Replies

"Where did you hear/read that claim, CarolinaGuitarman? Source please???"

By definition, the designer must have designed everything. Or else there is no need for a designer. It is just a backwood way of bringing a deity into science. It hasn't fooled anybody. No serious proponent of ID believes in anything other then a God as the designer. William Dembski, a major proponent of ID and a fellow at the Discovery Institute said:

"The job of apologetics is to clear the ground, to clear obstacles that prevent people from coming to the knowledge of Christ," Dembski said. "And if there's anything that I think has blocked the growth of Christ [and] the free reign of the Spirit and people accepting the Scripture and Jesus Christ, it is the Darwinian naturalistic view.... It's important that we understand the world. God has created it; Jesus is incarnate in the world."

He slipped here, but ID isn't fooling anybody.

AG said:

"Also, because the intelligent design doesn't specify the designer, it could be an emergent property of naturalistic origins"

Why accept the idea of an intelligent designer if you also believe in the emergent properties of naturalistic order? The latter negates the need of the former.

Collective consciousness, Aliens, *emergent properties* of nature; these are used as a smokescreen. It's the same old biblical God of genesis in a different outfit. The old *scientific creationists* were at least a little more honest with their intentions.