English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

A poster says that the natural origin of all things is the simpler answer rather than there being an intelligent design behind creation. I think that intelligent design, whatever that means, is the simpler explanation than the random chances of scientific theory. What says you?

2007-04-22 13:47:02 · 12 answers · asked by cristoiglesia 7 in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

12 answers

The simplest explanation is not ALWAYS the right explanation. The ID theory comes with many a question that the BB does not suppose. How many designers were there? Is creating a universe a matter of knowledge, power, or both? Is the creator inherently good because they made the universe? Etc, etc, etc.

2007-04-22 13:54:05 · answer #1 · answered by theoryparker 3 · 0 1

How could "intelligent design" be simpler? That doesn't make any sense - you've added an entire entity - and one that stretches the imagination, to say the least - for the sole purpose of this non-explanation.

I think you're a little confused about the meaning of "simpler", in the context of Occam's Razor. It does not mean "the explanation that can be stated in the fewest words". Look at the Wikipedia page, where Occam's Razor is translated as

"entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity".

That's very different from "Pick the explanation that requires the fewest words", or anything of that sort.

Occam's Razor does not suggest inventing gods in order to make explanations fit on a single page.

2007-04-22 13:58:18 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

As anything necessary to create the universe calls for a both an eternal intelligent creator who would be vastly more complex than the universe in addition to the universe, it increases the complexity required for the universe to exist.

2007-04-22 15:25:43 · answer #3 · answered by novangelis 7 · 1 0

You think that ID is simpler, even though you claim not to know what it means. That is the common religious response. It is far easier to believe in god, as it requires the least thinking. Is it your contention that the solution that requires the least thinking is necessarily superior. I understand that religious people often believe that way, but many people do not.

2007-04-22 16:10:57 · answer #4 · answered by Fred 7 · 0 0

Go ask these questions in the physics section. If you want some really good answers from people who really know about the big bang then please stop asking these question on R&S. I've already answered like 3 times(different avatars) and you still come back with more or less the same question.

2007-04-22 13:52:38 · answer #5 · answered by Harry P. Ness 2 · 1 0

The simplest explanation that fits the evidence. ID has none that I can see. It is just "it is too complex to understand so god must have done it." That doesn't fit the evidence at all.

And a god that COULD create the universe is infinitely more complex than the universe itself.

2007-04-22 13:51:33 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3 0

Then how do you explain the intelligent designer. Saying that he was always there is not an answer.

Dawkins is particularly good on this one.

2007-04-22 13:49:50 · answer #7 · answered by fourmorebeers 6 · 3 0

If we (man created in the image of god) are the main result of intelligent design, why do we eat through our breathing hole (dolphins are designed better) and why is our reproductive center in the middle of our sewage system (worms are designed better)?

2007-04-22 13:57:57 · answer #8 · answered by HarryTikos 4 · 1 0

Paradox, Mystery and Awe

2007-04-22 13:50:54 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I say that those so stupid to believe the ID unsupported assertion, are blithering idiots.

2007-04-22 20:52:25 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers