[Fester Chugabrew]

It therefore is completely worthless. It explains nothing in particular.

It particularly explains why there is, on a universal scale, the presence of organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws. This is valuable because it relieves the observer from anticipating occasions where matter will behave in a way other than the intelligent designer intends. It is also valuable because it instills in the observer a sense of respect and awe for the manner and degree of detailed design with which the observable universe is imbued.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"It particularly explains why there is, on a universal scale, the presence of organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws. This is valuable because it relieves the observer from anticipating occasions where matter will behave in a way other than the intelligent designer intends."

You mean supernaturally? :) BTW, how do we have any clue what the designer *intends*? What's to stop the designer from breaking any of these predictable laws? Like I said, you were much more coherent when you used to argue YEC.

"It is also valuable because it instills in the observer a sense of respect and awe for the manner and degree of detailed design with which the observable universe is imbued."

I already had that awe and respect for the intricacies of natural processes without needing to invoke an untestable designer.

[Dimensio]

It particularly explains why there is, on a universal scale, the presence of organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws.

It doesn't explain this. It asserts a cause without evidence for the cause. There's a key difference, but because you insist upon lying about the very nature of science you will never acknowledge this.