Replies

So then you admit that ID does not yet have a "measuring stick" for design.

For "design" yes, for a "designer" no. I consider the application of the principles of detecting design to nature to be legitimate. What I said was that this is an area where a constructive debate can occur between ID proponents and its critics. My point is that the debate should be over the substance of what is being argued rather than ad homenim attacks, or conjuring up the religious bogeyman. You brought into question whether the principle of design was limited to man made objects. While I do not agree with your objection, I do respect it as a relevant argument. At least you are engaging in the substance of the argument. These threads would be a lot more productive if both sides would do so.

Say I put up a picture of a house and a picture of a rock, and ask people which one do they think was designed. Obviously, most people will say that the house was designed because it was build by humans. The rock was formed naturally.

But along comes ID. ID says that both the house and the rock were designed. Both ultimately were created by the "great designer" based on the complexity of the atoms which form the house and the rock. So ID finds design in everything.

Which is why using techniques that hint at man-made design fail for detecting design in general. Suddenly everything is designed and you have solved nothing. It does not help as a comparsion tool because you get the same result no matter what you test.