig Bang: Nature shreds Reason resulting in Big Bang and lifeless, sensible, cosmosLifeless Nature produces consciousness and moral concern in the cosmos through mechanism of evolutionFuture:
Nature in Perfect Union with Design


Here is a Good article on the "Flaws of Intelligent Design" although it does not mention the root cause of Intelligent Design's failure as I have done above. I propose that Intelligent Design is correct when understood as being the Designer's Design from BEFORE the beginning of our sensible cosmos, rather than the Designer directly manipulating DNA 13.8 billion years after the beginning.

IOW, evolution of the human spirit is part of the Designer's "Intelligent Design".

The failed theory of Intelligent Design fails because its proposed design and cause of Good in the cosmos comes MUCH TOO LATE in the history of the cosmos, which is why its proponents have the designer overturning his own design to manipulate DNA on planet earth in order for it to work. It really is absurd in its current presentation.

The Flaws in Intelligent Design
I have been studying ID and reading their material for about 13 years and I don't come away with the same perspective that you have about ID. As we all know, ID does not propose any particular designer in the design but rather sticks with what can be measured and leaves everything else out of the theory to be debated among philosophers. As far as when the grand Designer picked His design that does not seem to be a measurable event and calls for knowledge of the operation of another mind and is best left out of any theory and would most definitely not be part of ID.

There is also a flaw in your statement, "Lifeless Nature produces consciousness and moral concern in the cosmos through mechanism of evolution". Evolution does not deal with "Origin of Life" or abiogenesis or lifeless nature but restricts itself to the development and changes of life after it first appeared on the earth. It is one of their hallmarks to which they proudly proclaim.
 

docphin5

Well-known member
I have been studying ID and reading their material for about 13 years and I don't come away with the same perspective that you have about ID. As we all know, ID does not propose any particular designer in the design but rather sticks with what can be measured and leaves everything else out of the theory to be debated among philosophers. As far as when the grand Designer picked His design that does not seem to be a measurable event and calls for knowledge of the operation of another mind and is best left out of any theory and would most definitely not be part of ID.
ID teaches that an unknown entity actively, directly manipulated DNA in millions of species of animals for the purpose of producing humans which puts it in opposition to the evidence for evolution, a natural process.

All I am saying is that if you back up the “intervention” of your unknown entity to BEFORE the beginning of our cosmos, —the intervention being the second cause or reason (Greek: Logos), then you have the evidence on your side and evolution becomes a mechanism for producing complex life on our planet. The point of intervention in creation needs to be moved to an earlier event, that is, the “Beginning”. Then “Intelligent Design” becomes rational and evidence based.

IOW, evolution is the result of causes set in motion from before the beginning and the “first Cause” would be the unknown entity. Science is ok with this. Religion should be ok with this. Everyone is happy.

There is also a flaw in your statement, "Lifeless Nature produces consciousness and moral concern in the cosmos through mechanism of evolution". Evolution does not deal with "Origin of Life" or abiogenesis or lifeless nature but restricts itself to the development and changes of life after it first appeared on the earth. It is one of their hallmarks to which they proudly proclaim.
Evolution deals with everything from the first replicating RNA to human life, consciousness, and moral concern. I imagine scientists will recreate the first replicating life in an experiment someday produced solely from non replicating reagents. Then your sole objection will be lost. Nature will have demonstrated the means of first life without an unknown entity tinkering with DNA on a massive scale. Don’t wait for that to happen otherwise you will miss out on so much more of God’s plan.
 
Last edited:

Cisco Qid

Active member
ID teaches that an unknown entity actively, directly manipulated DNA in millions of species of animals for the purpose of producing humans which puts it in opposition to the evidence for evolution, a natural process.
Many evolutionists are not theistic in nature and argue that evolution is a natural process that does not require a designing influence which puts it in opposition to Intelligent Design.

A prime example of evidence for ID is the Cambrian explosion where species appeared without historical of ancestors in the fossil record. The materialists have no explanation and simply ignore the issue. But without ancestors you can't have evolution.
All I am saying is that if you back up the “intervention” of your unknown entity to BEFORE the beginning of our cosmos, —the intervention being the second cause or reason (Greek: Logos), then you have the evidence on your side and evolution becomes a mechanism for producing complex life on our planet. The point of intervention in creation needs to be moved to an earlier event, that is, the “Beginning”. Then “Intelligent Design” becomes rational and evidence based.

IOW, evolution is the result of causes set in motion from before the beginning and the “first Cause” would be the unknown entity. Science is ok with this. Religion should be ok with this. Everyone is happy.

