Replies

If you read anything by the ID'ers, you'll find that they don't address HOW (or WHEN or WHO). They only address the concept of "this is so complex that it must have been designed."

Don't forget, they do a good bit of handwaving to "prove" that things are too complicated to be designed. What I have not seen, however, is a basis of comparison. I have not seen a single test for 'design' in the universe. The problem is that because they claim that the universe is designed, there's nothing 'not designed' to which they can point as a frame of reference.

The ID people are simply using an updated version of Paley's watch...a watch is to sophisticated to NOT be the result of design. Then they argued the eyeball is too complex, now Behe says biochemical pathways are too complex...

It's been the same basic argument for the past 150 years, but every time stemming from a fairly fundamental misunderstanding of the process.

Don't forget, they do a good bit of handwaving to "prove" that things are too complicated to be designed. What I have not seen, however, is a basis of comparison. I have not seen a single test for 'design' in the universe. The problem is that because they claim that the universe is designed, there's nothing 'not designed' to which they can point as a frame of reference.

I like to ask them "Who designed the designer?" Suddenly something extraordinarily complex doesn't need to be designed. It's the old turtle standing on a turtle theory -- a child-like conceptual ability. And they're so cute when they're asleep.

"The problem is that because they claim that the universe is designed, there's nothing 'not designed' to which they can point as a frame of reference. "

Trying to explain the concept of "light and dark" to creatures without eyes does not mean light and dark do not exist.

Try to explain "wet" to a creature that lives in water. It cannot comprehend, yet it is always "wet."

If you read anything by the ID'ers, you'll find that they don't address HOW (or WHEN or WHO). They only address the concept of "this is so complex that it must have been designed."

Don't forget, they do a good bit of handwaving to "prove" that things are too complicated to be designed. What I have not seen, however, is a basis of comparison. I have not seen a single test for 'design' in the universe. The problem is that because they claim that the universe is designed, there's nothing 'not designed' to which they can point as a frame of reference.

For me at least it has always come down to the fact that we don't know how matter/energy/life came to be. For some, saying that it came about by ID is sufficient. Then I ask the awkward question of - where the designer of ID come from. If the answer to both questions is something like - always been there, we have reached the same end by different routes.
I guess you have a choice between the St Thomas Aquinas crowd & the Renee DesCarte group - you pays your money & take your chances.