Is Intelligent Design Science?

This is quite a long debate that happened on the Liberal Forum, in which the poster restan created a topic called Intelligent Design without Religion. In response poster tharock220 created another topic called Scientific Evidence for Intelligent Design. What is quoted below is the  highlights of the combination of those two debates. I am the poster named subzer0 and I respond to many people who quoted me and then posted their comments and/or challenge. I reiterate merely their statements for brevity.

I will also add my comments outside of the quotes to help clarify terms or disagreements.

Technocratic_Utilitarian, on 25 October 2010 – 02:46 PM, said:

Designer = God. There is no real other interpretation.You talk a lot to say nothing.

subzer0 response:

No, what you have used is philosophy/theology to determine that the Designer is God. Not science.

Technocratic_Utilitarian, on 25 October 2010 – 02:57 PM, said:

He believes in an intelligent superbeing that created everything from nothing, yet was not created himself. The designer posited fits the definition of a god. There’s no other adequate term for what he believes in. It’s implied.

subzer0 response:

And you believe unguided, spontaneous and stupid (not intelligent) mechanisms created everything. LOL. The Designer posited fits science because it allows individuals to deduce through their religion/philosophy what the designer is. Also, gulp, you could even claim that NATURE itself was designer.

Its called explanatory power and it is great with ID, new-darwinists such as yourself are very close-minded and won’t allow any type of individual interpretation, you would rather shove the philosophical bias down their throat within the same peer-reviewed paper that has observations gleaned.


Now you can see the difference between Intelligent Design and neo-darwinist evolution. ID claims all these natural mechanisms of change (natural selection, environmental pressures, mutation) that form the diversity of life today, are a result of design. Neo-darwinist evolution claims that natural mechanisms of change that form the diversity of life today, are a result of random and spontaneous generation, they all act randomly with no fundamental guidance inferred.

Both positions are logically inferred by observing natural mechanisms. Both are equally scientific.


tharock220, on 25 October 2010 – 03:00 PM, said:

What’s going on here?? You asked what kind of organism is sensitive to light but has no “date processing center” and I gave you one. The evolutionary lineage is irrelevant. Irreducible complexity is wrong and it has been demonstrated, and it is in no way an argument for design.I’m no biologist, but if I had to guess, I’d say humans and jellfish share a eukaryote common ancestor, and I’d also say the lineages developed eyes independently. Since basically every other bilaterally symmetrical vertebrate has eyes like a humans I’d also say humans didn’t actually evolve eyes, but rather evolved from an an organism with eyes.

subzer0 response

I thnk many original ancestors were there, not just ONE common ancestor. Now why is your view more substantial and accurate?

Technocratic_Utilitarian, on 25 October 2010 – 03:07 PM, said:

You guys have a bad habit of writing a lot of words to say very little. Yes, non-intelligent mechanisms explain everything quite well. You prefer fantasy and mythology.

subzer0 response

No, I just think they are smart mechanisms ;D.

Technocratic_Utilitarian, on 25 October 2010 – 03:07 PM, said:

This statement in partcular: “The Designer posited fits science because it allows individuals to deduce through their religion/philosophy what the designer is” is meaningless gobbledeegook. Totally nonsensical.

subzer0 response

Read it again and realize bias and how true science conducts reports on RAW observation. Individuals who read such things should be able to deduce for themselves their own philosophy on the matter, not have it posited as science along with observations within the same peer-reviewed paper.

Technocratic_Utilitarian, on 25 October 2010 – 03:10 PM, said:

All creationists are the of the same mentality, and intelligent design is just the new fad for presenting Creationism as somthing more respectable. A court case determined that the mainstream literature for Intelligent Design was actually a direct copy of older Creationist literature, only the word “creaton” was crossed out and replaced with “intelligent designer.” Likewise, “god” was deleted in each paragraph and replaced with “Intelligent Designer.”Only in some paragraphs, the retards forgot to delete the word God and left it in next to designer.They gave themselves away.IDers are Goddiditers.
subzer0 response:

Separate foundations of interpretation. Science and philosophy/theology. Science = ID, philosophy/theology = creationism.

