Is ID really a reasonable alternative to “it just happened”?

One of our regular commenters explains why they stick with ID:

ID is a perfectly reasonable alternative to “it just happened, that’s all.”

Yet that “reasonable alternative” is just “it happened like that because it was Intelligently Designed“. ID as yet has no specifics as to who, when, what, how, why etc.

So it seems to me that said commenter has just replaced “it just happened” with another phrase that means exactly the same thing but now they can be an intellectually fulfilled theist. 

It just happened == It was just designed that way

It adds nothing to our understanding, but presumably it counts as an explanation to ID supporters whereas “it just happened” does not. And as it’s mostly about point-scoring in the non-reality based community this appears to be sufficient for them to satisfy their intellectual thirst for “truth”. Or am I wrong? Is their search for “truth” a sham, they already know the answers?

ID seems mostly concerned with what evolution cannot do. As such it has no explanatory power of it’s own to detail what actually happened. So this seems to undercut the claim that it’s a perfectly reasonable alternative to “it just happened”.

Given that there are as many versions of ID as there are ID supporters I’d ask each specifically what it was that “just happened” and how ID is a reasonable alternative to that? Do ID supporters actually consider ID an actual explanation for anything at all? If so, what? And how does that compare to the reality based community’s explanation for the same thing?

I’ve been deliberately coy about the thing it was that “just happened”. In fact, the commenter who made the claim made it without reference to a specific “it”. I want to encourage IDers to identify for themselves that “it”, and explain why adding “it was designed” adds to our knowledge, why what is described is a perfectly reasonable alternative to and detail who is saying in the first place that “it just happened”, whatever “it” happens to be.

220 thoughts on “Is ID really a reasonable alternative to “it just happened”?”

  1. phoodoo

    OMagain,

    Wait, so you are saying you can draw no inferences about evolution by looking at the utility of life functions, and then immediately after that you start talking about the utility of functions, but say it is not a scientific claim.

    Weird.

    I guess Adapa disagrees with you. But glad you added your unscientific opinion.

  2. OMagain Post author

    phoodoo,

    Wait, so you are saying you can draw no inferences about evolution by looking at the utility of life functions, and then immediately after that you start talking about the utility of functions, but say it is not a scientific claim.

    What are “utility of life functions”? Is that the classification of biology into “good” and “bad” designs?

    Why so reluctant to use the term you started with?

    I guess Adapa disagrees with you. But glad you added your unscientific opinion.

    I was careful to qualify my statements. But we’ll see what Adapa says, won’t we? And either way I’ll be fine with it. Your attempts to divide are as transparent as they are pathetic.

  3. OMagain Post author

    phoodoo,

    so you are saying you can draw no inferences about evolution by looking at the utility of life functions

    What inferences do you draw?

  4. phoodoo

    OMagain:
    phoodoo,

    What inferences do you draw?

    The functioning of life systems are far too complex, sophisticated, finely honed, and inter-dependent on multiple levels of integration, which must be laid out in precise sequences, to ever have possibly come about through a bunch of mindless accidents.

    That’s the conclusion.

  5. dazzdazz

    phoodoo: The functioning of life systems are far too complex, sophisticated, finely honed, and inter-dependent on multiple levels of integration, which must be laid out in precise sequences, to ever have possibly come about through a bunch of mindless accidents.

    That’s the conclusion.

    Fallacious, untestable and completely devoid of explanatory power. but thanks for playing

  6. phoodoo

    dazz: Fallacious, untestable and completely devoid of explanatory power.

    Yes, I agree, with these sentiments on evolutionary theory.

  7. dazzdazz

    The usual “I know you are but what am I” level of retardness we’ve come to expect from our creotard friends. Never gets old!

  8. OMagain Post author

    phoodoo,

    The functioning of life systems are far too complex, sophisticated, finely honed, and inter-dependent on multiple levels of integration, which must be laid out in precise sequences, to ever have possibly come about through a bunch of mindless accidents.

    You appear to have missed a step. You originally said this:

    Supposed Bad Design= proof of evolution.

    Good Design=proof of evolution.

    And then this:

    Well, then please tell, which is evidence for evolution, good design or bad design?