Intelligent Design is evidence based and backing up the intervention without evidence is a compromise in the scientific method. And regardless of what your sources tell you, Intelligent Design is a scientific theory.
Evolution deals with everything from the first replicating RNA to human life, consciousness, and moral concern. I imagine scientists will recreate the first replicating life in an experiment someday produced solely from non replicating reagents. Then your sole objection will be lost. Nature will have demonstrated the means of first life without an unknown entity tinkering with DNA on a massive scale. Don’t wait for that to happen otherwise you will miss out on so much more of God’s plan.

Don't call it my sole objection. I didn't come up with the idea of separating evolution from the “Origin of Life”. This is something that they did on their own and I get continually reminded of it every time I get into one of these discussions.

Once that scientists have created the first replicating life in an experiment, it will demonstrate the amount of intelligence, ingenuity, engineering and design intervention required to create life. You will still be left with the problem of how life was able to create itself. It will be another example of specified information and complexity which has historically only proceeded measurably from intelligent agents. No other force has been shown to create such an effect except where it has been proclaimed as truth by evolutionists in natural selection. But that's a discussion by itself.
 

docphin5

Well-known member
Many evolutionists are not theistic in nature and argue that evolution is a natural process that does not require a designing influence which puts it in opposition to Intelligent Design.

If a-theists argued that natural processes made the earth spherical (versus God designing it to be spherical) are you going to take the position that the earth is flat, just to spite the a-theists?

Do you know how Judo works? In Judo one uses the energy of his opponent against him.

When the a-theist tells me that evolution is a natural process, I say absolutely, then add, everything happens for a reason, to include, first life on our planet and subsequently evolutionary processes that produced humans, consciousness, and moral concern. I remind them that the underlying premise of science is that the cosmos operates by certain laws manifest in cause and effect. Therefore, evolution was caused by something else, which was caused by something else, which goes all the way back to before the Big Bang, suggesting…..DESIGN! By an intelligent Mover.

Judo!

If I may turn it over and look at it from a different perspective, I would ask to what goal is the evolution of the human spirit being served? If we recognize that natural processes produced the human spirit and they did so for a Second Cause or Reason (i.e., Logos) then for what purpose? Of course, as theists we know the answer; and because we are not greedy, we share it with anyone who cares. Right?

A prime example of evidence for ID is the Cambrian explosion where species appeared without historical of ancestors in the fossil record. The materialists have no explanation and simply ignore the issue. But without ancestors you can't have evolution.


Intelligent Design is evidence based and backing up the intervention without evidence is a compromise in the scientific method. And regardless of what your sources tell you, Intelligent Design is a scientific theory.


Don't call it my sole objection. I didn't come up with the idea of separating evolution from the “Origin of Life”. This is something that they did on their own and I get continually reminded of it every time I get into one of these discussions.

Once that scientists have created the first replicating life in an experiment, it will demonstrate the amount of intelligence, ingenuity, engineering and design intervention required to create life.
True, it will demonstrate that nature was capable of producing first-life and that it resulted from causes going back to when the cosmos began. IOW, whatever or whoever set nature in motion necessitated the evolution of human consciousness and moral concern. Theologists would call this the “divine spark” within nature.

You will still be left with the problem of how life was able to create itself.
No, because if scientists simulate first life (i.e., replicating RNA) then the simulation demonstrates how nature produced first-life without being bioengineered by an unknown independent entity present on earth. Consequently, the current theory of “Intelligent Design” would hold no cards to play anymore. The debate over abiogenesis will be taken off the table. Then where does ID go after that? Hopefully, come back to this OP and say, how come we were so dim? …but why wait?

It will be another example of specified information and complexity which has historically only proceeded measurably from intelligent agents. No other force has been shown to create such an effect except where it has been proclaimed as truth by evolutionists in natural selection. But that's a discussion by itself.
 
Last edited:

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
I have been studying ID and reading their material for about 13 years and I don't come away with the same perspective that you have about ID. As we all know, ID does not propose any particular designer in the design but rather sticks with what can be measured and leaves everything else out of the theory to be debated among philosophers. As far as when the grand Designer picked His design that does not seem to be a measurable event and calls for knowledge of the operation of another mind and is best left out of any theory and would most definitely not be part of ID.

There is also a flaw in your statement, "Lifeless Nature produces consciousness and moral concern in the cosmos through mechanism of evolution". Evolution does not deal with "Origin of Life" or abiogenesis or lifeless nature but restricts itself to the development and changes of life after it first appeared on the earth. It is one of their hallmarks to which they proudly proclaim.
In court, the felon gets in major trouble with a hole in his story.

