of course intelligent design should be taught

Published December 8th, 2007 by Bobby Henderson

Of course intelligent design should be taught.
For the simple philosophical premise of it being more than enough, And the fact that having consciousness within creation automatically proves its being designed, since consciousness is the only thing that can comprehend “design” and “not designed” infact, its the only thing that can comprehend at all. So if creation were not designed, it would not contain consciousness capable of “design” and we wouldnt all be here debating this would we.
-brian



136 Responses to “of course intelligent design should be taught”

  1. Fafnr says:

    If everyone hasn’t seen it already, check out cracked’s really good (and pretty serious) article on making atheists and christans agree on maybe a few things:
    http://www.cracked.com/article_15663_10-things-christians-atheists-can-must-agree-on.html
    Highly recommended, especially for this kind of discussion. :-)

  2. Ayumi-chan says:

    First, to reiterate mentos’ point, if we decide we already know how everything came about, that’s it. Bam. Scientific dead-end. The point about science is to find out everything there is to know, and explore any theory that seems plausible and can’t be disproved. Currently, the most interesting and open to exploration path is evolution. ID is a dead end.
    .
    Second, I’m not sure I understand the argument you’re trying to put across. Admittedly it’s 3am, so my brain may be slightly bleurgh, but it seems to my sleep-starved brain (please, anybody with a different interpretation, tell me) that what you’re saying is “ID is true because if we weren’t designed, there would be no concept of design”
    .
    This argument, no matter how much I think about it, makes no sense to me (which could well be because I misinterpreted what you were saying) for the very simple reason that you seem to be assuming that the greater entity that allegedly created the universe (let’s call this entity God)had a consciousness and a mind even vaguely resembling ours.
    .
    Also, crucially, WE DON’T KNOW HOW OUR MINDS CAME TO BE. That is, in fact, a large part of the question and therefore cannot be given as part of the answer. What we essentially possess is IMAGINATION. We can imagine that we were created, because our minds can handle that. Our minds can’t handle the amazing range of possibilities that come with the idea that consciousness simply came about by coincidence.
    .
    .
    …I think that was quite coherent, coming in at 3 am from a teenager who’s had less than eight hours sleep over the last three days.
    .
    More coherent than yours, anyway.

  3. Ayumi-chan says:

    Oh, and ID SHOULD be taught. Just not as science.

  4. Jennyanydots says:

    It’s been a few years since I read it, but for Ayumi-chan and anyone else interested in the evolution of consciousness, it’s worth trying to look out a copy of Stephen Mithen’s The Prehistory of the Mind. From what I recall, it’s a pretty accessible read for anyone with at least some understanding of science and human origins (think I first read it when I was 17 or 18 which argues for it not being a desperately specialised book where you can only grasp the concepts at graduate level). Hmm, perhaps I might look it off the shelves to take for train reading over the break.

  5. Teh Spag-worshipper says:

    @Ayumi
    Did you steal Nature Via Nurture?
    ‘Cos I couldn’t find it this morning, and that thing about intelligence/imagination//mind sounds suspiciously like one of Matt Ridely’s points. If you did, GIVE IT BACK NOW!

    @the world in general, but particularly the part of it consisting of fundies
    Humanity. Has. Evolved. To. Use. The. Mind.
    Mind over matter and all that; humans survive by using tools, designing weapons, making clothes, etc, etc. Badgers survive by having big teeth and claws and a huge body density. Albatrosses survive by being able to fly over sea and have therefore evolved to fit. Gnus survive by being big and hairy and able to eat what’s available. Humans survive by having a mind capable of conscious thought.
    GET OVER IT!
    .
    ‘God’, if it exists (note the openness of that statement) would not be human. It would not have a human mind, and, if it interfered directly in animal/plant life, would do so in a way that would be incomprehensible to the human mind. Would a reindeer (FESTIVE!!!) be able to understand why Santa made it drive around randomly at the speed of light once a year? No. It doesn’t give out presents at Chrimbo, so it doesn’t understand the concept of it. It probably thinks Santa sees nice food in Britain/America/Germany/France/Australia/Italy/Ireland/anywhere else he goes; i.e. it interprets Santa’s actions as it would itself react.
    We do the same thing; we attribute a process similar to humanity’s to the creation of the world. Merely to say ‘it exists in this way because I would make it exist in this way’ is ridiculous. It goes against all logical thought. Whether or not there is a ‘God’ (I personally subscribe to the latter view), I find it highly dubious to assume that it acts in a human way.
    .
    This is why the watchmaker argument is nonsensical; it assumes that the ‘divine watchmaker’ or ‘God’ exists on the same logical plane as humanity, and makes itself ‘plausible’ on that basis. This post isn’t intended to disprove the existence of a ‘God’, only the sanity of ID. Which hardly needs disproving.

