The point I'm getting at is: IDers claim irreducible complexity is the surest argument for design. I say that it's the greatest argument against design there is. Our brains may still be evolving, but they still run by the same fundamental algorithims which evolved during the period we were living in the savannah, and we're not that much intelligent than our ancestors of a million years back were. The supposed complexities of our modern technology emerged not spontaneously from individual minds, but required years of accumulated knowledge-and one of the reasons I am a conservative is that I believe that any true "progress" (and progress is a word which the left is quickly perverting, hence the quotation signs) is dependent on the preservation of the tradititions which have led us to these heights. There is no way you can convince me that any one "designer" is capable of knowing how to create life, in all its myriad forms and ways, much less the entire universe, unless you are willing to give up your notions of a single omnipotent and omniscient being. And don't give me any of this "lord works in mysterious ways" hocus-pocus. Science is based not just that which is already known, but that which is potentialy knowable, and by maintaing that your beliefs deny such potential, you are admitting that they do not belong in the classroom, much less serious scientific discussion.
For further info on the field of evolutionary epistemology, I recommend Evolutionary Epistemology, Rationality and the Sociology of Knowledge, edited by Gerard Radnitsky and W.W. Bartley (the latter a Hoover Institution fellow until his death). It includes pieces by Sir Karl Popper, who is actually regarded as the founder of the field, and it's probably a more important, but less famous contribution to philosophy than his notion of falsification. I was also surprised to learn that F.A. Hayek wrote one of the earliest tracts in evolutionary psychology, The Sensory Order.
Along those same lines I would argue that even if life were poofed into existence it would have to include evolution as the mechanism for sustaining stability of the ecosystem.
We are glad that you have evolved so far beyond those of us who believe in the Creator. Guess what? God has a plan for your life too! You just don't know it.
Yes, good question. The fossil record, which shows that about 90% of the "designed" species that ever lived have gone extinct, calls the designer's knowledge into question. Clearly, the designer is either:
(1) a cosmic crackpot -- a possibility I mention for completeness, but which I reject on theological grounds -- or,So the designer is either a maniac or an ignoramus. Going with option 2, the designer's gruesome fumbling around is what you'd expect from the trial-and-error method of natural selection.
(2) the designer's knowledge is faulty; otherwise he wouldn't have a 90% failure rate.
From her mother.