The evoStory poofs out of a hole. I did a thread months ago which asked how could random luck develop hormones and complimentary hormone sensitivity at the same time. And at the same time post instructions for proteins to be created to form, enzymes and hormones into the genome. DNA is a lab note book.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
Many evolutionists are not theistic in nature and argue that evolution is a natural process that does not require a designing influence which puts it in opposition to Intelligent Design.

A prime example of evidence for ID is the Cambrian explosion where species appeared without historical of ancestors in the fossil record. The materialists have no explanation and simply ignore the issue. But without ancestors you can't have evolution.
They arrived functional and complete.

"The pattern that we were told to find for the last 120 years does not exist," declared Niles Eldridge, a paleontologist from the American Museum of Natural History in New York.

Does not exist is a lot different from exists, but we have not found it yet.

In court, uncontaminated and uninterupted chain of evidence is a rule.
 

Cisco Qid

Active member
In court, the felon gets in major trouble with a hole in his story.

The evoStory poofs out of a hole. I did a thread months ago which asked how could random luck develop hormones and complimentary hormone sensitivity at the same time. And at the same time post instructions for proteins to be created to form, enzymes and hormones into the genome. DNA is a lab note book.
My background is physics maybe because as a student I always found it interesting. I just like to know how things works but recently (about the last 10 years) I have gathered an appreciation for biology and how codons and DNA/RNA work whereas before I didn't know what a chromosome or a gene was but only that they were involved in heredity. I still haven't delved into hormones so forgive if I don't see the correlation. But I am sure that it is a strong argument.
 
Last edited:

Cisco Qid

Active member
They arrived functional and complete.

"The pattern that we were told to find for the last 120 years does not exist," declared Niles Eldridge, a paleontologist from the American Museum of Natural History in New York.

Does not exist is a lot different from exists, but we have not found it yet.

In court, uncontaminated and uninterupted chain of evidence is a rule.
Just something else to be swept under the rug to be explained by some future discovery. According to them they have to exist, they just haven't found them yet. So Darwin's prediction that further future excavations would bridge the fossil gap hasn't panned out but rather has created a greater mystery.
 

rossum

Well-known member
Once that scientists have created the first replicating life in an experiment, it will demonstrate the amount of intelligence, ingenuity, engineering and design intervention required to create life.
So now you have to demonstrate the existence of a non-living intelligence that could create the first life. A living intelligence cannot create the first life, at best is can only create the second, third, fourth etc. life.
 

docphin5

Well-known member
So now you have to demonstrate the existence of a non-living intelligence that could create the first life. A living intelligence cannot create the first life, at best is can only create the second, third, fourth etc. life.
That is probably my fault since I referred to “first-life”, meaning, —on our planet. I try to demonstrate an intelligent Designer BEFORE first life on our planet. I just think his intervention (setting nature in motion) began ”in the beginning” (> 13.8 Billion years ago) rather than a million or billion years ago.

The best explanation I have read (Corpus Hermeticum) is, God would be first intelligent life, Cosmos (aka “Son of God”) would be second intelligent life (the world-soul), and Man would be Third intelligent life. (Presuming God is infinite, then nothing precedes him).
 
Last edited:

rossum

Well-known member
That is probably my fault since I referred to “first-life”, meaning, —on our planet. I try to demonstrate an intelligent Designer BEFORE first life on our planet. I just think his intervention (setting nature in motion) began ”in the beginning” (> 13.8 Billion years ago) rather than a million or billion years ago.

The best explanation I have read (Corpus Hermeticum) is, God would be first intelligent life, Cosmos (aka “Son of God”) would be second intelligent life (the world-soul), and Man would be Third intelligent life. (Presuming God is infinite, then nothing precedes him).
As you have pointed out, Theistic Evolution is not a problem for science: God created material life using the processes of abiogenesis and evolution.

The Bible confirms that God can use indirect methods: "Let the waters bring forth...", "Let the earth bring forth..." Theistic Evolution interprets that as: "Let the universe bring forth..."

Science looks at the details of that bringing forth.
 

Cisco Qid

Active member
So now you have to demonstrate the existence of a non-living intelligence that could create the first life. A living intelligence cannot create the first life, at best is can only create the second, third, fourth etc. life.
No, we only have to observe the design and conclude that there was a Designer. Just like SETI can search for alien life by measuring EM waves. First life is always in reference to life on earth unless your people are moving the goal posts again.
 
Top