Technocratic_Utilitarian, on 25 October 2010 – 03:13 PM, said:

There is no separate foundation. ID = creationism with sciency sounding words tacked on. It’s like calling a hooker an Escort Engineer. You can make up any fancy jargon you want and pretend the prostitute is something it’s not. At the end of the day, ID = Creatinism in a clown costume.There is no science behind ID. They just claim there is.IDers literally copy-pasted the arguments of old Creationist books and took out God from each paragraph, putting in Designer. They really were that dishonest.
The poster Technocratic_Utilitarian (TU) attempts to claim Intelligent Design (ID) is equal to creationism. I have shown the equality between ID inference and neo-darwinist inference within nature earlier, of which TU chooses to ignore and not address. He cannot seem to grasp that ID is inferred within nature. Then the individual, namely a creationist supplements this natural inference with the more philosophical/theological Biblical record. The process of bringing philosophy/theology (not raw scientific observation) into the realm of interpretation of nature is common for both neo-darwinists and ID supporters. However ID supporters, myself included are always careful to note the lack of scientific credibility for philosophy/theology. It is good to extrapolate and make conclusions, but should not be treated as necessary for everyday scientists who should only reveal observation within nature.
The modern neo-darwinist scientific establishment, constitutes a completely materialistic and naturalistic be all and end all foundational position from which design cannot possibly enter. This is due to the overwhelming belief that natural mechanisms act spontaneously and randomly. They infer such a conclusion based on their presupposed philosophy, much like I would as a creationist. I infer designed natural mechanisms, and thus nature did not spontaneously form but was intelligently designed. Neo-darwinists however cannot point to anything a human would deal with in nature that is not designed. Thus ID is far more logical as we as people encounter intelligently designed cars, houses, boats, etc everyday in our everyday lives, NOT spontaneously generating houses, etc. Neo-darwinists demand a strictly assumptive bias for conclusion ultimately. Because even their inferred spontaneous generation is not observed anywhere. Neo-darwinists present these wild assumptions because their philosophy demands them to, within the very papers they present factual observations in.
What should happen is merely technical reports on raw observational data absent of any conclusion with assumption or extrapolation that leads to a reliance upon an overarching philosophical interpretive framework. I will point out where these neo-darwinists assumptions arise as we go. It ends up that they continue to build assumption on assumption for a very rickety foundation.

subzer0 response:

Again you have nothing except to claim that mechanisms are stupid and somehow work. LOL

sigsfried, on 25 October 2010 – 03:15 PM, said:

If ID is science why has it yet to make a prediction that is different from what one would predict using evolution.

subzer0 response:

ID in inference of design by seeing the mechanisms at work. While the opposite is like evolutionists who see an inference of the mechanisms that is unguided and spontaneous.

tharock220, on 25 October 2010 – 03:30 PM, said:

According to them it does make predictions, but only in the colloquial sense. For example, I predict when we cut open a fish we’ll see a heart, lungs, and brain. Obviously common design.

subzer0 response:

Exactly. Evolutionists however will not see COMMON DESIGN as the cause of natural mechanisms that sustain life, but mere chance as the source was unguided natural processes that randomly managed to spontaneously form.

tharock220, on 25 October 2010 – 03:30 PM, said:

The real predictive power of evolution is something ID cannot compete with. Take homonid genomes for example. Aside from humans, all great apes have 24 chromosomes. So biologists used evolution to guess that the original great ape had 24 chromosomes and that in the human lineage there had been a chromosomal fusion. Not only did they find the fused chromosome, human chromosome 2, they also figured out which two great ape chromosomes had fused in our lineage and the sites where the fusion happened.How would ID explain that. Well that’s how it was designed, but it completely flies in the face of understood biology because chromosomes have on centromere. So unless the designer wanted to tinker with different designs”(the opposite of common sense), there’s really no explanation.

