Questions I would like Intelligent Design Proponents to Answer

[juryjone]

All of these questions are great, but...what's the point? The only answer you get from IDers is "la la la I can't hear you" or its logical equivalent. I had a "discussion" with an IDer this past weekend, and got this logical gem:

The fact is - if a person is truly honest - and wants to truly know if there really is a God out there - He can be found by observation in the natural world. And if you want to know what kind of a God He is, you can examine all the religions of the world and see if the "creation story" they give matches up with the observable world. That means the story has to be broad and allow for filling in details as more is discovered.

followed by: "This will be my last communication with you."

This was a person with 36 years experience in a medical profession and studies in microbiology (or so it was claimed). They don't want to answer questions, they don't want to hear answers to their questions - they just want acceptance of their views.

(I tried to go on at this point and describe the difference between IDers and people who see that evolution is true, but it was just an incomprehensible rant, so I'll stop now.)

 

[Wowbagger]

All of these questions are great, but...what's the point? The only answer you get from IDers is "la la la I can't hear you" or its logical equivalent.

We might have some.... ways... of making them answer....


...that are perfectly legal, ethical, and painless, of course!

 

[MG1962]

I guess my question would be. If we accept a God clever enough to design the universe and influenced the evolution on Earth, how would we intellectual pygmies ever be capable of identifing evidence of this design.

 

[Fredrik]

Scientists are usually motivated by the thrill of new discovery. If you want more scientists to take Intelligent Design more seriously, how would you appeal to that?

Wouldn't a moron I.D. believer be a lot more thrilled about discovering evidence of creation than a science nerd would be about discovering evidence of evolution? I mean, many of them think that God is what gives meaning to their lives, so to them evidence of creation is something huge. It would make them feel important, and even loved.

I specified NEW discoveries. Not re-hashes of stuff we already considered.

I don't understand your reasoning here. Are you suggesting that there's been a point in history when biologists could get a bigger thrill finding strong evidence of evolution than a creationist today would get if he finds strong evidence of creation? I don't believe that's the case. To a creationist, evidence of creation is also evidence that he will live and be loved forever. Actual science can't offer anything like that. Their pseudoscience can't either of course, but the point is, they think it can.

So I would say that the motivation in the form of the "thrill of new discovery" is stronger for them than for us, assuming that they believe that there's evidence to be found.

But maybe I just don't understand your question (the one in bold above). What sort of answers can they give you? If you wanted to convert a bunch of string theorists to do research on loop quantum gravity, it wouldn't help to tell them it can be thrilling to discover new things. You'd have to convince them there are lots of very promising results already, and that there are many more just waiting to be found. Maybe that's where you were going with this question. You want to encourage the I.D. guys to explain what promising results have been found already and why scientists should believe that there's more to be found. In that case, I think you need to rephrase the question in a way that suggests that more clearly.

 

[Lonewulf]

We might have some.... ways... of making them answer....


...that are perfectly legal, ethical, and painless, of course!

Like talking like Captain Kirk?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Like talking like Captain Kirk?

Wowbagger: Now, please answer my questions, or we'll move on to William Shatner's reading of "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds".

Intelligent Designer: Nooooooo! No more! Please, Nimoy's "Bilbo Baggins" was too much, I can't take any more!

I like that idea.

Dave

 

[sphenisc]

Not really. I am just attempting to reply from the perspective of someone interested in fair questions.

Which is why I always enjoy reading your posts.

 

[Wowbagger]

Wowbagger: Now, please answer my questions, or we'll move on to William Shatner's reading of "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds".

That would be unethical. I am not a monster, you know!

 

[Lonewulf]

That would be unethical. I am not a monster, you know!

Lie in bold!

 

[dlorde]

If creatures are the creations of an intelligent designer, why are there so many examples of poor (even incompetent) design <favorite examples here>, and why does a process of natural selection answer the poor design question so much more effectively?

 

[Earthborn]

That is a different usage of the word Intelligence than what I was referring to.
My usage involved Intelligence somehow being special to higher life forms, and NOT being understood as a purely natural process.

If intelligence isn't a purely natural process, then what is it?

Which brings us to perhaps the most important questions to ask a proponent of Intelligent Design:

1. What is ID's working definition of "Intelligence" and in what ways does it differ from forces assumed to be unintelligent?
2. What is ID's working definition of "Design" and in what ways does ID presume designed things differ from things that are not designed?

