Replies

It is not as though the notion of "no intelligent designer" is falsifiable either. One can trump anything seen by saying, "Nature did it through unguided, undesigned processes." If you want falsibilty and testability alone to be the standard by which anything is rendered scientific, then what's good for the goose is good for the gander, baby.

If there is a.) such thing as intelligence, and b.) such thing as design, then there is no reason science cannot at some point reasonably test for it and detect it. You stretch science to the point of a gross caricature of reason in suggesting there is "no evidence for intelligent design" when so much matter is organized to carry out purposeful function on a scale both micro and macroscopic.

You've indulged your hatred of God to the point of insanity, and it is unbecoming.

"It is not as though the notion of "no intelligent designer" is falsifiable either."

I said specifically that both the proposition that a designer exists and that one doesn't exist is outside of science. I said specifically that neither can be falsified. Are we having reading difficulties?

"If you want falsibilty and testability alone to be the standard by which anything is rendered scientific, then what's good for the goose is good for the gander, baby."

As I already stated, multiple times. And I am NOT your baby.

"If there is a.) such thing as intelligence, and b.) such thing as design, then there is no reason science cannot at some point reasonably test for it and detect it."

Yes there is, because design cannot be defined without stating some characteristic (motivation, capability) of the proposed designer. Design can be anything you say it is, as you have already said.

"You've indulged your hatred of God to the point of insanity, and it is unbecoming."

You've practiced your willful ignorance to the point you have to lie about what people say. I have no hatred for God. I have a great distaste for mystical stupidity, which you have provided in abundance.

If there is a.) such thing as intelligence, and b.) such thing as design, then there is no reason science cannot at some point reasonably test for it and detect it.

Yes, BUT, the point the IDers keep missing is that "detecting a designer" depends heavily upon specific knowledge of the designer's abilities, methods, and purpose.

We can "detect design" when we find an ancient astrolabe because it is very much the kind of thing that humans are *known* to make, for *known* purposes, via *known* methods and materials, etc. etc.

However, the "IDers" keep refusing to pin down *anything* about the alleged "ancient designer(s)". Without knowing anything about an alleged "designer's" methods, purpose, capabilities, intelligence, history, etc., it is epistemologically impossible to determine whether any given object is or is not an instance of that hypothetical designer's "design". Is the pile of rocks in yon forest "designed" by this hypothetical designer in their current configuration? Maybe, maybe not -- who the hell can say?

If we find something on a distant planet that *looks* like a machine, can we determine whether it was "designed" by some unspecified and unknown designer of unknown purposes and unknown abilities? How the heck would we be able to know? What exactly would we test for? It might turn out that the *puddles* on the planet were designed by aliens who wanted puddles for some reason, while the "machine" was the result of some natural process like the formation of a clamshell or some bizarre natural process resulting from the planet's unique chemistry and weather which we did not yet understand.

The point is that in order to tell if thing X is the product of process Y, we *must* know enough about process "Y" in order to be able to determine what kinds of things it actually *is* likely to produce, and what it's not likely to produce, *and* enough about other processes that might be at work in order to make sure that we're not mistaking the results of process Y for the results of another process Z.

The way the "ID" folks refuse to say anything at all about their alleged "designer", the less we can actually conclude whether anything at all actually might or might not be the product of that mysterious designer. Heck, the mysterious designer my well produce "designs" that look NOTHING LIKE what we expect a human design to look like. Behe and his friends like to babble on about the "appearance of design" or an apparent "purposeful arrangement of parts", but what assurance do they have that their mysterious designer's works would even *appear* to be design to us, or involve anything at all like what *we* would consider "parts" or "purpose"?

You stretch science to the point of a gross caricature of reason in suggesting there is "no evidence for intelligent design" when so much matter is organized to carry out purposeful function on a scale both micro and macroscopic.

Really? What's the "purposeful function" of a snowflake?

You've indulged your hatred of God to the point of insanity, and it is unbecoming.

Now you're just ranting.