Replies

Have you ever seen or detected any energy that derived from a non physical source? Energy from “outside” the physical universe?

So what about thermodynamics do you think physical reality is insufficient to explain?

Why are you avoiding my question about the “marks” of design?

If there are marks that indicate if something was designed, what in this universe designed by God would NOT have these marks? Are some things “more” designed than others?

You didn't answer my question. Energy exist. It is reality. Where did it come from according to thermodynamics?

Now, you are asking what isn't designed. That's a philosophical question, not a scientific one.

To state that DNA has the characteristics of design is not a philosophical question. It is a practical observation of nature.

Can you see the difference?

I will grant that saying everything is designed is far more useful -- it's the foundation of science in fact -- than assuming everything is by chance which is the paradigm that anti-IDist in effect advocate.

Classic science assumes design and attempts to find what the design is.

Are some things “more” designed than others?

Interconnectedness, interdependence, and the overall beauty of Creation point to a designer.

But some things are "more designed than others," in the sense that their existence can't be explained by purely natural causes --those things which are irreducibly complex.

Design can also be proved negatively. For example, it is impossible for scientists to create and build a machine that can meet the specifications of a human being. Ask an engineer if it would be possible to design a machine to the following specifications:

1) The machine must be molecular in size, to start. Over a period of 15 years, the machine must "grow itself" to weigh over 100 lbs.

2) The machine must "run" on organic materials, such as vegetation, meats, water and sunlight.

3) The machine must be able to move bi-pedally over any terrrain.

4) The machine must be able to move through water.

5) The machine must be able to "see," "hear," "taste," "touch," and "smell," and be able to differentiate between objects (i.e., apprehend things).

6) The machine must replicate itself. 7) The machine must be able to form logical propositions.

8) The machine must be able to learn, and to pass this learning on to other similar machines. 9) The machine must be self-healing. I could go on and on. The point is that it is simply impossible to design and build such a machine, given all the resources in the world and the world's greatest scientists. The idea is laughable, given the current state of the natural sciences.

Look at Asimo. As someone with a degree in mechanical engineering, I can tell you that Asimo is a very impressive machine, but an absolute joke, when compared to the human musculo-skeletal system --an absolute joke. Just look at it in a medical encyclopedia, and tell me how scientists could create anything remotely similar.

Now, if the greatest scientists could not create anything remotely as complex as a "human machine," how could blind material forces?

Are blind material forces and chance greater designers than the most intelligent scientists? Chance is a better designer than intelligence? The notion is absurd.