Hmmm... I guess in some cases, even if we could anticipate what their answers are going to be, it would be just too delicious to see them give the answer, than to not ask the question.

If they suspect that is the reason you asked the question, then they'll probably refuse to answer. And I wouldn't blame them.

Someday we will probably have the power to create life forms from scratch. Why couldn't the Designer use those same methods?

The Designer no doubt could have used such methods, and ID seems to assume that It at the very least did create mechanisms within life forms from scratch.

 

[Wowbagger]

I'd like 'em to 'splain endogenous retroviruses.

That would be nice. Here is a rough draft of a question I could add:

"Evolutionary studies include the that of endogenous retroviruses, that is: a concept where traces of DNA, from viral infections, are copied throughout our own DNA strands, that seems to match the data extraordinarily closely, (and even help us understand a variety of diseases such as multiple sclerosis). How does this fit into the Intelligent Design paradigm?"

If we accept a God clever enough to design the universe and influenced the evolution on Earth, how would we intellectual pygmies ever be capable of identifing evidence of this design.

I think they would find that question insulting, and be put off from answering the rest of them.

So I would say that the motivation in the form of the "thrill of new discovery" is stronger for them than for us, assuming that they believe that there's evidence to be found.

It is not the level of thrill. It is the type of thrill. Maybe I should specify: "new discoveries" as those which "no one has ever known, nor could have even fathomed, before".

If creatures are the creations of an intelligent designer, why are there so many examples of poor (even incompetent) design <favorite examples here>, and why does a process of natural selection answer the poor design question so much more effectively?

Too easy to weasel out of. They could just claim that the design is really not as poor as we claim it is. Or, that it is "only a matter of opinion", anyway. (which I would disagree with, since we can judge design objectively, by measuring various criteria) But, either way would sound too reasonable to the folks who would read the answers.

If intelligence isn't a purely natural process, then what is it?

I wouldn't know. This is their claim, not mine.

1. What is ID's working definition of "Intelligence" and in what ways does it differ from forces assumed to be unintelligent?
2. What is ID's working definition of "Design" and in what ways does ID presume designed things differ from things that are not designed?

Both are good things to bring up. I will consider asking a series of questions about their working definitions.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

"Couldn't you find a better public face for your inanity than snivelling bloviator Casey Luskin?"

Though I suppose that specifically would be for the DI.

 

[Wowbagger]

I am surprised no one provided these links:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fabnaq.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/stumpers.html

 

[Dave Rogers]

I am surprised no one provided these links:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fabnaq.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/stumpers.html

Most of the questions there seem more to address creationism, YEC and Bible literalism than ID. In fact, it could be argued that it's the inability of creationists to come up with satisfactory answers to those questions that led to the change of strategy from creationism to ID.

Dave

 

[BPSCG]

(Skipping to the end, so apologies if someone posited this question already...):

Is the designer still alive? If so, how do you know?

Puts the IDiots in the position of either having to acknowledg that the designer is eternal (i.e., God), or that ID has nothing to do with God.

 

[thaiboxerken]

. In fact, it could be argued that it's the inability of creationists to come up with satisfactory answers to those questions that led to the change of strategy from creationism to ID.

Dave

It could be argued.. but it would be a statement that denies the facts. The reason for the change of strategy was because Creationism was found to be religious in origin. So, the Creationists simply took their same "arguments" and replaced "God" with "a designer." ID is simply Creationism in disguise.

 

[Wowbagger]

Most of the questions there seem more to address creationism, YEC and Bible literalism than ID.

That is probably more true with the first link, than the second.

Some of the questions could be transformed into more general I.D. stumpers, such as those refering to specific scientifc findings.

But, I'll work out the wording, later.

 

[rocketdodger]

A fasifiable hypothesis is that our Designer is in orbit around Sirius.

If all humans prioritize working together to produce ships capable of travelling to Sirius, we will advance faster than if we embrace evolution and only increase cell phone technology.

Sir, I have just defeated your arguments. Not only is ID falsifiable but it is also more useful to humans.

 

[Wowbagger]

A fasifiable hypothesis is that our Designer is in orbit around Sirius.

I wish intelligent design advocates could commit to something like that!

Not only is ID falsifiable but it is also more useful to humans.

Maybe as far as space travel is concerned.

But, while you are awaiting budget approval for such a massive undertaking, we would like to investigate some other options that will lead to innovative solutions to our biological problems now.