Human Biology Multiple Designers Theory

Discussion in 'Human Biology' started by amantine, Sep 26, 2004.

  1. amantine

    amantine Premium Member

    You probably know about Intelligent Design theory and the problem it has with creating a viable theory of its own instead of attacking evolution. Some people are taking this problem serious and are developing testable theories based on the assumption that life is designed.

    One of those theories is featured on the Panda's Thumb. The theory proposes that there are multiple designers and that it is possible to tell the creation of one designer from another designer's creation.

    It's pretty interesting stuff and it is good that the ID crowd is making an actual ID theory instead of attacking evolution.

    Introduction to Multiple Designers Theory
    Validating Designers Discrimination Methods
  2. Nygdan

    Nygdan Member

    from the panda's thumb, a known tool of the EAC

    Any yet, by making a perfectly reasonable and balanced suggestion ( that is, reasonable and balanced for ID 'theory') the author has in effect created a parody. ID-iocy is so horribly unscientific, so obviously based on religious apologetics, and so blatantly little more than 'creationism playing dumb', that anything that is a 'logical extention of it' can't help but be hiliarious and ludicrous. I think that the tip of if refering to wells and the like as 'luminaries', which is hard to pronounce with ones tounge that far in one's cheek.
  3. amantine

    amantine Premium Member

    Now that you mention it, it does seem a bit more parody than I originally thought. But it still is better for ID to have an hilarious theory than none theory at all.
  4. Nygdan

    Nygdan Member

    I think I'd prefer if ID was just not around at all, neither in parody nor in reality.
  5. amantine

    amantine Premium Member

    I don't have a problem with ID being around, as long as it stays out of schools until there is evidence supporting it.
  6. Nygdan

    Nygdan Member

    ID is pseudo-science. It looks at the stunning successes of the scientific and rational way of thinking and tries to co-opt on that success by using technobabble and giving itself the air of being scientific. However, it isn't. Its a religious statement, albeit a very limited one. It makes conclusions before it has evidence to support it, inspite of evidence that contradicts it (at least when it makes statements that can even be contradicted. most of the time it makes purely metaphysical statements). Its anti-rational, non-sensical, and, in that respect, dangerous. People need to be willing to accept that their personal opinions and feelings can't be presented as 'facts' or 'scientific theories'. The general public, at least in the US, is already surprisingly poorly educated (for an extremely rich western modern nation) and ID isn't helping. Its furhtering the cause of ignorance, denial, parochialism, and promoting the cause of 'doing nothiing', 'not thinking', and being satisfied with half explanations; merely because we like them.

    er, yah, can I rant some more?