Atheists, are you still arguing about intelligent design?
Here is a short, easy to understand story for you. The story is fictional, but that does not change the message nor does it negate the point, as some people would have you believe.
A scientist presented a scale model of the universe to his peers, it was immense, larger than a football field. It was nearly perfect but still had flaws that weren't easily noticed even by his scrutinizing audience of well educated men of the scientific community. All the laws of the Universe were demonstrated and the crowd was amazed by the sight. Now, of course, questions followed.
Many of the scientists immediately asked: "Why was this made?"
The scientist replied: "No reason as far as I can tell, it seems to serve absolutely no purpose."
The audience, puzzled, asked: "Who made it?"
The scientist replied: "No one, it just sort of made itself, exactly as it is."
Of course his audience laughed but soon became quiet, waiting for his real reply.
The scientist, seeing their disappointment, said: "I'm not kidding."
The gathering grew impatient and angry, obviously their intelligence was being mocked, they questioned more: "How was it made?" they demanded.
The scientist calmly replied: "I do not know, yesterday nothing was here except a small, particularly heavy looking mass."
The audience immediately came to the conclusion that this lone man was crazy and merely wanted to rudely mock their intelligence, quickly they dispersed.
Now, my question, along with the initial question, is: Are you the scientist from my story or just in the crowd asking all the questions.
NOTE: You do not know what I believe, don't make assumptions and I won't assume you're a moron. "Lol," and/or "Fail" comments don't mean or prove anything, though they do make me smile. Furthermore I do not believe any of you to be less intelligent than I, I do not know you, but I probably will form an opinion regarding your intelligence pending your answer or lack there of.
2009-03-14T15:15:48Z
A: No where in this entire question or it's details did I mention anything about religion nor did I mention God or any other deity.
B: The scientist did not create the model, nor did he lie with his answers when asked any questions. He answered with what he believed.
desmeran2009-03-14T14:53:18Z
Favorite Answer
well, I wouldn't come to the audience's conclusion that he was crazy, but otherwise I'd say I'm both. nothing wrong with being the scientist, stating how things are and venturing no opnion on why or how it's there if you really don't know. nothing wrong with being the crowd and wishing you had more information, either.
I don't argue about ID, I just disagree with it. 1. "Why was this made?" - it's a model. Albeit imperfect because the universe persists to expand, and new stars are formed, etc. It was made for this 'story' obviously. 2."No reason as far as I can tell, it seems to serve absolutely no purpose." - I honestly doubt a scientist would say this. The model apparently has the purpose and reason to humiliate science for some personal issue you have, and not an educational reason/purpose. 3. "Who made it?" - Our story author made it with his imagination of a successful argument. Since the scientist presented the model, he can be held responsible for 'making' it, since it's not the real universe - just a model. 4. "No one, it just sort of made itself, exactly as it is." - putting words into the mouth of the scientist does not make you 'right'. The universe did expand itself, there is no evidence of a deity supporting said expansion. 5. "I'm not kidding." - I'll let this pass, since the answer was sort of valid, although 'made'/'making' wouldn't be my preferred choice of words. 6. "How was it made?" - Neither the crowd nor the scientist has the answer (at least one admits they don't know). No one 'wins' this argument. 7. "I do not know, yesterday nothing was here except a small, particularly heavy looking mass." - He presented the model 'today' though, so now this whole chronology is messed up. 8. The audience immediately came to the conclusion that this lone man was crazy and merely wanted to rudely mock their intelligence, quickly they dispersed. - The audience is lacking in education, and obviously have poor social skills to treat the scientist in an appropriate manner. 9. Are you the scientist from my story or just in the crowd asking all the questions. - Neither. The 'story' fails.
If you follow the news when intelligent design goes to the courts, or tries to make ID-friendly science standards, it becomes easy to see that most ID supporters want to teach a Bible-based account of creation, in which God makes the Earth in six days and Adam and Eve lived at the same time as all other life forms on Earth, including the dinosaurs. This account is obviously false as it contradicts the evidence, whether the universe is designed or not.
If I were in your story, I would be a member of the crowd asking questions, but I wouldn't leave with the others. I would stay to try to figure out how the model works. Perhaps it would be possible to figure out the answers to my questions by examining the model myself, just as it may be possible to figure out the origin of the universe by examining it. I might try to figure out whether it was impossible for people to have built the model. If the scientist is not lying, he must have a reason to believe that the model popped into existence.
Scientists have made a great deal of progress in figuring out the beginnings of our universe, but there are still many unverified hypotheses and many unanswered questions about how it all started. I see no reason to posit an intelligence to answer those questions. If the universe is so complex that it had to have been designed, shouldn't the designer be even more complex, and therefore designed by some even greater intelligence?
Irreducible complexity has been falsified in every attempt. The bacteria flagellum is a prime example of an evolutionary process and the steps of its development have been illustrated thoroughly by evolutionary biologists. My computer at work has no sound, but as another user has pointed out, the video is a satire... but you probably already knew that, didn't you? An atheistic intelligent design hypothesis is not completely uncommon, though. It just doesn't include a deity.
The message here is that the universe was "obviously" created for some "purpose", and that scientists (or atheists) believe that it came from nothing.
All we know about the universe is that it is here and that it expanded. We don't know how it came to expand. We don't know what happened before that expansion began. I am comfortable not knowing, and I am comfortable not filling those gaps in my knowledge with a god, several gods, hyperintelligent shades of blue, or great cosmic space goats. I just don't know how the universe came to exist; and I don't see a "why" to it, either. What would be the point of putting sentient beings on a speck of dust with some water on it on the edge of an average galaxy with so much space between their world and the next discovery that it would take a lifetime to get to the first one? It doesn't make sense.