Talk:Multiple Designers
From EvoWiki
Admittedly, the "Multiple Designers" article is quite amusing from the standpoint of Intelligent Design, as will be shown. Comments will follow direct quotes from the article.
"One curious oversight of the Intelligent Design movement is their unwillingness to take seriously the abundance of evidence that points to multiple designers." One curious oversight of the Multiple Designers hypothesis is that it fails to see that in its attempts to debunk the Intelligent Design movement, it is inadvertedly supporting it! ID (which is commonly confused with one of its subsets, Creationism) does not specify the designer or number of designers of nature. The crux of the ID hypothesis is that THERE WAS AT LEAST ONE DESIGNER, and the neo-Darwinian account of randomness and abiogenesis is false. The number of designers is irrelevant.
"There is an abundance of evidence that if many of the features of the Earth's biota were designed, that those features were produced by a multitude of designers." This is a curious statement coming from an article that is supposed to rebut the possibility of ANY evidence for designer/designers or supernatural beings responsible for nature. Again, the number of designers is irrelevant to the question of whether or not nature was designed at all.
"Convergent Evolution often suggests multiple designers at work, as do Conflicting Designs." Another surprising and self-stultifying comment, since usually the purveyors of evolutionary mythology claim that there is NO evidence for any designers or intelligent minds behind nature, or that the existence of an IDer is beyond science and therefore untestable. How can there be "conflicting designs" if supposedly there was no design at all?!
"And an examination of the Religious basis of ID suggests an ulterior reason for not considering multiple designers: the belief that a single deity was responsible for all the designing. However, multiple designs could be attributed to the efforts of other such theologically-acceptable entities as angels and demons or to the deity's mysterious purposes." These statements indicate that the writer has no problem with polytheism or ID, and reveal a deep-seated bias against monotheism. The MDT is a red herring. -66.112.72.3