subzer0 response:

Chromosomal fusion within the evolutionary framework you have laid out is based on assumption of a common ancestor. Its not that it is invalid, just that there are other valid possibilities. For one I can just as easily posit many original common ancestors that allowed parallel convergent evolution to happen, within the case of human and ape genetic similarity.

sigsfried, on 25 October 2010 – 04:08 PM, said:

You are clearly missing the point. Of course we could assume a menevolent being wants us to believe in Evolution when it is false. Evolution though predicted that the two would appear fused. The telomere, which mark the end of a chromosome, are found embedded in the middle. This was a prediction of Evolution and was found to be true. You keep saying ID is a science. Where are the predictions it makes?

subzer0 response:

The chromosomal fusion happened because of convergent evolution, a biological evolution process. Not because man came from monkey. That is all I am saying, and that is an ID position/prediction as well. That genetic similarities arise, not because of one common ancestor and thus we share all things from relation, but because common biological processes that we observe in the present is responsible for the independent appearance of the same trait in different lineages.

tharock220, on 25 October 2010 – 04:26 PM, said:

Actually you have it all wrong. Man didn’t just come from a monkey, man is a monkey, or more specifically a great ape. How exactly is the chromosomal fusion convergent evolution.

subzer0 response:

That is your assumption based on a taxonomic system I feel isn’t the be all and end all.

tharock220, on 25 October 2010 – 04:29 PM, said:

No it isn’t an assumption. What separates you from a great ape??? Are you also not a eukaryote, a vertebrate, tripoblast, etc???

subzer0 response:

Well it isn’t based on known processes. Unlike the ID position of convergent evolution. What is seen to produce chromosomal fusion according to you, is so because you follow assumptions within the taxonomic hierarchical structure in place today.

I would agree with the sentiments expressed in this article about taxonomy today:…104/7/2043.full

tharock220, on 25 October 2010 – 04:39 PM, said:

Which sentiments are those. All Doolittle is saying is evolutionary theory does not need a “Tree of Life”, but from what’s been observed, and Doolittle admits as much, we can predict evolutionary relationships based on such a tree because the date points to it.

subzer0 response:

“Still other evolutionists, ourselves included, question even this most fundamental belief, that there is a single true tree. “

They also doubt the structure of the tree, and put forth a network type topology is more likely. Also talks about the faulty assumptions used to calculate trees.

tharock220, on 25 October 2010 – 05:05 PM, said:

Please show me again through convergent evolution how humans possessing the same characteristic as great apes means they’re not related. I’m not using a hierarchical taxonomic system. It’s been scrapped because it’s largely too arbitrary. I’m using cladistic phylogeny. The homology is too overwhelming for it to be anything else without some convoluted explanation.

subzer0 response:

No convoluted explanation, just convergent evolution being responsible for the independent appearance of the same trait in different lineages.

If some other process causes the same genetic trait to appear in different species with similar homology, then we don’t need to assume common ancestry.

sigsfried, on 25 October 2010 – 05:14 PM, said:

Firstly this lacks predictive power, so isn’t really scientific, and secondly it doesn’t explain the telomeres in the middle of a chromosome.

subzer0 response:

Prediction. Genetic similarities will arise due to convergent evolution, so that the assumption of common ancestry doesn’t need to be addressed, it is overwritten by scientific observation and experimentation of convergent evolution.

Secondly, what connection do you see with common ancestry, convergent evolution and ” the telomeres in the middle of a chromosome.” ?

sigsfried, on 25 October 2010 – 05:22 PM, said:

With common ancestry we have an explanation for it. Without it there is no explanation.Either there is a God and he is trying to trick us into believing in evolution. Or evolution is true and God may or may not exist.

subzer0 response:
Common ancestry is not needed if known processes create the same effect.

