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.

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

1 2 3 17
  1. rmw says:

    Okay, Brian, I’m having trouble comprehending your letter (what is it with these hate-mailers and a lack of basic grammar skills!!??), but I’ll give it my best shot.
    First, how is it “enough?” And could you please specify what kind of philosophical premise you are talking about? Second, please demonstrate some proof that there is a consciousness (I’m assuming you mean God). For that matter, prove what we see is “design.” I think it is much more likely that systems adapted, and that is what you and many other IDers see as “design.” Who is to say that it took a “consciousness” to create that? Maybe it did, but there is no solid evidence to back that up. Your “proof” as it were, lies in your faith and belief system. While that may be fine for you, it is not me, and to that end, ID has no place in a science classroom. If you are so adamant about teaching it, then do so in a religion/philosophy class.
    @Prophet bobby–thank you for posting the recent bounty of hate-mail. They’re just fun! :-D

    • foobarbaz says:

      Consciousness = us being conscious. You didn’t understand his argument correctly. However, Brian’s argument is still flawed. He tries to make a logical link between the fact that we are capable of thought and says this proves we were created by a superior being (which, I assume, would also be conscious). That is a fallacy, trying to make a link between two completely different and unrelated ideas.

      @Brian: Some might even argue that we are not really conscious and do not even exist. Saying “Since X, then Y” (X being “we are conscious” and Y being “God exists”) is also a fallacy if we didn’t say we didn’t establish X as a fact. The fact that we are able to think in itself is a whole other debate…

      Even if Brian did prove the world was designed by an omnipotent entity, it would prove in no way that Intelligent Design is right. For all we know, God (assuming he exists) may have only created the universe and the first cell; this God is also as likely to be the Flying Spaghetti Monster as it is to be the Christian God, Yahweh, Allah or even many gods together, as the ancient Greeks believed. That is why our religion is completely legitimate.

  2. Jacobian says:

    lol, circular logic.

  3. Maxglobs says:

    Except, even if your “logic” was actually logical, it only proves that ID should be discussed in a philosophy or sociology class, not a biology class.

  4. Bald Pirate says:

    one question: If the designer has to to have consciousness too, then who designed the designer?

  5. The Rabid Baby says:

    Ok. So i got the bit where where we can see the difference between design and non-design. I lost it after you said this implied a God. Evidence please? Until evidence backing up that statement is shown intelligent design should be kept strictly to RE classes and out of the science ones.

  6. The Rabid Baby says:

    …How does our consciousness imply a creator? Explain? If thats true then doesnt that mean god must have had a conscious creator? And that creator must have had a conscious creator? And so on…

    If you can give some evidence as to why conscience shows a conscience creator, this theory can’t really be taught in a science class. Philosophy or RE maybe but not science.

  7. Caít Sidhe says:

    Circular logic works because circular logic works.

  8. Nospoon says:

    I don’t feel like I should dignify this with a response.
    Fortunetly, I’m not dignified.

    The ability to design is evolutionarily useful, as is the ability to distinguish between something designed and something not designed. So it makes sense that something, somewhere, would evolve those abilities.

    Tl;dr: you make nonsense. Can it be shutup tiem noaw?

1 2 3 17

Leave a Reply