Replies

Intelligent design is not a way of looking at the universe. It is a claim.

It is both. It is reasonable. To the extent it evaluates objective evidence, including organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws, it is scientific.

Finding unorganized matter would in no way lessen the likelihood of ID, because the designer can do anything and everything.

The designer is not defined or made evident by possibilities and potentials but by what is actually designed, built, and set into motion. The presence of unorganized matter that does not behave according to predictable laws would be uncharacteristic of an intelligent designer, and thus serve to undermine its presence or activity. Intelligent designers are not by definition omnipotent or able to do just anything. They may be bound by physical laws.

Finding a human in the Jurassic would be devastating evidence against evolution.

Nope. It could easily be explained away as an anomaly, much as when an old spark plug is found embedded in rocks that date "millions" of years old.

"It is both."

No, ID is NOT a way of looking at the universe. It is a claim about how the universe came to be as it is.

"To the extent it evaluates objective evidence, including organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws, it is scientific."

There is no extent it evaluates objective evidence.

"The designer is not defined or made evident by possibilities and potentials but by what is actually designed, built, and set into motion. The presence of unorganized matter that does not behave according to predictable laws would be uncharacteristic of an intelligent designer, and thus serve to undermine its presence or activity."

Uncharacteristic? Says who? If your designer can anything and everything, then nothing that can be found is negative evidence for their existence.

"Intelligent designers are not by definition omnipotent or able to do just anything."

You have in the past said that the designer could do anything.

"Nope. It could easily be explained away as an anomaly, much as when an old spark plug is found embedded in rocks that date "millions" of years old."

One specimen would rightly be skeptically received. A few, capable of independent verification of dates, would be devastating to evolution. The spark plug you reference, btw, was not in rock that could be dated with the available info. The *dating* was a joke.

To the extent it evaluates objective evidence, including organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws, it is scientific.

That's like saying 'to the extent that my cay plays Chopin Minuets'. ID has yet to perform the actions you cite.

Intelligent designers are not by definition omnipotent or able to do just anything. They may be bound by physical laws.

Yet no ID proponent has offered the slightest clue how the 'designer' would execute their design using known physical processes. They just wave their hands faster and faster.

Nope. It could easily be explained away as an anomaly, much as when an old spark plug is found embedded in rocks that date "millions" of years old.

Nonsense. If human remains were found in strata that had reliably dated to the Jurassic it would be major news.