We are leaving God out of this remember. You are talking theology, not science.

tharock220, on 25 October 2010 – 05:24 PM, said:

It isn’t just homology though. It’s embryology, genetics, cytology. The list of ways to compare organisms is almost limitless, and evolutionary theory has yet to fail. Common ancestry is just the implication.

subzer0 response:

The implication is called an assumption. That assumption is null because there are known processes, namely convergent evolution, that produce the same result. You should rely on known processes that are experimented on in the lab rather then implication and/or assumption.

Lib13, on 26 October 2010 – 03:33 PM, said:

Oh I’m sorry, you just used him as a source, two completely different things so I apologize. :rolleyes: I read your little thread, the OP was so full of shit it was laughable, I posted several times pointing that out in the thread and you ignored it…don’t expect me to take you seriously now.

subzer0 response:
No, I never used him as a source. Again read my posts.

Lib13, on 26 October 2010 – 03:33 PM, said:

It has to be a small scale, not because a larger scale never happened or couldn’t happen, it is that it’s a very long process. To even be considered a scientific theory and reach that title, it has to be observed and proven thousands of times over, evolution has been observed and rigorously experimented(i.e. observation). It isn’t questioned anymore, there is no dispute in the scientific community, your arguments have been proposed by that same group with Behe and co. and debunked as many times.

subzer0 response:

So debunk them. You have not said anything accept that “larger scale never happened or couldn’t happen” which admits to my point. Then you say its a long process. That process will ONLY produce phenotype change, not larger scale change. The observation that you say was produced by rigorous experimentation is the small change observation of phenotype expression, not the LARGE CHANGE.

Again, why you would rather rely on assumption based on extrapolation to prove unobserved past mechanisms rather then just rely upon proven present processes… It is because you need to, to prove your assumption of one common ancestor. You continue to build on assumptions rather then rely upon observed small change as the only change.

tharock220, on 26 October 2010 – 03:36 PM, said:

Now it’s intra species and inter species.The standard creationist argument on this. Every change is just micro evolution. Macro evolution has never been observed.What’s useless is this thread because every time I’ve created one like it anywhere all I get is “well evolution is wrong because”. I asked for evidence of a young universe once, and the responses were “c is not constant”, “parallax is flawed”, or “well you still have the horizon problem”.I want evidence for intelligent design.

subzer0 response:

The evidence for ID, is the inference on why the proposed biological evolution mechanisms (that maintain an observed limit of change) act. The ID theorist sees these mechanisms as having DESIGN not spontaneous happenings randomly forming order which is what neo-darwinists think. It is a logical inference in nature.

tharock220, on 26 October 2010 – 03:47 PM, said:

Great. Now how do you test that???
subzer0 response:

So then you admit ID is an equal view to that of the neo-darwinist evolutionists as far as logical inferences go based in nature. ID is basically the opposing view.

So how would an evolutionists test spontaneous happenings randomly forming order? Likewise, how would an ID supporter test design? They don’t, it is merely logically deduced from scientific prediction and testing. The mechanisms with an observed limit of change I talked about in the previous post.

Also just look around you. Are things spontaneously forming order, or are they Intelligently Designed to do so? ID and spontaneous order are both logical inferences. Although ID is far more logical.

Lib13, on 26 October 2010 – 04:33 PM, said:

Debunk what? You’re not posting anything with substance, your whole argument is that small scale observations don’t count and that evolution hasn’t been proven somehow because of that. Do you know how stupid you sound?

subzer0 response:
Wow, how utterly dishonest of you. READ MY POSTS. Lets try it again.


Lib13, on 26 October 2010 – 04:44 PM, said:

What are you talking about? What was I dishonest about genius?Evolution is observed, on the scale science is allowed to because larger scales take millions of years. How fucking hard is this to understand?

subzer0 response:

We are going in circles. Address my points don’t dance around them.

