>>Can we show the actual designer? No- but I think we can show His handiwork to a degree that creates a strong beyond reasonable doubt conclusion that an omniscient Designer was needed<<
Do, I once again offer you the opportunity to show how to place an intelligent designer into any — ANY — scientific process, theorem, axiom or even hypothesis. Do we start the process, then burn incense? Rub blue mud into our navels? If we can’t directly affect nor predict the results based in materialistic rules then there is no point to science (I will break it to the tens of millions of scientists on the planet that they might as well just go join The Church Of The Intelligent Designer and ask Deep Thought to make things happen the way they would like).
Once again, just a modicum of knowledge about science would serve you and your ilk well.
You’re pretty funny so I look forward to another sloppy and lazy response.
Sign the List
Signers of the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism must either hold a Ph.D. in a scientific field such as biology, chemistry, mathematics, engineering, computer science, or one of the other natural sciences; or they must hold an M.D. and serve as a professor of medicine. Signers must also agree with the following statement:
“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/sign_the_list.php
Woopsie- many ARE turning away, or at least ceding that the natural process of Macroevolution does NOT explain how l ife got here
“Professor Colin Reeves
Dept of Mathematical Sciences
Coventry University
Darwinism was an interesting idea in the 19th century, when handwaving explanations gave a plausible, if not properly scientific, framework into which we could fit biological facts. However, what we have learned since the days of Darwin throws doubt on natural selection’s ability to create complex biological systems - and we still have little more than handwaving as an argument in its favour”
“Edward Peltzer, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute)
As a chemist, the most fascinating issue for me revolves around the origin of life. Before life began, there was no biology, only chemistry – and chemistry is the same for all time. What works (or not) today, worked (or not) back in the beginning. So, our ideas about what happened on Earth prior to the emergence of life are eminently testable in the lab. And what we have seen thus far when the reactions are left unguided as they would be in the natural world is not much. Indeed, the decomposition reactions and competing reactions out distance the synthetic reactions by far. It is only when an intelligent agent (such as a scientist or graduate student) intervenes and “tweaks” the reactions conditions “just right” do we see any progress at all, and even then it is still quite limited and very far from where we need to get. Thus, it is the very chemistry that speaks of a need for something more than just time and chance. And whether that be simply a highly specified set of initial conditions (fine-tuning) or some form of continual guidance until life ultimately emerges is still unknown. But what we do know is the random chemical reactions are both woefully insufficient and are often working against the pathways needed to succeed. For these reasons I have serious doubts about whether the current Darwinian paradigm will ever make additional progress in this area.”
http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/scientists/
On and on it goes- but of course all of htese more than 700 scientists must not be ‘real scientists or prophesors and specialists in their fields’ because they find that the mechanisms behind Macroevolution can NOT explain how life got here, right? They must all have a ‘religious agenda’ and just want to ‘sneak relgion and creationism into hte classroom, right? Lol Yeah right!
[[Do, I once again offer you the opportunity to show how to place an intelligent designer into any — ANY — scientific process, theorem, axiom or even hypothesis.]]
You tell me- you’re side has been doing that for a long time now- your intelligent designer is nature- but you can’t show how nature was able to create the itnelligent design- you simply just wave your hand and insist it must have
[[Once again, just a modicum of knowledge about science would serve you and your ilk well.]]
I think you meant to say ‘just an undying FAITH in naturalism and it’s miraculous, science violating abilities would aparently serve us well’ Macroevolution isn’t based on science- it’s based on a philosophical ideological beleif that straysd outside of science- again- let’s see the evidnece showing nature was soemhow able to violate scientific principles- or are you just goign to insult creationsits and ID’ists the rest of your life? If thats’ all you got- then whatever- we understand- being married to a failed hypothesis is like battered wife syndrome- you know it’s wrong to stay, but you just can’t leave because you think ‘one day things will be different’