If you could prove "the designer" exists, would that prove that they still have influence here and now?
2007-05-23 11:17:51 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Reliable methods for detecting design exist and are employed in forensics, archeology, and data fraud analysis. These methods can easily be employed to detect design in biological systems.
When being interviewed by Tavis Smiley, Dr. Stephen Meyer said, “There are developments in some technical fields, complexity and information sciences, that actually enable us to distinguish the results of intelligence as a cause from natural processes. When we run those modes of analysis on the information in DNA, they kick out the answer, ‘Yeah, this was intelligently designed’ . . . There is actually a science of design detection and when you analyze life through the filters of that science, it shows that life was intelligently designed.”
The human brain makes the complex computer look like a child’s toy in comparison to complexity. Is it logical to believe that the brain designed the computer, but the brain is a product of time and chance?
2007-05-24 04:30:34 · answer #1 · answered by Questioner 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, I'm not a "believer in Intelligent Design." I would consider myself an evolutionist. However, you question embarrasses me because you've obviously never made an attempt to understand intelligent design - wrong though it may be. Intelligent design has nothing to do with proving the existence of a design. It simply theorizes the idea that the diversity of life was in part directed by some outside force other then evolution.
Intelligent design is not science. But it's not dangerous either, and frankly you're being closed minded by not making a serious attempt to understand it before you disagree with it.
2007-05-26 06:17:48 · answer #2 · answered by BryanN 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Wow, this question would require a really long answer.
A rational explanation? I could suggest a few books to you to read that could at least give you a start. Then you could do what I've started to do, which is go into the books used as reference points. You could start with In Six Days by John Ashton, Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel, and just about ANYTHING by Ralph Muncaster.
Just go to Amazon.com and type in "apologetics." That brings up a huge list of books. I have limited funds, so I've just barely started.
No, there is no proof that God exists. There is only evidence, but BOTH sides have evidence. And no, the evidence would not prove that God still has influence now. However, there is evidence that He DOES still have influence.
This is all I'm going to say for now, but if you want a more technical answer, I can provide it.
2007-05-23 11:25:02 · answer #3 · answered by The_Cricket: Thinking Pink! 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
An intelligently designed human being doesn't have to prove the Designer exists....
An intelligently designed human being is consciously aware of the fact the Designer exists...
An intelligently designed human being does not succumb to manipulation or influence of any kind...
2007-05-23 11:53:41 · answer #4 · answered by MARY B 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
ID is intellectually bankrupt enough to be hard to completely refute, since it's essentially a claim that we'll never know some things that we don't currently know.
One can point to how its examples tend to fail spectacularly, and one can point to the flaws in its design (for example, how an idea that relies so much on information theory uses a completely skewed verion of information theory). Still, because ID is ultimately religion, it's ultimately going to be hard to convince its followers that they're barking up a dead horse.
ID people say that they can show that something could not have evolved, but since they have been demonstratably wrong every time, that should be a strong hint that they don't know what they are talking about.
2007-05-23 11:24:21 · answer #5 · answered by Minh 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Technically, you'd only have to demonstrate that a designer was necessary at any point for the process to work. It doesn't matter if the designer still has influence.
Of course, they can't, and they don't really try to prove it, but they keep muddying the waters saying "Teach the controversy."
2007-05-23 11:22:28 · answer #6 · answered by The Bog Nug 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Simply put no one is going to change your mind. To believe in a desinger is to believe in faith. So I will not attempt to prove you "wrong" because faith is not a right or wrong explanation. It is a belief or a non-belief.
I don't mean to answer you with another question but how do you explain something from nothing ? To rule out intelligence design as a plausable explanation is to admit that all we are and all we will ever be is strictly by chance. How can you live not believing in something bigger than yourself? Simply put, if we are a product of happenstance, then we truly do not influence our environment. We have no hope beyond what we can see, hear, taste, smell or touch.
Why then do we care about our future? Why do we desire as a civilization to explore ? Why are we creative ? Rhetorical questions that point towards these things being created in us, not just a by-product of circumstance. DNA strands do not create love, passion, hope, happiness, joy. They do not account for our desire to know more than we know, to see more than we see. That was created, that was put in each of us. By whom ??
I know this hasn't changed your mind. But thanks for letting me speak mine.
2007-05-23 11:27:21 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Study why electrons remain in orbit around gluoned quarks by the weak force which is not strong enough to resist the electrons escape velocity when at the speed of light which is contradictory to all logic. To further complicate the matter they assume predetermined orbits which is preposterous, impossible and yet fact. Then to top it all off if you try to separate the quarks held together by the color force the color force grows in intensity proportionately to the distance of separation, which defies all physical laws. This if you think about it is not only by design but deliberate and purposeful.
2007-05-23 11:27:30 · answer #8 · answered by nikola333 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Take a look at the soda can, and a banana. I don't know why it proves it, but it does somehow. Just ask Kirk Cameron.
(no rational explanation exists)
2007-05-23 11:22:40 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
I'm just going to chime in to say I agree if you are stating "Intelligent Design is obviously BS, 'when it is passed off as science'."
If a person wants to believe/have faith in I.D. I don't have a problem with it. Just don't claim it is scientific.
2007-05-23 11:24:07 · answer #10 · answered by Curious George, C.Ac 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