Again, why would you rather rely on the assumption that processes/mechanisms acted differently and counter in the past when compared to what is observed in the present? Why would change be different in the past?

It is because it is based on extrapolation, that prove large change by past mechanisms rather then just rely upon proven present processes that ID supporters and creationists do.

Lib13, on 26 October 2010 – 05:01 PM, said:

You just have no argument.Assumptions about the past? Do you even know what evolution is? It’s purpose is predict what will happen over time in the future, we have things like fossil records and data collected from them to tell us what happened in the past, what are you even talking about? I know your side is absolutely full of shit and don’t have a leg to stand on in any of this, but you repeating this ridiculous argument is beyond what behe and those fools blather about.

subzer0 response:
Yes assumptions about the past, ONE COMMON ANCESTOR or MONO PHYLETIC tree of life. That means from the simplest forms of life to the most complex, all related from the beginning. Rather an ID supporter would say PLURAL PHYLETIC or many original base patterns/ancestors. Therefore the observed change seen today, of small change, is consistent with ID. Rather then needing to go from simple to complex like neo-darwinists need, a radical genome structural change NOT OBSERVED, it is parallel so there are simple and complex unique independent lineages/tree of lifes from which diversification happens.

What will happen in the future with ID and creationism is merely phenotype change, not LARGE change, ever more progressive and vertical evolution producing RADICALLY dissimilar forms and genetic genomes.

Villy, on 26 October 2010 – 05:43 PM, said:

Let me see… (And remember, I will use no other lines of evolutionary evidence, for the sake of a clear argument from both of us).1) We observe minor changes to the phenotype of organisms…
2) We observe these minor changes in a short period of time…
3) The inference becomes that a large change would occur over a large span of time…
4) Occam’s Razor would support this unless…
I. We observe something that falsifies this…
II. We observe something that contradicts this…If the two subsections of 4 are not met, how is the inference that small changes a short reference of time leads to larger changes over a larger reference of time an illogical premise?

subzer0 response:

1. I agree
2. I agree
3. I disagree and think that is a far wider leap to jump than simply relying on the observed small change to continue
4. Occams Razor would support my position, because it is a simpler conclusion to make

Villy, on 26 October 2010 – 05:53 PM, said:

Occam’s Razor is not defined as the simplest conclusion. Such is the most common misconception made of the premise. It postulates that the premise with the fewest assumptions and fewest additional outside entities is the usually the most logical.The only assumption made in my scenario is that small changes of a small frame of time equal large changes over a larger frame of time.

subzer0 response:
Well my scenario requires no assumption or leap that you make. So therefore is simpler because requires no assumption, just observation.

Villy, on 26 October 2010 – 05:53 PM, said:

ID requires the assumption that a designer exists. Then it requires the assumption that the designer designed.

subzer0 response:
ID is a logical deduction/inference of design, not spontaneous unguided random order. You can make a conclusion that nature itself designed it, but neo-darwinists claim random spontaneous processes created order.

Villy, on 26 October 2010 – 06:00 PM, said:

So you’ve seen the designer? You’ve seen it design?

subzer0 response:

This is all based on 1-4 logical layout you provided regarding Occam’s Razor and what I called the observed limit of change for biological evolution.

So why are you now questioning the assumption of ID, an assumption equal by directly opposing in nature your spontaneous order assumption, instead of contradicting my biological evolution limit with a conclusion that lacks assumption?

Villy, on 26 October 2010 – 06:08 PM, said:

Because you would need to provide evidence that such a limit exists, or it is merely an assumption too. I used the small change over small time to large change over large time as my only assumption. Any assumptions against a limit would be implied in that assumption.

subzer0 response:
What observation produced within science today produces change above phenotype expression? If there isn’t then you have assumption, I rely on observation.

