NeMon'ess's Journal: SF Gate opinion pieces on intelligent design

The first one basically covers familiar ground that if the intelligent designer is a martian capable of designing the Earth's life, than he/she/it must have had a designer too. This inevitably leads to a supernatural being which did not have a designer. So an intelligent designer is simply a cover for God.

The second piece is an amusing look at a few peculiarities of life, such as rabbit and horse digestive systems, and the human ankle and back. It suggests that if there was a designer, some of the design choices are certainly puzzling by mere human logic.

Both very interesting articles

[Brainboy]

I like the second better though. The first one is about the obvious flaw in Intelligent Design. It's kinda old news. The second one was a lot more interesting, as it was an argument I never really heard before. Or at least not as well as articulated. What was even more interesting was that it was written by a Jesuit professor. Perhaps ID won't have the staying power to stick around too long after all.

Re:Both very interesting articles

[pudge]

As Planesdragon said ... uh, no. This is not a flaw in ID, it's a given: it points to a supernatural being. But yes, it is old news.

I don't know why you are talking about "staying power." The basic premise of ID -- that nature contains significant evidence for design, that points ultimately to a supernatural creator -- is one that's been around for thousands of years, and is only becoming more well-known now because it is being used to rebut the popular -- and equally unscientific -- notion that the evol

Re:Both very interesting articles

[Brainboy]

As Planesdragon said ... uh, no. This is not a flaw in ID, it's a given: it points to a supernatural being. But yes, it is old news.

Then ID proponents should stop trying to push it as scientific theory.

used to rebut the popular -- and equally unscientific -- notion that the evolution of species was random.

This shows a total lack of understanding of evolution is not 'random.' Yes the mutations are random, but the general evolution of species is not 'random' but came to today through a very specific proces

Re:Both very interesting articles

[pudge]

Then ID proponents should stop trying to push it as scientific theory.

I've never seen one do so. It is a theory *about* science, but is not itself scientific. Very much like the scientific method is itself not scientific, but certainly is about science.

This shows a total lack of understanding of evolution is not 'random.' Yes the mutations are random

Since this is what I was referring to, and you agree that this is what the theory states, then why do you say me saying so shows a total lack of understanding

Simple Rebuttals:

[Planesdragon]

(As with this whole discussion, I'm not advocating one way or the other.)

"Who invented the inventors"

This is a great old question that some might say pokes a great big hole in I.D. But it doesn't--anymore than "where did God come from" or "what happened before the Big Bang" undermines either theology or astro-history.

It's entirely plausible that aliens evolved elsewhere, came to this planet, and then engineered us. The aliens could even be from some other reality, or life that has certain fundamental diff