Home » Intelligent Design » Reminder about “Who Designed the Designer?”

Reminder about “Who Designed the Designer?”

Permutations of the question “Who designed the designer?” are trite, easily addressed, and if you read the moderation rules you’ll find that comments using this and other trite arguments are deleted. There is not enough data to make any determination of who designed the designer. When and if we can identify the designer of organic life on this planet we might have some data to work with in determining the origin of that agency. Until that situation changes, maybe SETI will give us some data someday, there’s no point in asking the question over and over again.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

18 Responses to Reminder about “Who Designed the Designer?”

  1. Yeah I’m so sick of seeing that “argument” I personally believe that the “designer” is probably some form of alien life, whether that life be in this universe or not I don’t know. Ultimately, if there is no universe somewhere in which darwinian mechanisms actually do something then there must be a Mind at the start of it all. Scratch that. I don’t see how I can get around a Mind with extra universes or not.

  2. Granted that ID does not address the identity of the designer, but is the following a reasonable question?:

    Does ID address whether or not the designer was a product of design?

    Thanks,
    Martini

  3. It should be pointed out that we do have enough data to know something about the designer and answer the question about who designed the designer, but that data is philosophical rather than scientific in nature.

    Even this statement may sweep too wide, because there is an interplay between the scientific and philosophic data to answer the question about who designed the designer. The scientific data is used to support the philosophical arguments: e.g. the beginning of the universe (science) implies (philosophy) a first cause of the universe that is eternal, infinite, immaterial, and non-spatial. Furthermore (philosophy), since only temporal and finite things require a cause for their existence, an eternal and infinite being like the first cause does not require a cause. He is self-existing.

  4. “Who designed the Venter?” I think that thread forever ends any hope that this is a valid objection.

    (For those who don’t remember, Venter designs artificial organisms. But by the Dar-logic, he couldn’t have designed them, because then we’d have to ask “Who designed the Venter?” Alternatively, if it is possible to have design without an infinite regress (an undesigned Designer making new organisms), then their objection falls flat.)

  5. It may be a good idea to post an ID PRATT (points refuted a thousand times) List that could be linked to when these arguments are regurgitated.

  6. Alternatively, if it is possible to have design without an infinite regress (an undesigned Designer making new organisms), then their objection falls flat.)

    It’s the same old cause and effect paradox. People keep asking, if everything is caused, who caused the cause? What their missing is that the law of cause and effect does not stipulate that all causes must have a cause, only that all effects must have a cause.

  7. Joseph,

    Good list, I second your motion for having a UD FAQ or PRATT list. It should be a 5th tab up there with home and search.

    Atom

  8. I think it is pretty plain to answer: Assuming that there is such a being as the ultimate original designer of this universe, it is by definition a supreme and omnipotent being and therefore the source of all causes. And thus it is even able to constantly emanate and multiply itself into many identities but at the same time remian one and individual. In the vedic literature this is very nicely described for those who seek a more profound explanation.

  9. Mapou, 6, A slight nit. In the material-only domain, it is argued that cause and effect are inseparable – no effect, no cause; no cause, no effect.

    But, your reply does work in the dualist domain. It is quite reasonable to argue, I suggest, that a non-material cause can lead to a material effect, which observationally, would appear as an effect without cause. But, that would require the argument to integrate a transition across the non-material and material domain.

    Arguments that are wholly in the material domain could still be rationally discussed as who begat whom, I suggest.

  10. Atom, Joseph, et al., excellent rebuttals and suggestions.

    There needs to be a simple list of rebuttals and counterpoints to such questions that are raised almost weekly sometimes on this blog.

    This can solve two problems. 1) Immediate fact checker to the uninformed. 2) A gentler way to rebut people, with a warning saving valuable time. 3) It can direct the truly curious to deeper information and insights, saving time again for other questions and rebuttals, plus expand on ID’s points.

    Maybe these repeated points of uninformed contentions can be easily recognized on the ResearchID.org site as a list of false objections?

    1) ID is not science
    A) Answer: please see…
    http://www.researchid.org/wiki.....D_research
    2) ID is Creationism warmed over
    A) Please see…
    http://www.researchid.org/wiki.....n_timeline
    3) No real scientist believe in ID
    A) Please see….
    http://www.researchid.org/wiki/Category:Biography

    Joseph, you have most of the information. Maybe just add a IDFAQ pages for simple list questions, duplicate it for Rebuttals to Critics and Objections. It is actually an opportunity to educate people. Add a Feature Section to Questions Answered. They can vary from common questions to harsh critics in a form of information, serious rebuttals to known critics and oppressors of free thinkers.

    This list can be utilized not just by this blog, but by others as a centralized reposititory of well known rebuttals to red herrings. UD can have an added tab or link, and users here can point to specific rebuttals, hopefully saving moderators like Dave time for more important matters.

  11. Mapou(OT),

    my apologies the other day for not responding to one of your replies on non-coding. I’ve had intermittant “signal” problems due to analog->digital installation. I’m bout ready to “switch over” myself to FioS if things do not get better rapidly with the cable company.

    During the reply, I lost my post and it takes a few hours for the line to go live again. Grrr, so I forgot to come back to your suggestion.

