I’ll bite: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-short-quiz-on-intelligent-design-for-both-advocates-and-opponents-of-id/
1. On a scale of 0 (diehard disbeliever) to 10 (firm believer), how would you rate your level of belief in Intelligent Design? (Minimal Definition of Intelligent Design: The idea that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and not by an undirected process.)
Update: When I say “certain features”, I mean, “certain generic features of the universe-as-a-whole (e.g. constants of Nature) and of living things in general (e.g. the specified complexity of DNA”. When I say “an undirected process” I mean a process lacking long-range foresight.
2. What do you regard as the best argument for Intelligent Design?
First off. Get over yourself atheists. I’ve read a lot of people saying things like “non – haha”. ID is a stance. It has a set of arguments. Many people find those arguments persuasive. By necessity, some of those arguments will be more logically sound than the others. Pick the best one. Jesus..
I’d say the fine tuning argument is the best argument that ID proponents have on their side. I made a video once where I said that complexity made it hard to believe in evolution. I guess, that being more foolish made be think that a while ago but I don’t think that anymore.
3. What do you regard as the best argument against Intelligent Design?
The argument from history & human nature. When we don’t understand things, we ascribe it to magic. The problem is, that we’re always wrong. We were wrong about Ra. We were wrong about the scarab beetle. We are wrong about lightning coming from God, disease as divine punishment. When we don’t know something we don’t know it. To say that to not know where something came from is to know where it came from. That is a logical contradiction.
4. I’d like you to think about the arguments for Intelligent Design. Obviously they’re not perfect. Exactly where do you think these arguments need the most work, to make them more effective?
ID proponents must do more than simply trying to bamboozle everyone with complexity. Evolution necessarily explains complexity otherwise it’d be useless so that is simply not enough. Also, enough with the design analogies. Yes, a computer is designed but we could not be.
5. Now I’d like you to think about the arguments against Intelligent Design. Obviously they could be improved. Exactly where do you think these arguments need the most work, to make them more effective?
By putting more emphasis on the problems I highlighted above. However, those are flaws I find in ID. Other people obviously think differently.
6. (a) If you’re an ID advocate or supporter, what do you think is the least bad of the various alternatives that have been proposed to Intelligent Design, as explanations for the specified complexity found in living things and in the laws of the cosmos? (e.g. The multiverse [restricted or unrestricted?]; Platonism; the laws of the cosmos hold necessarily, and they necessarily favor life; pure chance; time is an illusion, so CSI doesn’t increase over time.)
(b) If you’re an ID opponent or skeptic, can you name some explanations for life and the cosmos that you would regard as even more irrational than Intelligent Design? (e.g. Everything popped into existence out of absolutely nothing; the future created the past; every logically possible world exists out there somewhere; I am the only being in the cosmos and the external world is an illusion requiring no explanation; only minds are real, so the physical universe is an illusion requiring no explanation.)
Something like solipsism maybe; or variants of it. I don’t really concern myself with such things. I’m only interested in reality.
Posted on: Friday, August 19, 2011 5:30 PM