Villy, on 26 October 2010 – 06:36 PM, said:

I see your post where you say “produces phenotype change, but not LARGE change.” However, phenotype has nothing to do with change. It is merely the expression of what is there at the time you study the organism. In other words, it is what it is.

subzer0 response:
Natural mechanisms I have told you about from your questions produce phenotype expression change that is limited by observation, not limited by you from assumption.

Villy, on 26 October 2010 – 06:36 PM, said:

A change would express a different phenotype, but that applies to small and large, and the change is, once again, what it is.

subzer0 response:
Please show a large change observed that is consistent with your assumption of large change happening. If you can’t then this large change is an assumption by you. While again, all ID supporters and therefore creationists need to rely on is the small change or what is phenotype change. Large change is what I call ABOVE phenotype and thus is assumed by you.

You need this large change assumption because of your ONE common ancestor or MONO PHYLETIC tree of life assumptions. You are building upon assumptions. See post 41.

Villy, on 26 October 2010 – 06:46 PM, said:

And for the sake of argument, I conceded that assumption. I even stated it as so, which falls in line with my small to large change over small to large change.I can easily twist multiple assumptions about ID into more assumptions that must be made. 1) There exists something. 2) That something is capable of designing. 3) That something actually wanted to design. 4) That something actually did design.However, I am fair about the argument. I grant you the implications of the first three into one assumption, because I am not trying to let this discussion become a tit-for-tat.

subzer0 response:
I have already stated that ID and spontaneous order are equal logical deductions based upon natural mechanisms. However since we deal with things designed everyday in our everyday lives, and the inherent complexity of everything, ID is the more logical conclusion to me.

Where do you encounter things spontaneously and randomly generating?

Villy, on 26 October 2010 – 06:58 PM, said:

What is considered random? Is the order in a snowflake random, or designed, or is it the process of elements acting upon each other?Is the formation of helium from the fusion of hydrogen random, or a process?
It’s not a fair question, except in the limited frame of reference we humans possess. We see a person build a house, therefore we can infer that all houses are built by people. Many things appear complex in nature, such as the aforementioned snowflake, but do we infer design from it?What is the standard for complexity? What is the standard for design?

subzer0 response:
The actual mechanisms that sustain nature and life. Those show design. How they produce a snowflake is for science to observe, the fact there is a snowflake indicates design. It is merely the output of design. Not spontaneous generation of the mechanism that produces the complex snowflake.

Nature is the design, the snowflake is the output we observe.

Villy, on 26 October 2010 – 06:58 PM, said:

And most importantly, what is the standard for non-human design?As for spontaneous generation, have we observed it? No. But that is not required of evolution.

subzer0 response:
The standard for non-human design are the mechanisms we infer from what science can observe.

Technocratic_Utilitarian, on 27 October 2010 – 08:27 PM, said:

Your “inference” is irrational. Again, the idea of a “creator” violates Occam’s razor for a number of reasons. Namely, it adds an unseen, untestable variable that literally does not answer the question. To assume a creator did it means we must assume the “solution” to the problem is the problem itself: complex intelligence.

Ergo, the entire ID argument is not only self-defeating, but unparsimonious.

subzer0 response:
Same goes to you for thinking spontaneous unguided processes did it. In fact design is far more logical because at least we deal with that in our everyday lives.

Technocratic_Utilitarian, on 27 October 2010 – 08:27 PM, said:

1. Saying it’s too complex for complexity to arise wthout intelligence is a contradiction in terms. Any being that is able to create such complexitity is necessarily as complex, if not more complex, thus your assuming what you set out to prove.

2. A Creator is a less rational explanation. We know nature exists and that things happen without beings directing them to happen. We do not know God exists. We can answer the question of “wht caused diversity and origin” without appealing to unseen magical entities.

subzer0 response:
1. ID is an inference based within nature. That is all.
2. No being directs them. The processes were designed to happen, they don’t just magically happen, which is what you would say.