    Anyway, OT short answer: Signaling, mRNA, yes! Research turns up new evidence of this all the time in non-coding regions. Much of it during developmental stages of the embryo, as well as functional RNA and signal processing for repair as an example.
    Some links:
    1) http://www.genestocellsonline......10/12/1163
    2) list of RNA DBs
    http://biobases.ibch.poznan.pl/ncRNA/
    3) Types of Non-Coding RNAs(ncRNA)
    http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/N.....oding_RNAs
    4) Unearthing treasure in non-coding RNA(formerly known as JUNK)
    http://www.systems.caltech.edu.....PM_gsp.pdf
    5) And last, but not least “Pattern Recognition” from Japan…
    http://download.cell.com/pdfs/.....00654X.pdf

    The last entry #5 shows a valuable illustration picture that I think favors ID, signal processes, etc., that connect the dots and actually uses the quote in the title of the brief, “Pattern Recognition.” This might be good for another post?

    What is ID? Study of Patterns and recognition of patterns. Without pattern recognition thru ncRNA, we all fall down. “nc” is a failure of neo-Darwinian thought process. ID should rename them as some form of independent subroutines.

    I wonder if the writers of this short brief have not been slightly influenced by ID Speak floating thru the science world? It was published in CELL 2007.

    In it, you see the internal pattern recoginition system utilized to silence genes, trigger larger cascades, and receive input.

    This picture is worth a thousand ID comments and post. ID is in fact the SETI of biology and signals are everywhere being sent, screaming, we are Designed.

  12. The ‘who designed the designer?’ bit is a canard, and I’m glad it’s not accepted around here.

    However, I do have a slightly unorthodox suggestion. Maybe it’s ID-appropriate, maybe it’s not. I’ll leave that to others to decide.

    The suggestion: Why not speculate about what the bare minimum intellectual capacities of a designer would be, given certain (for the sake of the argument, accepted) designs? It’s not answering the ‘who’ question, of course. Think of it almost as programming question: What kind of knowledge would be needed for a designer to, say, front-load the introduction of the bacterial flagellum? Make a planet suitable for life? Etc, etc.

    Would this fall within the scope of ID?

  13. In fact, can’t a good case be made that “nc”RNA is a form of “prescriptive” coding? Known processes that must be done daily, hourly, minute by minute as maintenance processes like the ribosome? Sorry, this is OT. It just got me thinking. That size variability can change in the genome for lets say height, but the process that signals growth(large or small) cannot change?

    Back ONT, signal processing is a sure sign of intelligent design. We do not need to know the origin of the designer to recognize this.

  14. The question who designed the designer is anyway completely irrelevant! The point of ID is that there is detectable evidence for the existence of a designer, which upsets darvinists. that is why they want to distract from the evidence by asking the futile question about the designer of the designer.

  15. nullasalus

    Why not speculate about what the bare minimum intellectual capacities of a designer would be, given certain (for the sake of the argument, accepted) designs?

    Indeed. There is abundant data to work with on that question. It has long been my supposition that the designer of organic life on our planet needed temporal and physical access plus some advanced (compared to current human technology) skills in biochemistry.

    Consider this. If our level of competence in biochemistry advances apace for say another 500 years could we engineer artificial life that could survive and evolve on Mars, Europa, or Titan? I think so. More likely in 50 years not 500. We could transport it there with the technology we have today. Nothing supernatural required unless one considers human technology itself to be supernatural. Whether we could create artificial life with mind, consciousness, and will is a different question and I don’t think we know enough about the nature of those things (yet) for any reasonable predictions.

  16. Ed Brayton has written a response to this post with his usual intelligent, insightful prose. :P

    I’ve made a comment over there, and in case it doesn’t make it out of the moderation queue, I’ll post it here, as well:

    Ed,

    a God (any being, really) capable of designing such extraordinary complexity must itself be even more astonishingly complex and improbable. And that means all your arguments about probability and complexity apply even better here, yet here is where you suddenly declare that your arguments don’t apply at all. Logicians call this special pleading. This is what happens when legal reality requires you to pretend that your designer isn’t really God (wink, wink).

    I understand that you regard mockery an acceptable–even preferable–substitute for the considerably more difficult task of critical thinking, but this is profoundly stupid even by your low standards.

    Not only is this a bad argument, but it’s an argument FOR ATHEISM! (I was under the impression that you are a deist.)

    My purpose with this comment is not to tell you what to think or believe, but I am concerned that you might watch approvingly as public school students are taught to believe an argument against the existence of God. Please don’t refer to anything logicians say until you demonstrate some ability to use logic, yourself. Would you willingly confer your apparent grotesque incompetence in distinguishing epistemology from metaphysics to the public school classroom?

  17. And thus it is even able to constantly emanate and multiply itself into many identities but at the same time remian one and individual. In the vedic literature this is very nicely described for those who seek a more profound explanation.

    Right. So ID doesn’t even mess with the theological part of it, noodles. Please consult your local swami.

  18. 18

    Creation Ministries International also receives this boring old canard from time to time, which we have answered at The old ‘Who created God?’ canard revisited.

Leave a Reply