The Surprising Explanatory Power of Intelligent Design

[Boojatta]

1. We know that there must be a single intelligent designer who designed life. Otherwise the different parts of complicated organisms and ecosystems could not function together in a harmonious way.

2. Similarly, the economy of the USA could not possibly function unless the whole had been designed by a single economic planner. Who was that planner?

3. In 1917, a government was founded on the principle "from each according to ability; to each according to need." The people in that government were very serious about the study of economic theory. Obviously that was their area of special ability. They must have known that the USA, with its system of chaotic competition rather than central economic planning, had a great need for an intelligent macroeconomic plan.

Acting on principle, the USSR must have developed an economic plan for the USA and then used various covert methods to influence American business, so that the plan would be implemented. A full description of these covert methods is contained in a document called, "The Protocols of the Learned Economists of Moscow."

4. However, the USSR's altruistic concern for the well-being of others meant that economic experts and covert influencers in the USSR were ignoring the economy of the USSR while they secretly worked to improve the American economy. Anyone who knew what was happening could have predicted the resulting economic problems in the USSR and the eventual break-up of the USSR.

5. To those who now question the strength of the US economy, all I can say is that you need to have more faith in the wisdom of the chief communist economic designer in the USSR. He created the plan for the US economy. Apparently, his name was Yahovakov Yahovavich. Perhaps you should invoke his name and say a prayer of thanks.

[saltpoint]

1. "Intelligent Design" is not intelligent and it's not science.

Side with the Enlightenment thinkers and the ancient world pioneers in all matters related to science and you're never likely to be far off.

Nature is not a harmonious force. Ask any late field mouse's pals after the hawk incident.

[Evoman]

2. Every time you start a thread

I always end up reading it about five times, scratching my head the whole time. I was about ready to start ranting, but I just can't freaking understand what your going on about.

[Boojatta]

3. Well, that's where the trouble is. You should be reading each one about

fifteen times if you want to understand. You haven't gone beyond single digits. What do you expect?

Here's a chart to help you keep track of your progress:
01:evilgrin: 02:evilgrin: 03:evilgrin: 04:evilgrin: 05:evilgrin:
06:evilgrin: 07:evilgrin: 08:evilgrin: 09:evilgrin: 10:evilgrin:
11:evilgrin: 12:evilgrin: 13:evilgrin: 14:evilgrin: 15:evilgrin:

[neebob]

5. self-delete, replied to the wrong post

[Boojatta]

8. "If one cannot enjoy reading a book over and over again, there is no use

in reading it at all." -- Oscar Wilde

[cosmik debris]

4. You make a lot of unsupported statements

So just start with number one.

When you say "WE know" who is "we" and how do you know? Those of us who don't believe in intelligent design don't know that a single designer designed life. In fact, I am pretty darned sure that life was not designed. I have never seen any evidence that it was.

And when you say "in a harmonious way" does that include HIV,cancer, and meningitis? Is that your idea of harmony?

[Boojatta]

6. Well...

Those of us who don't believe in intelligent design don't know that a single designer designed life.

You know that Santa Claus lives at the North pole, even though you probably don't believe in Santa Claus. So maybe you actually do know that a single designer designed life even though you don't believe in intelligent design.

And when you say "in a harmonious way" does that include HIV, cancer, and meningitis? Is that your idea of harmony?

Consider musicians who played music at AIDS benefit concerts. Consider music therapy. The things you mention can be occasions for harmony. If people who sing off-key die of HIV, cancer, or meningitis, then I suppose you could argue that the amount of harmony in the world increases.

[cosmik debris]

7. No, I don't know that Santa lives at the north pole.

I don't even know that Santa lives. Would you care to point me in the direction of some evidence of the existence of Santa? Your arguments make no sense at all.

[Boojatta]

9. "Whenever people agree with me I always feel I must be wrong."

--Oscar Wilde

"Arguments are to be avoided; they are always vulgar and often convincing." -- Oscar Wilde

"A little sincerity is a dangerous thing, and a great deal of it is absolutely fatal." -- Oscar Wilde

[Boojatta]

10. Visit this website:

http://www.northpole.com/

Then you will see for yourself that it says:
"FREE Things To Do:
*Send a letter to Santa"

[cosmik debris]

11. Never mind

It is apparent that we cannot have a discussion about objective reality because we do not live in the same objective reality. Good luck with yours.

