Replies

But you still can't provide a hypothetical observation that would conclusively show that no intelligent designer ever interfered with the historical development of life on earth.

Why would I waste time inventing such a test, when I know that human intelligent designers not only have, but continue, to interfere with the development of life on Earth? The influence of intelligent design, as a general principle, is an established fact.

Nobody is arguing that intelligent design is impossible.

Some are....

People are arguing that either life evolved without any intervention from an intelligent designer

Which we know for a fact to be untrue, at least for as long as humans have been around.... Further, it is nothing more than unsupported assumption to claim that intelligent intervention only began when humans came on the scene.

or in my case that the idea of intelligent intervention in life is not scientific.

Which is also a false claim, since we both know that intelligent intervention can and does occur.

So humans caused the first single celled creatures to evolve into eukaryotes, and then into multicellular creatures? If not, then give me a way to test and see if some other intelligent designer did so. We are talking about different things. Certainly humans have interfered with the development of species for the past 30000 years or so. As far as I know, this is not what ID claims, however, nor is it particularly controversial. ID typically claims that some pre-human intelligence has interfered with the development of species at some point during the past billion or so years. What observation would falsify this claim (which we don't know for sure happened)? This is the claim that I am maintaining is not scientific. Not all true claims and ideas are scientific, BTW.

"Why would I waste time inventing such a test, when I know that human intelligent designers not only have, but continue, to interfere with the development of life on Earth?"

Petitio principii - aka 'begging the question'. If you're trying to convince someone of your argument, you can't simply assume that they agree with your premise (that human intelligent designers interfere with the development of life on Earth). If you're not trying to convince him, then you're arguing just to argue, and that's rather silly. :-)

"The influence of intelligent design, as a general principle, is an established fact."

That's a statement, not an arguments. If you're going to argue that, you should back it up with examples of evidence, rather than simply stating it as being intriniscally factual.

"Which we know for a fact to be untrue, at least for as long as humans have been around"

Again, a statement without supporting evidence isn't an argument - it's just a statement.

"Which is also a false claim, since we both know that intelligent intervention can and does occur."

And we've come full-circle back to petitio principii. You make an assumption of agreement about the premise to support a statement contradictory to what the other person has argued.