[damondonion]

Id is basically nothing more than the correct claim that it is possible to describe a rational system for determining what could and could not arise in haphazard fashion.

You walk up to a Maserati Merak for instance, open the engine compartment (behind the driver) and look at all of those downdraft Webber carburators, velocity stacks, and other complex components and ask yourself the question: "Could this have just sort of happened, i.e. could the wind and rain just sort of blown all of this steel, aluminum, porcelin, rubber etc. into this sort of a thing by haphazard chance?"

And then you realize that the simplest one-celled animal on the planet is vastly more complex than the Maserati engine, and the conclusion is pretty obvious.

In other words, it's only for the purpose of arguing with extreme blockheads like evolutionites that anything as complicated as ID is needed. Most people grasp the idea easily enough.

[Aquinasfan]

In other words, it's only for the purpose of arguing with extreme blockheads like evolutionites that anything as complicated as ID is needed. Most people grasp the idea easily enough.

Yup.

While the argument is purely rational and without need for Scriptural proof, the Bible nevertheless confirms this idea, and with an added warning.

Romans 1:20

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

[steve-b]

The sociopolitical doctrine based on the notion that complex systems can arise spontaneously and self-improve by natural selection is known as "the free market". The sociopolitical doctrine based on the notion that such self-organization doesn't work is known as "socialism".

The verdict is in, folks.

[RightWhale]

the conclusion is pretty obvious.

The conclusion is at best only as good as the major premise.

[RobRoy]

Wow! That post summed up my perspective so precicely that it is officially confirmed that one of us is redundant.

Since you posted first, I am the one that must be offed.

[joseph20]

Non-living matter is made of “complex components” as well.

Is it your position that non-living matter “could not arise in haphazard fashion”?

[ashtanga]

No matter how you slice it, it seems to the logical mind that reality was engineered. Some of the engineering is flawed by human standards -think of the appendix -but unthinkably complex cosmic architecture is improbable without intelligence. But then again, I am just a benighted grit dribbler from flyover country.

[dan1123]

>> And then you realize that the simplest one-celled animal on the planet is vastly more complex than the Maserati engine, and the conclusion is pretty obvious. <<

I think the real problem is that people in general *don’t* think that a one-celled organism is more complex than an internal combustion engine. You see, the engine had to have raw materials mined, chemically extracted and electrically separated before becoming metallic in its pure form. Then the metal needs to be heated to a high temperature and cast in precise interlocking moving parts. Based on the advocacy of evolution, a bacteria just chemically falls together given the right conditions that could be readily found in the early earth. Sure, the information in a bacteria is “complex”, but it didn’t (they claim) require an artificial step to get there.

I think the problem with ID is that Evolution has sold its story so well before molecular biology was understood. Can you imagine if ID came about as a serious competitor in the early days of Evolution? Discoveries of the molecular complexity of life would have been seen as the smoking gun in its favor.