Replies

So, then what goes on in science labs is meaningless, too, because then all that order and complexity of a scientific experiment is just the result of random electrical impulses firing between synapses in a scientists brain complied with the random actions of said scientist.

Your statement is a non-sequitur. I have never claimed that mental functions are "random electrical impulses".

Again, not true. The reasons to accept that intelligent action is behind ALL order is because it's logical to presume so from precedent set by what we do know.

But, as you have stated previously, there is no means of "knowing" otherwise. You yourself have stated that it is impossible to know that there is no undetected design involved in a process where no detectable design is involved.

If you believe that your explanation is scientific and valid, then please provide a hypothetical observation that, if made, would show that your claim is false.

"Your statement is a non-sequitur. I have never claimed that mental functions are "random electrical impulses".

****The above is Metmom's statement. It is clear that the statement is sequitur to the discussion. This was her example whether you made claim or not, is unimportant. This was her example as you have used examples, although they are in fact, non-sequitur by being evasive and distracting. But, clever nonetheless and in my opinion, works to fulfill an effort of disinformation. Being this is my stated opinion, it is correct unless proven otherwise. So, it is my opinion vs yours. Show me different and we both win......I win because you taught me something, if you can't I "win" (for lack of a better word), because we come to a stallmate......a win by default.

You yourself have stated that it is impossible to know that there is no undetected design involved in a process where no detectable design is involved.

Please provide reference. That statement doesn't make sense. The cases where we know there is intelligence behind the design, support the contention that in cases where order and complexity occur and it's indeterminate if there was a designer or not, it's reasonable to conclude there was because cases we know of where intelligence was behind the design support the conclusion. There is no basis by which to conclude that there is no designer behind the order and complexity we see in nature because there is nothing in our experience to support that.

Looking at *nature* (the physical world) and declaring that order and complexity can exist without intelligent design because the universe exists and there is order and complexity in it (as the minuscule examples of something as simple as crystal formation) is starting with the idea that the universe came into existence without intelligent design. So one is, in effect, trying to prove the conclusion using the conclusion one wants to arrive at as the basis to support the argument. That is illogical. The universe can't give us an example of something that is orderly and complex without ID by the fact that it simply exists because that argument is based on a premise that cannot be supported in any way.

The way that ID is supported is that it is at least the logical conclusion that order and complexity in the man-made world indicate intelligence behind it, so order and complexity in the natural world indicate intelligence behind it. The only difference is a matter of scale. We create according to our knowledge and abilities; he does to his. We make cars and computers; he makes a universe.

If you believe that your explanation is scientific and valid, then please provide a hypothetical observation that, if made, would show that your claim is false.

Consistent as this odd request may be with various postmodern intellectual disorders, I must ask why you don't consider the obvious alternative. That is, to ask him to supply an observation that shows his claim is true.