[Southack]

"The concept of man-made design is understood, but does not of itself prove -- or even give evidence for -- the ID conjecture. All your claims and conjectures notwithstanding, we have zero evidence of some celestial designer tinkering around with DNA."

You seem to be both agreeing with the evidence yet disputing its validity (a decidedly self-contradictory position to hold).

You agree that Man is intelligent. You agree that Man has designed things (including programming DNA via gene-splicing), yet you dispute that there is any evidence that any intelligent process tinkered with DNA.

Also, what does your introduction of a "celestial" designer have to do with anything? If one intelligent process can be shown to design DNA, then other intelligent processes are not needed to validify the theory of Intelligent Design.

[griffin]

Must say I'm very interested in your defenses. Well done. Can't wait to digest all of it. Have only read a small portion but have wondered for a long time whether the second law of thermodynamics could be studied to obtain useful insights into the subject on the ability of life to form randomly.

If we look at entropy, with the notion of applying it to amino acids and DNA processes, can we draw any analogies toward natural processes progressing along the trend of increasing disorder??

At any rate...BUMP for further study! :)

[PatrickHenry]

You agree that Man is intelligent. You agree that Man has designed things (including programming DNA via gene-splicing), yet you dispute that there is any evidence that any intelligent process tinkered with DNA.

Right. Because the premise [man designs things] has zero rational relationship to your conclusion [therefore somebody designed our DNA].