So you are claiming intelligent design has to prove origins, but evolution does not.
Funny how evols like to hold everyone else to a higher standard than they, themselves, are willing to adhere to.
But a designer would be even more complex, requiring a more complex designer, etc.
Possibly. That's not part of the theory of intelligent design, just as origins are not part of the theory of evolution.
In creationists arguments. . .
::::sigh::::: Even when the difference is pointed out to you between Intellligent Design and Creationism, you refuse to see it.
Evolution explains origins of species not origin of either life or the universe. You need to deal with that simple concept before continuing your argument.
That's not part of the theory of intelligent design
Please explain to me in layman's terms exactly what is the "theory of intelligent design" and what testable predictions it makes. I really am trying to understand what you're talking about.
No, intelligent design has to demonstrate via evidence and falsifiability criteria that it better and more consistently explains observable phenomena than the Theory of Evolution (without resorting to "and then another miracle occurred and giraffes were made, and then another miracle happened and elephants were made, and then another miracle happend and the Bubonic plague was invented). That's all it has to do. That it does not, has not, and really as of this moment has no serious prospects of so doing makes it next to worthless as a scientific alternative to the TOE.
So you are claiming intelligent design has to prove origins, but evolution does not.
No, he isn't. He is examining the claims that ID *does* make about origins.
Funny how evols like to hold everyone else to a higher standard than they, themselves, are willing to adhere to.
Funny how the anti-evolution folks seem to have problems with basic reading comprehension.
::::sigh::::: Even when the difference is pointed out to you between Intellligent Design and Creationism, you refuse to see it.
I must have missed it -- what *is* that alleged difference?
Also, please note that creationism is the position that life was created by some creator. ID is the position that life was created by some designer. Er, designed by some creator. Whatever.
Please explain the "difference" here, and why ID is not creationism.
There is a fundamental difference between evolution and ID. Evolution explains biodiversity by natural processes which can be studied and tested. ID explains biodiversity by stating that a designer is responsible for biodiversity. It's no more permissable for ID to ignore questions about the designer than it would be for evolution to ignore questions about mutations and natural selection. Evolution CAN ignore questions about the origin of life because evolution doesn't even attempt to explain the origin of life. ID cannot ignore questions about the nature of the designer because the designer is the fundamental postulated mechanism of ID. Saying "we don't know anything about the designer" is analogous to an evolutionary biologist saying "we don't know and we don't need to know how mutations occur or how natural selection works." You cannot just hand wave away questions about the origin and nature of the designer because that's the basic mechanism of the whole idea of ID. At least you can't if you want ID to be taken seriously as science.