[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.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" Laws imply a law giver or maker."

No, they really don't. A better term would be *regularity* at any rate.

" You have random or you have purpose. Purpose implies an intelligent force."

No, you have random and you have order.

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

Not only is it testable, it has been observed.

" Occam's Razor demands that the simplest explanation be accepted."

Actually, it demands that the simplest explanation that fits the facts should be accepted. ID fits every conceivable fact. It is an unnecessary proposition.

"You have, on one side, an intelligent force behind the interactive, precise structure of living forms, or unguided random causes."

No, you have regularities that we call laws.

"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."

The simplest conclusion is that natural processes are responsible for what we see. ID is an untestable addition that adds nothing to our understanding of the universe, but instead places a stop-sign on further research because if you say that *God did it*, what else is there to know?

"You have to duck and weave with opaque reasoning, and presuppose the conclusion otherwise, making the explanation contrived and complex."

True, ID does have many logical flaws.

[Dimensio]

Laws imply a law giver or maker.

This is a semantic argument, using a truth behind one definition of "law" to make a claim about a different definition. This is not a valid line of reasoning.

[atlaw]

Occam's Razor demands that the simplest explanation be accepted.

Occam's Razor is, in effect, a restatement of the principal of parsimony. It can be stated variously as -- one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything -- or -- one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed.

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.

Although creationists repeat on a regular basis that the "simplest explanation" is creation ex nihilo by a supernatural agent, and that this supposedly "simple explanation" is consistent with Occam's Razor, it is in fact a direct violation of Occam's Razor.

This "simple explanation" involves the introduction of an invisible, undefined, unexplained, and inexplicable entity -- thus adding (or superimposing) on that which is being explained an unnecessary entity or an additional assumption that is itself incapable of explanation.

[Conservative Texan Mom]

I agree with you regarding the application of occam's razor. Nature seems to be a mechanism of design. If that is so, science would only be discovering the way in which that mechanism works.