    Don’t be so shy.

    And then

    Wait, so you are saying you can draw no inferences about evolution by looking at the utility of life functions

    So, to reset. Do you think there are good and bad designs and if so what inferences do you draw from that?

  9. OMagain Post author

    An example inference if you think there are good and bad designs is that there are two separate designers, each doing one type of design. This neatly “explains” the need to blind children as part of the life cycle of a specific parasite. The “bad” designer made that design.

    So, phoodoo, we all know you think stuff is too complex to have come about via the process you don’t even pretend to understand (we’ll leave how that negates your ability to come to such a conclusion for another time) but let’s concentrate on your idea that there are “good” and “bad” designs for now.

  10. phoodoo

    OMagain,

    I don’t pretend that a world where people are free to chose is possible to have no consequences, so to me your whole premise makes no sense.

    I am well aware, you want a world where the entire place is wrapped with soft rubber bumpers, and nothing can happen to anyone and no one ever dies. Maybe next time-I don’t bother believe its possible. So how can I say its a bad design that people die or can be hurt-I don’t believe in heaven on Earth.

    So you want to make up a world where you can toss babies off cliffs and they just float back to you with gold flakes and chocolate gifts for you. That’s not my thing to wish for.

  11. OMagain Post author

    phoodoo,
    Do you agree or disagree with Behe:

    Here’s something to ponder long and hard: Malaria was intentionally designed. The molecular machinery with which the parasite invades red blood cells is an exquisitely purposeful arrangement of parts. C-Eve’s children died in her arms partly because an intelligent agent deliberately made malaria, or at least something very similar to it.

    He also notes that when malaria starts to resist treatment that is also designed:

    In other words, more than two evolutionary steps would have to be skipped to achieve resistance, effectively ruling out Darwinian evolution.

    So here your designer is deliberately intervening to make sure that people continue to die. Agree/disagree?

    https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2012/04/behes-malevolen.html

  12. dazzdazz

    Malaria must kill babies so you can choose what to have for breakfast.
    IDiot logic 101

  13. phoodoo

    dazz:
    Malaria must kill babies so you can choose what to have for breakfast.
    IDiot logic 101

    So mark you down as someone else who wants to be able to throw babies off cliffs and have them bounce back and give you a kiss?

  14. phoodoo

    dazz,

    Personally, I don’t think you should be able to chose what you have for breakfast Dazz, because you want a world without choice. In fact you shouldn’t eat at all, or drink, or do anything…I think you should just lie down on a bed and do nothing…forever. Its apparently what you want.

  15. J-MacJ-Mac

    The theory behind theory is that you come up with truly testable ideas. Otherwise it’s no different than faith. It might as well be a religion if there’s no evidence for it. So how do you get it past your religion phase?

  16. OMagain Post author

    phoodoo,

    You want everyone to be immortal, huh Omagain?

    You live in a very black and white world. It seems that deliberately blinded children are to you a price worth paying for that free will, even if those children did not get the chance to choose that their blinding allows you, phoodoo.

    Are you angry that we have free will Omagain?

    So your designer keeps malaria able to keep killing us to allow us to have free will?

    In 1000 years when we have eliminated such parasites and other such nasties, does that mean we will no longer have free will phoodoo? If not, why not? And if not, why can’t we have that now? Or is there a blood price to pay to your deity first?

    I’ve asked you these questions before and you’ve always dodged. So I think it’s simply time to ignore you.

  17. phoodoo

    OMagain,

    We really can’t get very far if you won’t acknowledge whether or not you want all humans to be immortal.

  18. OMagain Post author

    phoodoo,
    If you answer a couple of my questions I may be inclined to answer a few of yours.

    And no, I’m not thinking what you are thinking, unless it’s “phoodoo’s god sounds like a right shit bag”.

  19. OMagain Post author

    phoodoo,

    Wait a second Omagain, are you telling me that humans have the ability to eliminate suffering??

    It seems to me no, we don’t have that ability. For example, we may find a drug that allows you to resist infection by the malaria parasite. However your infinitely powerful deity will then just tweak malaria to get around that drug. Right?

