Atheists, are you still arguing about intelligent design?

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.

Now, where's my cookie?

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.

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: "To worship its creator."

The audience, puzzled, asked: "Who made it?"

The scientist replied: "The invisible superman in the sky."

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: "Well the invisible superman in the sky took 7 days... (You know the rest)."

The audience immediately came to the conclusion that this lone man was crazy and merely wanted to rudely mock their intelligence, quickly they dispersed.

You've presented a logical fallacy known as an "argument from incredulity." In your story, it's hard for the audience to accept that the model wasn't created. But since you don't state that anybody made it, there's no reason to assume that somebody made it. Perhaps the scientist is telling the truth.

Likewise with the Universe. It may be hard to believe that it wasn't created, but without evidence of a creator, there's no reason to assume a creator. The origins of the Universe may just be beyond our current comprehension.

Let me point out the fact that in this case, the audience is asking the creator, yet in the real world, you theists aren't consulting your God to see what he thinks.

Unless the scientist did not create the model, which is probably what you mean: scientists who do not support God or creation do not reply with "it just appeared" or "it just happened". They actually know what they're talking about, and the incredulity of the "audience" does not prove him wrong. Research biological and chemical evolution and the Big Bang theory a bit more. An analogy only works if the components are actually analogous.

I see nothing more here than you gleefully waiting for people to fall into the trap of assuming things about you from this story. There's no point to this, and there certainly isn't a question here. What's this supposed to be an analogy of? The actual universe? What is it meant to prove? If you want to dance around the topic of what *you* believe so you can play the "Ahahaha, you just assumed I believe in God even though I never said I believe in God; caught you out, didn't I?" card, then how do you expect people to know what the hell you're trying to illustrate, and by extension, how to even begin to respond to this?

I get your point and all, but it only 'disproves' one side of the argument, and doesn't do anything to 'prove' the theory of creation.

Let me explain. The way you're putting it there, is that the 'big bang theory' is complete nonsense because how can something just appear out of nothing (or something, like a small bit of mass), right? Well, same thing for creationism. The theory of intelligent design is that God, or whoever you believe in, made the world the way he wanted it, but he basically said "let there be light, and there was light"... which at the same time, came out of nothing, but came to be because he wanted it there.

Gah. I'm making no sense whatsoever. I'm just saying, I get where you're going with that story, but it's incomplete.