    @ Brian specifically
    That post was phenomenally hard to understand the thread of, which, as I see it, leaves one of two possibilities:
    1. It was a very deep and complex philosophical point
    or
    2. It was a load of stupid bullshit which it is impossible to understand the logic behind because there isn’t any.
    I stand by number 2.

  6. Green Beard says:

    What horrible reasoning. That fact that you believe that logic has lead you to your conclusion is the very reason we need to protect and enhance the state of science education in the US.

  7. Tar says:

    If you’re too tired to read my entire post, this question should wrap it all up: Huh?
    .
    “For the simple philosophical premise of it being more than enough”
    Enough of what? ID lacks a lot of things to explain the world, perhaps more than FSM. For example, who created the Creator? How did he create this place (scientifically speaking)? Why are we 50% genetically related to a banana? ID begs for more unanswerable questions than evolution, and often fails to agree with our gathered data. That simply isn’t scientifically enough.
    .
    “And the fact that having consciousness within creation automatically proves its being designed,”
    We don’t even know if there was any consciousness within creation as you say it. Almost all scientists agree that we can’t ever know without a tight definition of “conscious thought” you speak of, and inevitable proof that it exists. And if, as the FSM has, this “conscious thought” alters our world constantly to deceive us, then then there’s no reason to teach it within the realm of observable (i.e. scientific) field.
    It’s also worth noting the most solid proof of ID is our ability to clone animals (we made glow-in-the-dark rats!!), making us HUMANS the Creator of new species (albeit, a tiny range of them). We cannot extrapolate this fact to the beginning of the world without first being cautious about it.
    .
    “since consciousness is the only thing that can comprehend ‘design’ and ‘not designed’. In fact, its the only thing that can comprehend at all.”
    You’re right, but this leads to nothing. My ability to comprehend ‘design’ and ‘not design’ does not give me the ability to design the world. The ability to comprehend doesn’t automatically give someone an ability to design the world.
    .
    “So if creation were not designed, it would not contain consciousness capable of ‘design’”
    You’re right, but as I said before, this amounts to nothing. It is like saying “the roll of the dice cannot determine whether you will win or lose the game (that, hopefully, involves in dice)”. A roll of dice can determine who wins or who doesn’t, but it obviously doesn’t have a conscious thought, let alone comprehend win/lose. Genetic mutation is the same thing; it happens spontaneously, and causes our physical appearance to change, sometimes (by chance, it could causes cancer). Genetic mutation has no conscious thought to it, yet it’s perfectly capable of “designing” us humans.

    “and we wouldn’t all be here debating this would we.”
    Aye, but your thought process is debatable!

  8. expie says:

    I’m willing to admit God may exist.
    Are you willing to admit He may not?

    “Of course intelligent design should be taught.”

    I agree. So should Pastafarianism.

    “For the simple philosophical premise of it being more than enough,”

    Yup, Pastafarianism too.

    “And the fact that having consciousness within creation automatically proves its being designed, since consciousness is the only thing that can comprehend “design” and “not designed” infact, its the only thing that can comprehend at all.”

    Of course, whilst it’s easily proven that consciousness exists, it is still not proven that “Creation” is in fact the creation of a designer. There are no patents, no signatures, no blueprints, and no occurences within the “creation” that prove it is indeed a designed creation.

    ” So if creation were not designed, it would not contain consciousness capable of “design” and we wouldnt all be here debating this would we.”

    Is God conscious? If not, He didn’t design the Universe, and if He is, by your logic, He was designed.

    So if God was not designed, He would not contain consciousness capable of design and blah blah blah…

Leave a Reply