[CarolinaGuitarman]

"It was intelligently designed and that’s the point --- ID does not ‘need’ to be ‘supernatural’."

This is essentially the argument that because we ourselves can intelligently design things, therefore intelligent design is true for the origin of life and for the evolution of life through time. The fact we can design something says NOTHING about whether life has been intelligently designed.

ID cannot help but be supernatural. It is the assumption that natural means could not possibly produce the complexity we see. It is an argument from incredulity; "I can't imagine it so it must not be possible for nature to do it with no outside help". People used to imagine that God had to move the stars and planets in their orbits; it was inconceivable that natural processes could produce the order we see in orbital motion. We now know that to be not true; ID looks for areas where we may not have complete knowledge and assumes we never will. It is a defeatist philosophical position, unworthy of Galileo and Newton and Darwin.

[js1138]

Behe, Dembski and Denton have all accepted the historical fact of evolution and have now retreated to what is essentially fine tuning or anthropic principle.

[Heartlander]

Why? The Multiverse Theory states that billions of universes spit out into existence and we were just lucky. It states that there are junk universes “all the way down” allowing our existence. It states that billions of universes have been popping up from the alpha and omega.

Why can’t the founder of DNA be correct in his assumption that we were seeded here especially since we are currently looking for intelligent life?

Do you have proof that our material consciousness ultimately comes from mindlessness?