Changes

Let us suppose that the premise of Intelligent Design is true: that is, that Life as we know it was created by some intelligent being, and  this can be asserted from the evidence of our senses, and arguments such as: 'The creation of a living being by chance is as unlikely as a Boeing 757 to be reassembled by a whirlwind from parts in a hangar' are valid. This means that Intelligent Design becomes a 'non-negotiable' fact, which proves the existence of a creator.  

Let us suppose that the premise of Intelligent Design is true: that is, that Life as we know it was created by some intelligent being, and  this can be asserted from the evidence of our senses, and arguments such as: 'The creation of a living being by chance is as unlikely as a Boeing 757 to be reassembled by a whirlwind from parts in a hangar' are valid. This means that Intelligent Design becomes a 'non-negotiable' fact, which proves the existence of a creator.  

However, you cannot now claim that that creator was an omniscient God, otherwise  you are claiming that you an incontravertable proof of the existence of God, which denies the idea of 'faith', a cornerstone of monotheistic religion. Therefore it cannot be claimed that the Intelligent Designer is God, unless you are claiming that God created the world, then carelessly left the evidence for all to see. This would deny his omniscience.

However, you cannot now claim that that creator was an omniscient God, otherwise  you are claiming that you an incontravertable proof of the existence of God, which denies the idea of 'faith', a cornerstone of monotheistic religion. Therefore, it cannot be claimed that the Intelligent Designer is God, unless you are claiming that God created the world, then carelessly left the evidence for all to see. This would deny his omniscience.

This is OK, except that you now have an intelligent designer, whose existence you have to account for. This means that the initial problem has not been solved, merely increased; whereas before, you merely have to account for the existence of creation, you now have to account for the existence of the creation + intelligent designer.  

This is OK, except that you now have an intelligent designer, whose existence you have to account for. This means that the initial problem has not been solved, merely increased; whereas before, you merely have to account for the existence of creation, you now have to account for the existence of the creation + intelligent designer.  

--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 04:03, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 04:03, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

This one strikes me as easy: ID is neither provable nor unprovable in the natural world.  Therefore it does not provide evidence of a creator.  This avoids the crisis of faith.[[User:Tom Stockton|Tom Stockton]] 22:04, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

This one strikes me as easy: ID is neither provable nor unprovable in the natural world.  Therefore, it does not provide evidence of a creator.  This avoids the crisis of faith.[[User:Tom Stockton|Tom Stockton]] 22:04, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

'''Discuss:'''

'''Discuss:'''

This argument sounds like Douglas Adams' "Logical proof of the non-existence of God", which caused Him to 'vanish in a puff of logic'.  After all, to the folks who saw Moses, Jesus, or Elijah at work doing miracles, "faith" was no more necessary than you or I need to have 'faith' in gravity. We only need it now because big, flashy, obvious miracles are so few and far between.    --[[User:BobD|BobD]] 22:32, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

This argument sounds like Douglas Adams' "Logical proof of the non-existence of God", which caused Him to 'vanish in a puff of logic'.  After all, to the folks who saw Moses, Jesus, or Elijah at work doing miracles, "faith" was no more necessary than you or I need to have 'faith' in gravity. We only need it now because big, flashy, obvious miracles are so few and far between.    --[[User:BobD|BobD]] 22:32, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

From listening to what the Pope has to say, it seems as if he believes intelligent design is to narrow an explanation. When science can't explain, intelligent design is substituded. When everything is the origin of God, not just the unexplained. I may be misinterpreting the Pope, but I believe that is the crux of the answer to intelligent design he conveys to faithful.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:45, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

From listening to what the Pope has to say, it seems as if he believes intelligent design is to narrow an explanation. When science can't explain, intelligent design is substituted. When everything is the origin of God, not just the unexplained. I may be misinterpreting the Pope, but I believe that is the crux of the answer to intelligent design he conveys to faithful.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:45, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:Notice that the Hebrews, even ''with'' the miracles and everything, in both Moses and Jesus' time the ''majority'' of people still did not believe.  Faith was still an important factor, even wit all the miracles. [[User:DebateKid|DebateKid]] 13:44, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

:Notice that the Hebrews, even ''with'' the miracles and everything, in both Moses and Jesus' time the ''majority'' of people still did not believe.  Faith was still an important factor, even wit all the miracles. [[User:DebateKid|DebateKid]] 13:44, 30 June 2007 (EDT)