[jhrobbins]

31. I'm new to DU and this site in particular and I was wondering if ...

someone could explain what this means cuz I'm scared. I was expecting cogent repartee and I think I've stumbled into a Jimi Hendrix 'experience'.


:hippie: :smoke:

[cosmik debris]

32. Boojatta likes to explore esoteric thoughts

But his universe is somewhat different from others in which I tread. If you were expecting cogent repartee I suggest you look to other posters for that. I suspect you can find a universe that will look more familiar.

[Boojatta]

13. An educated mind can entertain a thought without necessarily accepting it

You make a lot of unsupported statements

So what? Suppose you strongly suspect that some statement (that we will call "statement B") is a true statement. Suppose someone puts forward an argument that is based on the assumption that statement B is false. At this point in the proceedings, do you make the decision to ignore the argument?

Suppose the conclusion of the argument is that some statement (that we will call "statement A") is a false statement. Suppose you know beyond any doubt that statement A is true. At this point in the proceedings, do you make the decision to ignore the argument?

So just start with number one. When you say "WE know" who is "we" and how do you know?

You are taking that too literally. We are not actually assuming that some particular people have some knowledge. To say "we know" something is just an informal, conversational way to identify something as a statement that takes the role of an assumption in our argument.

[Orrex]

15. "entertain a thought without necessarily accepting it"

Boy oh boy, that attitude won't get you far in certain sections of DU. All too often I've been savagely attacked for asking a question, apparently because some people can't distinguish between asking a question and endorsing a position. On the contrary--asking the question is the first step to understanding. If one is forbidden to ask the question, then we take a step closer to fundamentalism.

[cosmik debris]

16. Like I said

We live in different universes. We don't even have the same language. And I don't have the patience or interest in learning your language. I hate to be too dogmatic, but if we are going to have a conversation it has to be in a language I understand and in a universe I can observe. You haven't offered either. I wish you good luck with your universe wherever it is.

[Boojatta]

17. Let's return to what you wrote that prompted this part of the discussion

Those of us who don't believe in intelligent design don't know that a single designer designed life.

Here you are using your lack of belief to conclude that you lack knowledge. However, you can know a story without believing the story. For example, you might know that the Wizard of Oz told Dorothy to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. You might know that even though you don't believe that there actually was a Wizard of Oz.

In fact, I am pretty darned sure that life was not designed. I have never seen any evidence that it was.

Here you are simply re-iterating your lack of belief and justifying that lack of belief.

[cosmik debris]

26. We are not speaking the same language

When you come into my universe and use your language it spreads disinformation and confusion. I have no idea what you are talking about. If you can't use the commonly accepted terms of my universe, there is no point in trying to discuss anything. Good luck.

[Autonomy]

25. Reductio absurdum

The OP is using the ID theory as a starting point so as to reduce it to a point of absurdity. It's a standard rhetorical device.

[Realityhack]

35. Um...

I beleive that section of his post is parody. Reading it in context with the rest seems to indicate an anti-design viewpoint.

[Orrex]

12. Some zany stuff here

1. We know that there must be a single intelligent designer who designed life. Otherwise the different parts of complicated organisms and ecosystems could not function together in a harmonious way.

That statement falls apart because you simply assume the intelligence of a designer, when in fact non-intelligent phenomena can readily explain the same perceived harmony. Also, you're arguing from aesthetics, which isn't really a strong way to go about it.

In addition, if our complexity demands an intelligent designer, then surely the complexity of that intelligent designer demands an even more complex designer, does it not?

If you assert either that your intelligent designer has always existed or came into existence on its own, then you're engaged in Special Pleading. But if you argue that the intelligent designer arose from non-intelligent phenomena, then you've altogether eliminated the need for the intelligent designer.

2. Similarly, the economy of the USA could not possibly function unless the whole had been designed by a single economic planner. Who was that planner?

