Replies

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.

"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."

So does the claim that the laws of the matter just *are*, by their nature. It fits the evidence exactly the same, without having to introduce an untestable, unobservable, *Designer* that can break any otherwise predictable law at a whim. Neither is a scientific claim, but the intelligent designer idea claims more than the evidence requires. The designer isn't NEEDED.

"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."

Why wouldn't an omnipotent, omniscient designer be capable of producing disorganized matter that didn't follow any regular, predictable laws? How can an entity be Omnipotent and be limited in what it can do?

"Where did I say that?"

Here:

"'You are defining EVERYTHING CONCEIVABLE as being intelligent design, a priori. This is absurd.'(CG)

"No more absurd than assuming the opposite, a priori. In fact, it is more reasonable."

"...it(ID) covers every conceivable situation in the known universe."