    So no, it seems to me that under your scheme humanity will never be free of suffering because your deity will intervene in ways that ensure suffering continues.

    As I noted, your god is a shit bag.

  20. OMagain Post author

    In other words, more than two evolutionary steps would have to be skipped to achieve resistance, effectively ruling out Darwinian evolution.

    No freedom from suffering as long as your Intelligent Designer lives.

  21. phoodoo

    OMagain: In 1000 years when we have eliminated such parasites and other such nasties, does that mean we will no longer have free will phoodoo?

    So you were lying, but you still want me to answer?

    O omagain, I had such hopes for your new found wisdom.

    But alas, you still want God to give you more chocolate and candy kisses. Why doesn’t he love you more??

  22. OMagain Post author

    phoodoo,

    So you were lying, but you still want me to answer?

    Lying? About what? Be specific.

    But alas, you still want God to give you more chocolate and candy kisses. Why doesn’t he love you more??

    No, I’m asking you why your god always ensures that suffering will always exist.

    You seem to like it that way I suspect. Into S&M are we phoodoo?

    It’s simple. Do you agree or disagree with this statement:

    So here your designer is deliberately intervening to make sure that people continue to die. Agree/disagree?

    It’s either what you think or it’s not. Your answer?

  23. OMagain Post author

    If malaria is too complex to evolve, it must have been designed.

    If malaria cannot evolve resistance, that resistance must have been intelligently designed and inserted recently into the organism.

    So which is it phoodoo? Is evolution impotent or is your god a sadistic shitbag?

  24. colewd

    OMagain,

    So which is it phoodoo? Is evolution impotent or is your god a sadistic shitbag?

    If there is free will, or the possibility for humans to make their own decisions in order to development and learn, how would you propose you eliminate evil or something bad happening in this environment?

  25. newton

    colewd:
    OMagain,

    If there is free will, or the possibility for humans to make their own decisions in order to development and learn, how would you propose you eliminate evil or something bad happening in this environment?

    If you were omnipotent and omniscient?

  26. dazzdazz

    colewd:
    OMagain,

    If there is free will, or the possibility for humans to make their own decisions in order to development and learn, how would you propose you eliminate evil or something bad happening in this environment?

    What does that have to do with anything?
    The point is that it’s preposterous to suggest that God designs antibiotic resistance into viruses to preserve your free will.

  27. Kantian NaturalistKantian Naturalist

    OMagain:
    If malaria is too complex to evolve, it must have been designed.

    If malaria cannot evolve resistance, that resistance must have been intelligently designed and inserted recently into the organism.

    So which is it phoodoo? Is evolution impotent or is your god a sadistic shitbag?

    I think that indicates a theological problem with identifying the God of the Bible (however interpreted) with the Designer as posited by design theory.

    But that’s not an objection to design theory as an empirical theory of the emergence of complexity.

    As I’ve long maintained (but seemingly the only one here), the true challenge to design theory comes not from evolutionary theory but from complexity theory (see Kauffman’s At Home in the Universe and Reinventing the Sacred).

  28. OMagain Post author

    Kantian Naturalist: As I’ve long maintained (but seemingly the only one here), the true challenge to design theory comes not from evolutionary theory but from complexity theory (see Kauffman’s At Home in the Universe and Reinventing the Sacred).

    I’ve read the first, some time ago, and remember it being good. I’ll have another look.

    I’m being somewhat incendiary in order to try and provoke some kind of meaningful response, perhaps even trigger some kind of thought about their own position and how absurd it is to just deal with such issues by (seemingly) ignoring them.

  29. OMagain Post author

    colewd: If there is free will, or the possibility for humans to make their own decisions in order to development and learn, how would you propose you eliminate evil or something bad happening in this environment?

    Then I ask the same question to you I asked phoodoo. In 1000 years it’s likely we’ll nearly completely eliminate such things. Will we then not have free will?

    It’s like some sort of dystopian vision. Gather the youth and submit them to trial by ordeal, god will take a % as tribute and the rest will become true adults.

  30. OMagain Post author

    Is this chart a prediction of when free will vanishes?

    So by, what, 2050 we’ll have zero mortality and zero free will, development and learning?

