And you might be interested in pursuing a logical argument and presenting evidence for your position, instead of making silly posts about broken glass.
This sums up what some people buy in regard to design by stupidity. Stupidity, by definition, is lack of intelligence. When intelligent design is rejected we are left with design by stupidity. Methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism are by definition – ‘stupidity’ because they lack intelligence. How much are you willing to pay for the rare items? Perhaps a flagellum? A stupid universe? A mind (your mind)-- all from this stupidity?
Repeating the word "stupidity" six times does not constitute an actual rebuttal to anything I wrote in my post.
Nor is it correct to say that "stupidity" is "lack of intelligence". Stupidity is intelligence applied poorly. Attempting to rebut substantive points by consciously choosing to snicker about broken glass sales is stupid. Rain forming in clouds and falling due to the interplay of natural forces without intelligent intervention is not an example of "stupidity" at work. Neither is the process of evolution, which like the formation of clouds and rain and watershed systems, brings about structure through the shaping actions of natural events.
That's an entirely different thing than, say, this:
