How intelligent is "intelligent design"?

Question

I copied the following from an answer given to another Y/A question:

"... if there was actually "intelligent design," only one planet, one star, and one satellite (the moon) would be necessary. The organization of the universe is in direct conflict with the idea of "intelligent design."

For me, this statement rang a very pure note. What do you think?

Answer 1

That's a good point. I am disappointed in myself for not having thought of it before.

Answer 2

I think the concept is a good one and reasonable. One of the "proofs" for the existence of God as presented by Thomas Aquinas in the Middle Ages is that of the design of the universe. You cannot take a fine Swiss watch, take it apart and put all the components in a box and shake the box expecting the parts to fit together. Such design indicates some intelligence that put it all together in the first place. Random shaking will never put all the pieces back into the original, intelligent form. Intelligent design, logically, demands an intelligent designer: the intricacies of a leaf as seen under a microscope, the planetary system, the atomic system, etc., etc., etc.

But, an intelligent designer might also be involved in the survival of the fittest and the notion of evolution

Answer 3

"... if there was actually "intelligent design," only one planet, one star, and one satellite (the moon) would be necessary. The organization of the universe is in direct conflict with the idea of "intelligent design."

This statement is based on a very huge assumption. Can you prove that "only one planet, one star, and one satellite (the moon) would be necessary"?

I've never actually heard that argument made by anyone who supports intelligent design.

Answer 4

I don't see how that is in any way relevant to issue of whether or not observable phenomenon was intelligently designed.

Following the logical extension of that argument, why isn't there one less grain of sand on the beaches, just one less grain. I'm sure human existence is in no way dependent on that one single grain of sand. So why is it here? Follow the force of that logic and ultimately there is no place you can arrive at where you can say, "This is exactly what is minimally necessary for life, with it's all aesthetics." What if the mind of the "intelligent designer" designed the universe for aesthetic principles? To say that because we observe more than was is absolutely necessary for life on planet earth, so there cannot be an intelligent designer behind it, is to really extinguish the question of intelligent design rather than resolve it. It's a simplistic dismissal that doesn't consider other probable causes that would explain why there is more phenomenon than what is minimally necessary for life to exist.

Answer 5

While I don't believe in intelligent design, I do think this argument is flawed. Poor design is not evidence of no intelligent design. If I designed a house, not being an architect, I suspect it would not come out too well. However, it would still have come about through intelligent design. Just not as intelligent as I'd like.
The answer doesn't discredit ID itself, though it might be sufficient to discredit certain attributes given the designer (i.e. omniscience) by certain proponents of ID.

Answer 6

The person who wrote that statement has a poor fund of knowledge. Perhaps only one planet, star, and satellite would be necessary for this planet, but where is the evidence to suggest that there is not life elsewhere? In fact, there is mounting evidence to suggest that life on this planet originated from elsewhere in the universe. There are billions and billions of dollars of our tax money spent every year on that very idea.

In addition, the person who wrote that is taking the platform that his logic is superior to the "intelligent" designer. This is quite childish.

Answer 7

"If we are the products of an Intelligent Creator, then why would He give sharper hearing and better eyesite to such lower creatures than the creatures he allegedly created to worship him?" 1) Intelligent Design only says that life was created designed, not that it has kept every feature of the original design. Thus, humans might have once had better sensory abilities, but lost them due to genetic loss. 2) Because in every design, there are trade-offs. Just because a function is beneficial in one type of animal doesn't mean it would also be beneficial (for example, it might interfere with other functions or cause sensory overload) in humans as well. 3) Even if it was beneficial in humans, it might be too beneficial and might have lead to humans being, for example, too successful in hunting or reproduction.

Answer 8

That is true. If God actually created the entire Universe just so He could create mankind to fellowship with, as the Bible says, it seems to me that it would not be very intelligent or necessary to create all the intricacies of the galaxies, planets, black holes, dark matter (still theoretical), and other things in the universe which we still do not know about or understand, and many which we never will. One sun, one planet, and one moon would be sufficient.

Intelligent design is simply a euphemism for Biblical creation, created by the zealots in the evangelical community to disguise their intention of having the Biblical creation myth taught in our public schools as fact, or even as an alternative "theory," contrary to our Constitution and its prohibition of state-sponsored religion.

Answer 9

Intelligent design doesn't necessarily mean that all life in the universe is on this planet.

Though the chaotic nature of the universe does pretty much place a lot of doubt on intelligent design.

Answer 10

Whereas creationism, the idea that god created the world, is reasonable to expect from people who believe in a creator god, intelligent design is a moronic idea that is so stupid that only IDiots could think it anything but idiotic.

Answer 11

If what goes on on this earth was designed by some great mystic power, I don't think that the word "intelligent" should be used to describe him. Maybe we should change it to Sadistic Design. or Mad-man Design.