Yes, I operate with the presumption, the given, the obvious evidence, and the simple truth. Matter is organized. That implies design. It does not need to be explained away or falsifiable to be scientific. It only begs the question of those who would attribute organized matter to some other cause. What is it?
"Matter is organized. That implies design."
Or it could just be organized. There is no way to know either way.
" It does not need to be explained away or falsifiable to be scientific."
Sure it does. :)
"It only begs the question of those who would attribute organized matter to some other cause. What is it?"
How about... We don't know and have no way of knowing? :)
So, are salt crystals designed?
Again, you are mistaking your initial presumption for an established truth.
Matter is organized. That implies design.
Again, that is your *presumption*. If you ever get around to actually *testing* that presumption against reality, do feel free to get back to us.
It does not need to be explained away or falsifiable to be scientific.
It most certainly does.
It only begs the question of those who would attribute organized matter to some other cause. What is it?
Matter organizes itself through known, understood natural processes, including (for things which replicate) evolution.
For example, the organization in a snowflake arises due to the basic simple properties of water molecules. There doesn't need to be a deity manually assembling every snowflake personally in order to get it to end up in an organized shape. That happens naturally and in an unguided fashion due to the simple basic interactions of water molecules.
Order and complexity *does* arise due to natural causes. In the case of evolutionary processes, the amount of order and complexity can rise to astounding levels.
This alone cuts the legs out from under the "ID implication" -- the presumption that if something is ordered or complex, then there "must" be a designer at work.
That's not to say that we might not someday find something in nature that *was* the result of a designer twiddling things, but the point is that the IDers "must" presumption comes crashing down when it is pointed out that order and complexity *can* and *do* often arise through natural processes. Consequently, you can *not* make a conclusion (or even presumption) that finding ordered or complex things "automatically" demonstrates the existence of a designer. It doesn't, since those ordered or complex things may well be yet more examples of naturally-occurring order, *even* if we have not yet determined if or how those particular things came about naturally.
Because any given ordered/complex thing we find in nature *could* possibly have arisen naturally -- in the same way that a snowflake and a zillion other things are known to do -- it is a *fallacy* to conclude that any/all complexity in nature *has* to be the work of a designer. Futhermore, it is even fallacious to conclude that any/all natural order *implies* a designer.
In what way? How do you define 'organized'? Is a crystal 'organized'? Is an molecule organized? Is an atom organized? Is DNA organized?
"That implies design.
Why?