So there's no proof one exists, and in fact many of us believe it's impossible, but you want us to work on it anyway?
I have no problem with anyone pursuing it, on their own time.
I believe that a true study of designed vs. undesigned objects would show that simplicity is an aspect of design and that unnecessary complexity is an aspect of evolved objects.
Then I presume it's settled that we're the result of evolution, because the human genome has the biggest collection of garbage you've ever seen.
Right Wing Professor: So there's no proof one exists, and in fact many of us believe it's impossible, but you want us to work on it anyway? I have no problem with anyone pursuing it, on their own time.
I think that's all that is needed: let others pursue it. You can sit back and say "unproven" and I will be right with you. But instead of beating on ID as unprovable and making personal attacks let the ID adherents try to make their case.
me: I believe that a true study of designed vs. undesigned objects would show that simplicity is an aspect of design and that unnecessary complexity is an aspect of evolved objects.
Right Wing Professor: Then I presume it's settled that we're the result of evolution, because the human genome has the biggest collection of garbage you've ever seen.
That's the point. Not settled. Still in doubt. Just because I or you or any number of scientists think it will not show what the ID adherents expect it to show is no reason to reject it.
My biggest disagreement with the anti-ID crowd is their refusal to believe the possibility of measuring the likelihood of something being designed. I strongly suspect that a measure similar to entropy can be used.
By Gosh, I think he's got it!
But is it God's evolution or Chaos's?