Replies

"You might want to read back through the thread and see who keeps introducing the words "necessity," "proof," "know," etc. as if these are necessary for a theory to be a theory."

I didn't say proof or necessity. Knowledge IS needed though.

"I consider the massive presence of organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws as good evidence for intelligent design, and from it I can infer some things about the intelligent designer."

And those assumptions you make are not logical nor scientific.

" Hint: the presence of pasta is, in my theory, interpreted as an object, not a subject, of intelligent design."

In mine it's the subject. There is no way to scientifically choose between the two.

'You have already said that EVERY CONCEIVABLE OBSERVATION is in line with your claim.'

"No. I've given at least one conceivable observation that would weaken my claim, namely the presence of disorganized matter that does not behave according to any predictable law."

Yes, you are contradicting what you said earlier when you said that EVERY CONCEIVABLE OBSERVATION is in line with your claim. I never said you were logically consistent. I was just pointing out your changing story.

"Another possibility would be for all matter to disintegrate into nothing. Both of these would weaken the theory considerably, but of course they would not disprove it. No theory can be disproven, and no theory can be proven."

Both situations would in no way weaken your claim, because an Omnipotent, omniscient being can do anything, including make matter that follows no regular laws, or make matter disintegrate. Are you going to put limits on what God can do?

I didn't say proof or necessity.

Post 954: "Taken alone or together, the two do not necessitate . . . " You're right, the presence of organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws does not "necessitate" intelligent design. It is simply good evidence, and that is all a theory needs to enjoy support. Intelligent design fits the evidence, and vice versa.

And those assumptions you make are not logical nor scientific.

O, they're plenty logical. They fit the theory of intelligent design well enough. They just don't meet with your satisfaction. But until you supply an example of disorganized matter that does not behave according to any predictable laws I will not be satsfied with your theory either, so we're even.

. . . you said that EVERY CONCEIVABLE OBSERVATION is in line with your claim.

Where did I say that? If I did, then I take it back. All known observation to date lends evidence to the theory of design, because observation necessarily entails organized matter. "Conceivable observations," otoh, bring in such phenomenon as flying spaghetti monsters. These things do not substantiate the theory of intelligent design in any way.