  31. OMagain Post author

    dazz: The point is that it’s preposterous to suggest that God designs antibiotic resistance into viruses to preserve your free will.

    They can’t quite bring themselves to suggest it, that’s the thing. I point out that it’s the logical consequence of what they are saying and you just get slience. Either their designer is intervening to keep people getting infected by malaria, or it’s not. Either the changes in malaria that bestow resistance are designed or they are not.

    Instead of a specific answer on that phoodoo just extrapolates it to an extreme, that simply asking that question means that I want to eliminate all bad things from happening, that god is a bad bad man for not kissing my boo-boos when I slip over, anything but address the fact that either they are wrong about evolution or that their god moves in mysterious ways.

    I guess phoodoo is burning a strawman that’s been dragged through the manure pile.

  32. OMagain Post author

    newton: If you were omnipotent and omniscient?

    I suspect defending the indefensible leaves little spare time for imagination. All that cognitive dissonance to deal with…

  33. dazzdazz

    OMagain,

    Yep, they’re the epitome of intellectual cowardice, or perhaps stupidity, not sure which.

    What does malaria have to do with free will anyway? this is not about the problem of evil, but even if it was it doesn’t make it any better for them. I mean, if we had the technology to produce strains of viruses that develop antibiotic resistance as soon as they’re exposed to it, I don’t think it would be controversial to call it evil if someone released those strains in the wild: designed to kill as many people as possible. What if one believes that’s what God does when malaria evolves resistance to antibiotics? Why shouldn’t God be deemed a shitbag for doing that if that’s what you would call the guy who did the same thing? Oh, because we can always assume it will somehow end up working for the best, I mean an omnipotent God knows what he’s doing right? But if you choose to believe that, why care about doing what we perceive as being the right thing to do? The mad scientist could release the improved strains of malaria and just claim that if God allowed him to do that, it must have been part of God’s plan to maximize good and he’s just helping Him fulfill it!

    That’s the line of reasoning that can justify despicable terrorist attacks in the name of God.

  34. phoodoo

    Alan Fox: Reminder to members!

    Accusations of lying infringe the rules here..

    But last week you said lying is now Ok on this site. In fact you sent me a private message not only telling me you have changed the rules about lying, but in fact ENCOURAGING me to lie more, to increase the click count here on TSZ, so what are you talking about Alan?

    Have you forgotten already?

  35. phoodoo

    OMagain: that simply asking that question means that I want to eliminate all bad things from happening,

    You have steadfastly refused from stating which bad things you want to allow in your dream world, and which bad things must go, so how is one to chose?

    So malaria must go, what about gunshot wounds, do they stay or go OMagain? Dog bites? How can you always complain about what God allows when you refuse to say what you would allow.

  36. newton

    phoodoo: But last week you said lying is now Ok on this site. In fact you sent me a private message not only telling me you have changed the rules about lying, but in fact ENCOURAGING me to lie more, to increase the click count here on TSZ, so what are you talking about Alan?

    I am curious to see that message now that you have used it as evidence of Alan’s hypocrisy. Or are you lying now?

  37. phoodoo

    newton,

    What!! How dare you say that Newton, that is entirely against the rules!! You know that.

    Look, it is perfectly fine to lie here, BUT, you CAN NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES WHATSOEVER point out that something is a lie.

    So even though Alan can send me a message and say they have lifted the rules about calling out lies, and encourage me to accuse more people of lying, apparently Alan was just trying to trick with that message, perhaps to try to get me suspended again, but the rules have not changed!

  38. J-MacJ-Mac

    phoodoo: But last week you said lying is now Ok on this site.In fact you sent me a private message not only telling me you have changed the rules about lying, but in fact ENCOURAGING me to lie more, to increase the click count here on TSZ, so what are you talking about Alan?

    Have you forgotten already?

    I guess lying for Darwin is okay as long as you don’t publicly expose the ones who are doing the lying or encourage the lying for a good cause or greater good… 😉

  39. OMagain Post author

    phoodoo,

    You have steadfastly refused from stating which bad things you want to allow in your dream world, and which bad things must go, so how is one to chose?

    And you, sir, are a coward.

Leave a Reply