First of all, as it now stands, evolution has no theory of abiogenesis, which makes it kind of like a high-rise built without a foundation or the first three floors.
That's not a good analogy. The architect isn't expected to create her own dirt, she basically just needs to understand how much of a load it can hold up without sagging.
Secondly, if I were to find a tablet on the moon with writing on it, would I need to know the name of the alien race which put it there or know which star they hailed from to say that it was the creation of an intellegent being rather than a random accident caused by micro-meteoric impacts and solar wind?
But how would you know the object is a "tablet", and that whatever squiggles you see on its surface is "writing"?
Neither does ID need to name the Designer in order to infer one from the complexity of even "simple" organisms or the mathematical odds of such a thing appearing by chance (which very quickly start to compare to the number of atoms in the universe multiplied by the number of seconds since the estimated time of the big bang).Oh c'mon. Surely you've been around these parts to know that that's one of the oldest entries in the Kreationist Kornocopia of Kanards.
*chuckle* But she still needs a first floor, right?
Look, Jenny, normally I'd be perfectly fine with the admission of ignorance--which is the start of all knowledge, after all. But given that one of the primary objections to the scientific nature of ID theory is that it does not say just who the Designer is, I'm not of a mind to cut you guys any slack here.
If ID isn't scientific because it does not contain all the answers, then neither is evolution; you can't have it both ways.
But how would you know the object is a "tablet", and that whatever squiggles you see on its surface is "writing"?
Now you get into the true scientific question of ID theory: What differentiates an object that has been created or acted upon from one which has been shaped by natural forces? Is there a definite, mathematical way to define design, or is it just a matter of instinctively knowing the difference? And which does life fall under?
So far, ID deals mostly with the mathematical odds of an object being in its current form due to natural shaping or intellegent design. But given that the theory itself is in its infancy, I wouldn't be surprised to find some new insights and techniques and models develop over time.
In the meantime, can you tell the difference between a sheer granite cliff and a worked stone wall? Can you tell the difference between a simple weathered rock and one which has been carved with symbols or shapes by a tool? Can you do so even without a scientific criteria?
Surely you've been around these parts to know that that's one of the oldest entries in the Kreationist Kornocopia of Kanards.
And yet, the math stlll holds, valiant attempts to disprove it notwithstanding. Sorry, but Carrier's article is full of holes itself. For example, just to pick the first section, he presumes, without proof, that there are "many" ways to encode life. Given that we have a sample of exactly one, how exactly does he arrive at that opinion? He also assumes the existence of living cells far, far simpler than what we have today--another unevidenced assumption.
Further, he misses the point. There are many ways to encode an operating system for a computer. That doesn't change the fact that, jokes about Windows aside, no operating system has ever conceived itself by accident. Let's go one simpler: There are many ways to encode a self-replicating computer virus, but they don't happen by accident either. In all cases, one or more intellegences carefully crafted them--and a simple replicating cell is far more complex than a computer virus.
That's ignoring the fact that 10^415 is such a high number that you could have a google (10^100) ways to encode a lifeform and still have only a 1 in 10^315 chance, which would still put it over the 10^18 seconds estimated to have passed since the big band times the 10^96 atoms estimated to make up the universe by a factor of 10^219!
And I'll wager that there aren't a google different ways to encode complex, self-replicating, evolving life.
It's telling that you put every Creationist or ID claim under the microscope to find some flaw, but latch onto any article supporting evolution completely uncritically.