5 Replies to “Who Designed the Designer?

  1. 1
    teleologist says:

    I have a similar response to Dr. Wesley Elsberry at

    “Basically, I’m pointing out that the claimed analogy
    between known designers with whom we have experience
    and unknown designers operating in unknown ways is
    illegitimate.” — Wesley R. Elsberry

    I responded with:
    Are there known designers to these artifacts? If you
    know who is the designer please enlighten us, the
    world would like to know.
    [Pictures of Stone Henge, Crop Circles,…]

    The fact is you don’t know who the designers are for
    these artifacts and yet I am sure you would agree they
    are designed. Do you know how they were designed? The
    answer again is no. There are a lot of speculation and
    some of them are pretty good but the fact again is
    that no one knows for sure how they were design,
    constructed and for what purpose. So again how is it
    legitimate for you to compare these artifacts to known
    designers and claim that they are designed?

    For someone like you who has studied and written about
    “intelligent design”, you should know that ID unlike
    Darwinism does not invent stories of putative
    mechanisms to explain the biodiversity of life on
    earth. Intelligent Design works purely on the
    empirical basis of science to identify if an artifact
    is a result of design. Certainly ID can speculate how
    or even why the artifact was design in a particular
    way, but without direct information from the designers
    it would be impossible to ascertain the actuality of
    the events. This is where Darwinism fails as a
    legitimate science. It moves from empirical evidence
    onto speculation of some putative process. As Ken
    Miller said IDist lack imagination, like Nicholas
    Matzke who imagine his pathway to evolve a flagellum,
    without any empirical science to back it up. The
    Darwinists just blindly eat that up as if it was
    ordained truth. They start quoting him all over the
    internet as if it was some empirical fact. Ken Miller
    put it in his book. ID does not deal with fantastic
    imagination. ID just deals with the facts of empirical
    science, period. ID knows that the best that we can do
    is to identify if an artifact is a result of design or
    natural processes. When you are thinking of ID, you
    must think outside of imaginary mechanism of Darwinism
    and think empirical science.

  2. 2
    DaveScot says:

    The logical necessity for a first cause never goes away. It merely moves from one field of inquiry to another. Biologists shove it downhill from them to organic chemists. The biologist isn’t concerned with where life comes from before there were living DNA-based cells for mutation/selection to act upon. The organic chemists shove it downhill to physicists, leaving it up to them to explain how the elements came to exist. The physicists shove it downhill to the cosmologists, leaving it up to them to explain where time, space, and energy came from. The cosmologists, all tied up in superstrings, basically throw up their hands and say God only knows (wink) where it all came from because the realm of superstrings is so high energy we can’t possibly imagine a particle accelerator able to test our hypotheses.

    IDers don’t push the logical necessity for a first cause off their own plate. Good for them. It takes guts to face a problem head-on when you have the option of letting it become someone else’s problem. There’s always a logical necessity for a first cause in a causal universe and at the moment it’s mystery and might always remain a mystery. Learn to deal with that uncomfortable situation. It won’t go away by pretending it doesn’t exist.

  3. 3
    fbeckwith says:

    This reminds me of a parable Michael Scriven once told me when he was visiting UNLV in the mid-90s and I was on the faculty there. Here’s what he said. Suppose someone asks you, “where’s 7-Eleven,” and you answer, “4th and Vine.” And then you are asked, “where’s 4th and Vine.” And you answer, “In Los Angeles.” You then answer every subsequent “where” question in the following way:
    “Where’s Los Angeles?” In California
    “Where’s California?” In the U.S.
    “Where’s the U.S.” In Norht America
    “Where’s North America?” On Earth
    “Where’s Earth?” Third planet from the sun in our solar system.
    “Where’s the solar system?” In the Milky Way Galaxy.
    “Where’s the Milky Way Galaxy?” In the universe.
    “Where the universe?” Uhhh!
    “See, I knew you couldn’t tell me where 7-Eleven is.”


  4. 4
    ICTHUS says:

    Bill Dembski has a blog

    So Intelligent Design theologian Bill Dembski has a blog now. He writes:I’ve always been troubled by the claim that Mt. Rushmore was carved by sculptors. After all, where did the sculptors come from?My friends, is this “science” or “religion”? I s…

  5. 5
    Jehu says:

    I am just testing the html code this blog uses.




Leave a Reply