:rofl::rofl::rofl:
That's quite a funny joke! Obviously, and as you're aware, there is no single planner behind the US economy. It is a complicated swirl of forces over which some people are able to exert a measure of influence. But that in no way implies a designer.

Acting on principle, the USSR must have developed an economic plan for the USA and then used various covert methods to influence American business, so that the plan would be implemented. A full description of these covert methods is contained in a document called, "The Protocols of the Learned Economists of Moscow."

That's a substantially less funny joke, alluding to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Beyond that, your post makes even less sense than usual.
:wtf:

[Boojatta]

14. "That's quite a funny joke!" --> Thank you!

Beyond that, your post makes even less sense than usual.

Why bother to categorize a post as sensible or senseless? Posts are either charming or tedious.

Would you like to perform an experiment? You have my permission to post a copy of the Original Post on a few fundie message boards. Will any of them ban you? Will any of them not ban you? We can only guess until the experiment is actually performed.

[Dogmudgeon]

18. Perhaps we find out we're ... wrong

There's a lot of room for being wrong on all sides of intelligent design arguments.

First (and foremost), the nature of "intelligence" itself is the subject of some major non-religious debate.

Second, if the Turing Test is the criterion for intelligence, doesn't it confirm intelligent design? The universe would be the ultimate "Black Box", wouldn't it? (My own opinion is that the Turing Test is an invalid test for intelligence -- though it was a good try for its time.)

Third, "Intelligent Design" (with upper-case initials) is being promoted by fundamentally ignorant, politically-motivated religionizers. But philosophical arguments, pro- and contra-, have been made for over 100 years, and many aren't explicitly religious.

Fourth, what's with all these allusions to Soviet Communism? So Communism tried to design a whole society. There are lots of things people design; some work, and some don't.

Injecting religion into science, and vice-versa, has little or nothing to do with actual issues of intelligence, the design of the universe, or the intelligent design of the universe. There's a B-I-G difference between philosophers and theologians trying to figure out the universe, and a bunch of power-mad hierophants trying to make their personal prejudices into the official national ideology.

--p!

[Random_Australian]

19. Well, sorry to say it, but that made less sense than a hamster in a

tumble dryer...

Look,

1) ID is a load of it, I hardly need restate what others have said.

2) Why don't you give some support for that argument? What's that? There is no real reason why any economy ever needs a designer?

3) The system of the economy is chaotic in the physical sense (See: Lyapunov exponent) and therefore 'covert methods' don't do freak all past about 100 days for certain things, much less for others. Sheesh.

4) Well, either they simply 'forgot' to tend to their own needs or they did not have a good system, which one is the more likely I wonder?

5)Why should I not question his wisdom? Like I said, Lyapunov exponent. And that doesn't even matter - if God himself told me to do something bad I would question His wisdom. Sheesh.

Anything unclear?

[Autonomy]

20. LOL

That was one of the most clever arguments for practical use against IDers.

The response of the DUers who don't get it really cracks me up.

[Random_Australian]

22. I thought it was a spoof, then I didn't, then I responded, now I am unsure

Well, at least my response was good for your entertainment! :) To make others happy sounds like a worthy enough cause to me.


But I don't know if this guy is bieng serious or not..... if it is satire, it is a bit too close to the real thing.

[hunter]

27. I'm never sure about Boojatta

I think Pigwidgeon's mention of the Turing Test was highly intuitive.

Now I must imagine what it would be like to sit on the other side of such a test, and do I really know which side I'm sitting on now?

[Evoman]

28. Lol...I was thinking of exactly that when I first responded (Turing Test)

I started thinking...what if Bojatta is really a machine, and we are all just responding to a bunch of words strung together depending on the subject.

Lol..sorry Bojatta, if your really not a some sort of Intelligent computer, I apologize.

[hunter]

29. Well here's the dig...

For maybe the first half of my life I was sort of autistic. I thought people lived by constructing elaborate models of social behavior within their own minds that they followed religiously. I truly did not recognize so many different sorts of behavior were "hard wired" into most people. That was the epiphany that changed my life, and I could tell you the exact moment it occurred.

After that I was free to be myself. I must confess my own personality here on DU has a very synthetic and well practiced component to it. In the real world I'm very quiet, and not at all the obnoxious cynical sarcastic loudmouth you read here.

[Evoman]

30. Everytime I hear or read about Autistic people and their

views on social behaviour, I am fascinated. The way they see the world is truly unique. Have you ever read anything by Temple Grandin? She has some amazing insights into animals...she understands them so well because she believes, on some level, they share many common features with autistic people.

[Stevepol]

21. Clearly a spoof intended to show the futility of the doctrine of ID.

However, I personally think the theory has some merit. It shdn't be taught in a biology class of course. But it does make sense to speak of it in philosophy or religion classes.

Einstein and all these hordes of physicists searching for that magical theory of everything are all entranced of the idea of intelligent design, that is, that the universe has an intelligent design that can be deduced, deciphered and explained.

Now the point of ID theorists is that this ID has somehow brought about the very design that it represents, rather like an acorn brings about an oak tree.

Several problem having to do with time and alternate universes.

Time is necessary for the ID to manifest and it's not necessarily determined which design the universe will take. This is because our consciousness is part of the whole that is being expressed or manifested and we have a say in it. The universe we have now isn't necessarily the one that was stamped into the acorn at some distant point in the past. It took shape over time. Say I'm writing a novel. I may have a glimmer of how the book will end, but I don't have any idea about 90% of the hooks and crooks that will take place in the book before I get there. In the process of writing the novel, the story becomes what it is and a lot of alternative books get left in the dust. You just have to trust the process. The ID people want to have an objective God spinning out this ID from some unspecified point in the universe, but there is no single point, there is no single time. We are all part of it. It is us, it is all one. It is developing as I write. Get on board. Oh wait a minute. You're already on board. Recognize you're on board and enjoy the trip.

[Autonomy]

23. You're overlooking the problem with ID

I like the idea of a TOE-GUT, too, but ID is based on an illogical leap. The flaw is that the theory posits that an intelligent designer MUST have created the universe, when such a conclusion is not proven by the hypothesis.

If someone could prove the existence of a intelligent design, I would be very happy, assuming, of course, it's not a gnostic-type "evil" entity that designed the universe.

[Random_Australian]

24. Gonna have to take exception to one thing there buddy:

"Einstein and all these hordes of physicists searching for that magical theory of everything are all entranced of the idea of intelligent design"

Sorry, but the part about not making assumptions means that it may or not be designed and it may or may not be explciable and it may or may not have intelligence.

That something is able to be deduced, deciphered or explained is no surety of design, or intelligence.

:)

Just had to say it!

[SPKrazy]

33. Have More Faith In Yahovakov Yahovavich!

yes, can I hear an Aaaaaaa-men!!!!

The USSR did worry about the US economy so they sent their only begotten son, Yahovakov Yahovavich to save us from chaotic capitalism!

Yahovavich was unfortunately in his office at the world trade centers on 9/11/01 and was killed by terrorists flying later generations of machines that the Wright Brothers designed.

Damned the Wright Brothers, they killed Yahovakov Yahovavich!

Round up the Wright Brothers descendents, they must be EVIL!

[Kailassa]

34. Unintelligent design explains it better ...

And I can tell you how it was done.

First there was nothing.
And that nothing drew itself together into a nebulous blob.

Over the timeless eons, the blob developed the ability to feel boredom and loneliness,
and the misery thus created spurred it to destroy itself by splitting, amoeba-like,
in half, and so two blobs were created.

And what happens when you have two of a kind together?
Each wanted to be boss, and they argued continually about which was "born" first.
Inevitably, they divided their time between fighting and fucking.

Eventually the blob-bits that they knocked off each other in fights evolved into
fighting, fucking mini-blobs, and the originals discovered how amusing it was to
watch others do the fighting and fucking for them.

So they constructed an environment in which blobs could do all sorts of amusing things,
and now sit back laughing as an ever changing cast of blobs in an ever changing world
keep fucking and fighting for their entertainment.

But one thing puzzles the originals, the worship business.
They are quite taken with this idea of a supreme being
who must have created them, and now fight endlessly in an effort
to prove one opinion true by killing the twin who disagrees.