If I am a conservative and libertarians are conservative, that doesn't mean I am a libertarian.
If I am an ID advocate, and creationists are ID advocates, that doesn't mean I am a creationist.
The argument from design is as old as the bible, and I think it makes sense that this marvelous complexity did not make itself. Someone has simply found a way to quantify that using statistics and probability.
What do you think?
It means you're one of the few who have been suckered by the creationists' ID scam.
The argument from design is as old as the bible ...
Older, probably.
... and I think it makes sense that this marvelous complexity did not make itself. Someone has simply found a way to quantify that using statistics and probability.
It makes no sense that all the evidence for evolution is a mass delusion. And you've been suckered further by a bunch of nonsensical statistics.
The problem is, he hasn't. As the sage once said, "there are lies, damned lies, and statistics." These arguments based upon statistics and probabilities are using incomplete sets of data. For example, if you wanted to determine the probability of A from an incomplete set of A, B, C, D, you'd conclude A occurs 25 percent of the time. However, if more data crops up expanding the set to A, B, C, D, A, A, A, A ..., you'd be wrong. This is basically the old "God of the Gaps" argument in new cloth.
You present a false presentation of the argument. The true argument lies in the assertion that complexity cannot arise spontaneously. If life on our particular earth could not have arisen except through design, then how did the designers arise?
Moving the origin of the designers back in time doesn't help, since the earth has been around for a large fraction of the age of the universe.
Moving the designers to some distant planet doesn't solve the problem of their origin.
ID is stealth creationism because it requires complex life to be made by an unmade creator. The designer cannot be a living (biological) being.