[Fester Chugabrew]

Omnipotence IS a qualification for the designer of the universe.

But that is not what I said. I said omnipotence is not a requirement for intelligent design. Again, the fact that an intelligent designer has the potential to do something or not do something has no bearing on whether or not we are dealing with an intelligent designer in the first place.

The presence of organized matter may be reasonably interpreted as an indicator of intelligent design. The absence of organized matter may be reasonably interpreted as an indicator of unintelligent non-design. Organized matter happens to be a large part objective reality. In every case it may be interpreted as supporting the assumption of intelligent design. In fact, in every case that human reason and senses are able to apprehend reality, the case for intelligent design is strengthened, for intelligent design by its very nature entails intelligibility.

Now, if someone wants to come along and say in the name of science that organized matter, or intelligible phenomena, cannot reasonably be interpreted as evidence intelligent design, and say so without offering a viable alternative, I would say the case is very strong for that person to be an ideologue or philosopher, but not a scientist. For that person will be denying the objective reality that is offered up for science to explore in the first place.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" But that is not what I said. I said omnipotence is not a requirement for intelligent design."

We are not talking about human designers, we are talking about the designer of the universe. That is what the fuss is all about with ID. For the designer of the universe, omnipotence IS a requirement.

"The presence of organized matter may be reasonably interpreted as an indicator of intelligent design. The absence of organized matter may be reasonably interpreted as an indicator of unintelligent non-design."

And visa-versa. As you have already admitted.

"Now, if someone wants to come along and say in the name of science that organized matter, or intelligible phenomena, cannot reasonably be interpreted as evidence intelligent design, and say so without offering a viable alternative, I would say the case is very strong for that person to be an ideologue or philosopher, but not a scientist."

The alternative is one you have said is also viable, that organized matter is a result of unintelligent design. You said there is no way to make the choice between the two options without bringing in subjective elements. That's your stated position Fester.