[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Pure chance organizing basic elements into the vast interactive systems evident now, plant, animal and insect?"

The laws of nature aren't random. Chemical reactions are not random. Natural selection isn't random. Your premises are all faulty.

ID is a *gaps* claim; any present gap in our knowledge is filled in with *the designer did it*. It is an unnecessary proposition that adds nothing to our understanding of the world. It's also untestable. While it may be true, there is no way to differentiate between a *designed* feature and a naturally occurring one in nature. That being the case, Occam's razor demands that ID be discarded until such time it makes a testable claim.

Occam's razor cuts for me, not you.

[muawiyah]

Let's turn this on it's head. If "Occam's razor demands that ID be discarded until such time it makes a testable claim", then, given the existence of ADM and its extensive use of recombinant DNA technology to create new/modified lifeforms (Frankenfood to Europeans), then, ID must be correct (pointing to ADM as the "intelligent designer").

That's why you don't want to use that particular argument ~ it's of value if and only if we have a static Universe. Since we have a constantly changing Universe, which may even have variations in the speed of light over time (and all the other kinds of changes you might have with that sort of thing depending on when you live in the Universe), we really do need to stick with arguments that accommodate change.

This suggests, BTW, that Occam's razor is a fundamentally flawed doctrine and should, itself, be discarded.

[William Terrell]

The laws of nature aren't random. Chemical reactions are not random. Natural selection isn't random. Your premises are all faulty.

Laws imply a law giver or maker. You have random or you have purpose. Purpose implies an intelligent force.

You appear confused. Trans-species evolution is untestable, also.

Occam's Razor demands that the simplest explanation be accepted. You have, on one side, an intelligent force behind the interactive, precise structure of living forms, or unguided random causes.

Since the reflection of these systems would imply an intelligent cause to a reasonable person observing the result, the simplest explanation is that it was created and guided. You have to duck and weave with opaque reasoning, and presuppose the conclusion otherwise, making the explanation contrived and complex.