Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Ph.D.s in Obfuscation — Or, Simple Truths Denied

Gil Dodgen
January 21, 2007
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In another forum, Denyse wrote:

Bear with a simple lay hack here a moment: Why must we know a designer’s intentions in order to detect design?

If the fire marshall’s office suspects arson, do the investigators worry much about WHY?

Surely they investigate, confirm their finding, and turn the information over to other authorities and interested parties, without having the least idea why someone torched the joint.

ALL they need to be sure of is that the joint did not torch itself, via natural causes.

The observation Denyse makes is so obvious that one would need a Ph.D. in obfuscation not to see it. Common sense is not so common, at least among those with a foundational commitment to materialism.

Comments
russ, excellent point!inunison
January 21, 2007
January
01
Jan
21
21
2007
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT
Design advocates are expected to identify the designer. But Darwinists give themselves a pass on the ultimate source of the universe with assurances that "scientists are working on it". Couldn't we do a little scientific judo by simply pointing to SETI, and telling the Darwinists that "Scientists are working on it [finding the designer]"?russ
January 21, 2007
January
01
Jan
21
21
2007
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT
I have blogged about this: How difficult is it to understand? Reality demonstrates the ONLY way to make ANY determination about the designer or the specific design processes involved, in the absence of direct observation or designer input, is by studying the design in question. And guess what?
Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence. — William A. Dembski
And yes the design inference does force us to ask other questions. ID is not preventing anyone from looking into them. However that also demonstrates that ID is NOT a scientific dead-end plus gives us the impetus to drive the research.Joseph
January 21, 2007
January
01
Jan
21
21
2007
05:46 AM
5
05
46
AM
PDT
I agree that design detection does not logically require knowing underlying motivation. But for ID to be useful as explanatory science, it would be helpful if it explained why the designer designed things as they are. Otherwise, we have no way of explaining the world other than "That's just the way it was designed." The next logical question, to this response is, "Why ?".bdelloid
January 21, 2007
January
01
Jan
21
21
2007
05:26 AM
5
05
26
AM
PDT
ALL they need to be sure of is that the joint did not torch itself, via natural causes. Well no. They need to distinguish between say a dosser who started a fire that got out of control someone who deliberately set fire to the joint for fun the owner who was deliberately careless in the belief that one day it would burn down and he could collect on the insuranceMark Frank
January 20, 2007
January
01
Jan
20
20
2007
11:18 PM
11
11
18
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply