The (un-)Intelligent Designer

The Intelligent Designer: A Most Unintelligent Concept


For readers who are unacquainted with the concept of Intelligent Design, the reasoning behind the proposition of Intelligent Design goes something like this:

  • Life on Earth is far too complicated to have arisen from simple mechanisms, particular the simple (and blind) mechanism of Darwinian selection.
  • Therefore it must have arisen from something that is itself more complex than life on Earth.
  • The something we will term “The Intelligent Designer”.


Any serious scientific discussion is prepared to question everything. This is not limited to just the results of experiments, for example, but also question the validity of experimental methods and indeed the purpose of science itself. (As an aside, anybody who asserts that people who argue scientifically accept science “in blind faith” are woefully ignorant of the scientific method, and are crazy to think that they have anything useful to contribute in this arena.)

Given this, it is then perfectly legitimate for scientists to then ask “Who (or what) designed the Intelligent Designer?”. The response of people who feel threatened by this question is “That is not a legitimate question!”, which demonstrates their inability to engage in any meaningful philosophical or scientific discussion. Such individual almost always go on to cite their own holy book, giving reasons (and arguments) as to why that book is correct. This is pure folly on their part, of course, because they have already discredited their own ability to think in the eyes of their audience.


From my own observations, such people, like the poor, will always be with us. It is pointless trying to make them think coherently: their cognitive dissonance is an addiction in their lives. The task of free thinkers is ensure that the damage inflicted on society by such individuals is minimised as much as possible.


About notoreligion

I was a victim of religious predators as a child. I am here to oppose their ongoing evil.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to The (un-)Intelligent Designer

  1. Matt says:

    Sure it may be a legitimate question but if you are questioning a faith the most logical way to answer would be to quote the book of which the faith is based upon. Personally i believe that the “inteligent designer” was not designed and was always there. there is no scientific way to prove this as there is no scientific way to prove that there is or was an intelligent designer. However iam interested in science and i would like to ask an equivalent question. The theory of the big bang of which i understand (which is not much, though i do believe it happened) is that matter formed from energy because of some particle they are trying to find called the higs particle or something like this. But where did the energy come from? Personally i believe that there must be something that is eternal something that has always excisted and if the energy was always there what caused it to become mass at one particular time. It seems completly ilogical to me that there was a beginning without something external. Newtons first law a body will remain at rest or at its constant velocity unless acted upon by an external force

    • notoreligion says:

      Scientists know that they do not know what caused the Big Bang, and that they (and so we) may never know. As I understand it, there are several theories about what might have come before the Big Bang, but there is currently no way that we can test any of those theories. We don’t even know if the Higgs boson exists or not. If it is found, it might be helpful in understanding what happened at or soon after the Big Bang, but I certainly wouldn’t be betting any money on that.

      I long ago gave up the idea that what might seem illogical with our universe cannot happen. Even the astronauts in the International Space Station are growing older more slowly than we are on the ground: work is now going on showing that two clocks, one a metre higher than the other, tick at different rates. That may seem weird, but it happens! 🙂

  2. Matt says:

    The question was not completely aimed at a scientific response as i guessed there was no absolute answer it was more to highlight the fact that science cannot prove everything and that at some stage you have to be a free thinker as you say and to me an external force such as a God is the most logical as aposed to a completely spontaneous explosion from nothing that defies science and logic.

    • Phil Hart says:

      You comment that “… a completely spontaneous explosion from nothing that defies science and logic.”. I would be interested to hear how you arrive at that conclusion.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s