[rob777]

If I had the opportunity to meet the assumed designer, I'd ask what, to me, is the most important question of them all: ''Mr. Designer, who designed you?"

If the designer answers that it doesn't know, that perhaps it was also designed, we fall into an endless regression, straight back to the problem of the first cause, the one that needs no cause. At this point the mask tumbles and we finally discover the true identity of the IDists' Designer. We should capitalize the word, as this is how we are taught to refer to God.






I do not consider the above argument to be very convincing. The ID argument makes no claim to the nature of the designer, nor should it. (Creationists do, but that is another subject) The conclusion that certain phenomenon exhibit the characteristics of being designed is an argument that does not hinge on knowing anything about the designer other than it possesses intelligence. We do not know much about the identity of those who created the Great Pyramids, but that fact does not invalidate the conclusion that they are not a product of chance.

As for the progression back to a first cause, this is a philosophical approach rather than a religious one. The most famous proponent of this notion was Aristotle. The religious view does not speculate from a progression of causes to a first cause, but claims direct revelation from that cause.

The critics of ID should focus on the issue of falsification, i.e. what evidence could falsify this theory. Logically, I consider the notion of design to make much more sense than the alternative. That being said, to be considered as a scientific theory, it would help to have the problem of falsification clearly resolved.

[Ignatius J Reilly]

If I had the opportunity to meet the assumed designer, I'd ask what, to me, is the most important question of them all: ''Mr. Designer,

how come you didn't give us a pocket. It would really come in handy. Something big enough for car keys, drivers license, credit card.

[snarks_when_bored]

Logically, I consider the notion of design to make much more sense than the alternative.

Would you care to speculate as to the physical means whereby the designer brought his designs into being, and at what time (precisely) in the history of our cosmos he acted?

[tortoise]

The ID argument makes no claim to the nature of the designer, nor should it.

Then I suppose it is safe to assert that if ID is correct, we can safely discard glorious structure of the universe as evidence for God, since an infinite number of far less impressive entities could have created it.