Replies

The only thing that this proves is that under certain conditions you get certain results. So it doesn't matter how these conditions came to be. That means you should get the same results whether the conditions were created or whether they occurred naturally.

The terms "natural" and "created" are not opposites. I am comparing "random chance" with "directed intelligence" here. My point is that an intelligent agent could have organized our universe. Experiments carried out by the scientific community all require ID to carry out, so they all have an ID bias which must be factored out in order to conclusively conclude that ID has no part in the process. Personally, I don't see how ID can be factored out.

So just because you carry a rock up a hill and it rolls down if you release it doesn't meant that this could only happen if some intelligent agent carried it to the top of the hill.

Agreed. My point is that there are many who assume that the rock could only have rolled down the hill without some intelligent agent involved.

To state that random chance is responsible for the rock rolling down the hill when the experiment is due to anything but random chance is a bit of a stretch.

But that's what I said in a previous post: you can NEVER rule out an intelligent designer. Everything that can be explained by natural means can also be said to be designed by a sufficiently sophisticated designer. So if you find a stone somewhere in the mountains you can analyze it and maybe you find out that it was formed under high pressure deep in the earth's crust several million years ago but it could also have been created just yesterday by an intelligent designer to look as it is now.
So I have to see one person who claims that just because something can have a natural explanation, it therefore cannot have been created by an intelligent designer.

To state that random chance is responsible for the rock rolling down the hill when the experiment is due to anything but random chance is a bit of a stretch.

But this is a non-sequitur! Again, it's like complaining that the experiment didn't use any test instruments that were made in Japan, and therefore its results cannot be valid in Japan.

BMCDA points out that you're hanging your hopes on an unfalsifiable argument. I'll put it this way: At some point it's simply perverse to keep claiming that there's really a group of cobbler's elves that come out only at night and stealthily make lots of shoes, yet are so diabolically clever that they'll instantly hide even if you try to surprise them by bursting in the door of the cobbler's shop at 2am really really fast.

It's perverse to claim that airplane crashes are caused by diabolically unseen gremlins performing childish pranks like loosening engine bolts in midflight only while one specific passenger is watching.

It's perverse to claim that ice in winter is really caused by the diabolically unseen IIF.

And it's perverse (certainly totally unnecessary) to claim that evolution is helped along by a diabolically unseen cobbler's elf called God.