Coyoteman, I must tell you that people like you who can’t see the “evidence” for intelligent design actually frighten me.
The simplest known living cell is perhaps more complex than all of man’s technology, and we are virtually clueless about how it could have come into existence by purely naturalistic, random mechanisms ... but you don’t see any “evidence” of ID.
And the idea that we understand how the evolution of complex organs occurred is nonsense.
Several months ago, I challenged someone here on FR to cite a peer-reviewed scientific paper explaining *in detail* how the human ear evolved or could have evolved.
What happened? Someone provided a link to a little three-page document that simply glossed over the problem at a very high level. But all evolutionists need is the slightest hint of plausibility, and they are satisfied that their theory is rock solid. They are absolutely deluded.
Oh, and some bozo here on FR snickered about how embarrassed I must be for not finding the three-page paper on the ear, as though the link even remotely answered my challenge. But that’s the kind of baloney that occurs constantly.
The slightest hint of plausibility is taken as a “mountain of evidence” in favor of Darwinian evolution, but *real* “mountains of evidence” for ID are casually dismissed with a wave of the hand.
People who cannot recognize the overwhelming evidence of ID in nature are frightening. You close your eyes and then proclaim that the world is dark, and no one can convince you otherwise. What scares me is what other absurdities you are willing to believe.
While I am convinced that order and complexity are evidences of intelligence and design, I am also convinced that randomness is not evidence of lack of intelligence or design.
The world is chock full of order and complexity that are known to have intelligence as it’s cause. Sometimes we know who the designer is, sometimes just that it’s a human; intelligent nevertheless. This establishes a precedent that can lead one to conclude that where order and complexity exist and the designer is not known, a designer was necessary.
Likewise, randomness is no evidence of lack of intelligence or design. Randomness is used by people in something as simple as a random number generator. It can be designed in systems where variety or unpredictability is needed.
There is no situation where randomness can be used to demonstrate lack of intelligence or design where it is not assumed to start with. The best anyone can do is say that they don’t know if there was intelligence behind either the order and complexity, or the randomness.
You can’t support an argument by assuming the conclusion. It’s not logical to say that because there’s no evidence for a designer, you have to assume there isn’t one and then say that randomness is therefore proof that there’s no designer.
Evos are always looking for *scientific* evidence only for a designer, yet they provide no evidence to disprove a creator, nor do they give any idea of what they would consider *scientific* evidence to show one. What is offered as patently obvious to the most casual observer, that is order and complexity, is considered *unscientific* for some reason. Both can be observed, measured, tested for. What else do scientists want?