Tópico: Intelligent Artists - a new branch of ID theory

[Buckaroo Banzai]

I'm the proponent of this new branch of ID, I call it "Intelligent Artists".

It can also be considered as a sub-branch of Richard B. Hoppe's Multiple Designers Theory. (Which actually came to my mind independently, but only as a rough, whereas Hoppe developed it more profoundly, see the link. I think that the fact that many people came to that conclusion independently strongly indicates the truth of the existence of many designers.)

Life and the natural world just looks like a collection of masterpieces. But no artwork can exist without at least one artist. But rather we can infer in nature that there are multiple styles of art, analogously with our human artistic movements, like Renaissance, modernism and etc.

I came up with this discovery because there was this awful problem of patterns that suggests biological descent, forcing us to assume that biogenesis is constant, which is risky and not empirical. We can't say that we witnessed that all the time, everywhere, life never arisen "spontaneously". Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Also, if we're obliged to accept abiogenesis at least for the first life, why not do that anytime we feel like? To not do that would be dogmatic, arbitrary and reductionist.

The inference of artistic schools or movements in the design of nature explains all the appearance of descent, without the problems of the assumption of descent. Primitive lifeforms were like primitive rupestral cave painting, which somewhat "evolved" during the course of civilization in different trends. Interestingly, we see much in common, such as, beautiful landscapes astonishingly ressemble landscape paintings. The flatfish (Pleuronectiformes) looks something made by a Picasso version of the Intelligent Designers/artists. That's not a surprise after all, if we remember that art is supposed to look like art.

Other things, which usually are credited as mere, meaningless materialist evolutionary accidents, like beetles species with their well formed wings held under fused elytra, may have some deep, artistic meaning, may be the way that the Artist (which may or not refer to one of the traditional gods of some creed) is expressing something about freedom and lack of freedom, it's a paradox, an internal conflict.

We can't close our eyes to the art that's in what we simply call "nature", discussing futilely if it's a product of mere random events, or of one or multiple designers interested merely in cold functional pragmatism. Only through the eyes of an art admirer we will truly and deeply understand nature, which must be felt, with emotions, not just crudely analysed. By the way that science is approaching nature now, and orthodox ID movement isn't doing anything to improve, a masterpiece like "La Gioconda" wouldn't be considered more than old pigments sticked and spread heterogeneously along a rectangular shaped tissue consisting in interlaced strips of some sort. Anyone who ever looked at Mona Lisa can see how much we are missing by this approach.


"The great men of science are supreme artists." Martin H. Fischer

"Every science begins as philosophy and ends as art." Will Durant, The Story of Philosophy, 1926