Technocratic_Utilitarian, on 27 October 2010 – 09:09 PM, said:

Design implies intelligence. Intelligence is therefore claimed to be the answer to the existence of intelligence that cannot exist naturally. That’s absurd on its face, lol.

subzer0 response:
It is actually based on the fundamental law called biogenesis. Life from life. Therefore I just say, life as we know it came from intelligent life elsewhere.

Technocratic_Utilitarian, on 27 October 2010 – 09:09 PM, said:

Your view doesn’t survive the razor. Not only does it fallaciously assume the conclusion as a premise, the “conclusion” is a totally unnecessary entity. No compelling reason to asume the existence of unseen intelligences. Explanations without them work well enough.

Your assumption is inferior to assumptions that do not assume design.

subzer0 response:
You think intelligence sprang up spontaneously, yet I think it was designed to happen. You think yours is more logical, yet we can find nothing spontaneously forming. Sounds good man, lol.

Technocratic_Utilitarian, on 27 October 2010 – 09:45 PM, said:

ID is a superious inference, you mean. One can infer that trees are cauesd by magic elves, too. Doesn’t mean it’s true.

subzer0 response:
One can infer that they were spontaneously generated by unguided mechanisms, but that doesn’t mean its true. However we do deal with intelligently designed things everyday, i don’t see to many elves.

xoplytnyk, on 27 October 2010 – 09:48 PM, said:

Well then, using that same logic we could substitute anything for ID and still reach the same logical conclusion like Martians.


BINGO! But that isn’t substituting ID, that is explaining what/who the Intelligent Designer is.

xoplytnyk, on 27 October 2010 – 09:48 PM, said:

No you did not. You need to learn what evidence is.

subzer0 response:

You just responded to it as if it were logic based on evidence in the last sentence. LOL.

xoplytnyk, on 27 October 2010 – 09:48 PM, said:

Yet again, you don’t get to ask questions until you’ve answered them. Why don’t you simply rephrase your statement to make in accurate? Such as changing ID to be assumptive (since that is what it is) from an inference?Or you could simply provide your logic for describing ID as an inference.But you won’t because you can’t.

Questions are not an answer to a question.

subzer0 response:
Dude really? I mean you just said, “Well then, using that same logic we could substitute anything for ID and still reach the same logical conclusion like Martians. “

That was in response to HOW a person arrives at ID through nature.

xoplytnyk, on 27 October 2010 – 09:48 PM, said:

And yet again, an assumption. You repeat the same mistakes over and over habitually don’t you?

subzer0 response:
Yikes, you need to read my posts dude.

xoplytnyk response:
Why would I waste time reading the same nonsense over and over?

Just because you assume you are intelligent, doesn’t mean you are.

And there it is folks. A bold truth telling episode by xoplytnyk. Of which I am sure the majority of the posters are guilty of, namely not even reading my posts. It must be why I have to resort to repetition in defining what ID is. Again, all at once, “ID is an inference based within nature”.

tharock220, on 27 October 2010 – 10:24 PM, said:

By saying they’re designed. Now what designed them???

subzer0 response:
Whatever you want to posit. One guy said martians did it. Maybe it came from aliens on another planet… I dunno. Maybe nature designed itself. I dunno.

But to think it just happened and continues to just randomly happen, defies logic.

tharock220, on 27 October 2010 – 10:37 PM, said:

Well I hafta ask, what designed the aliens???

subzer0 response:
And thus you get into this regressive logic that I talked about earlier. You either have that or you place an eternal element to satisfy the logic. The creationist theological position, after the ID inference in nature, would be that an eternal supernatural God is the ultimate and only creator.

As I have stated scientific observation should be reported in peer-reviewed papers so that individuals can make conclusions with philosophy/theology, which are common when trying to interpret the natural world.

And here comes a newcomer again, late into the conversation to ask the same damn question:

contrecoup, on 28 October 2010 – 01:30 PM, said:

I thought we were going to see some “scientific evidence”…Guess

subzer0 response:
That is what ID is, a logical inference within nature. That is all.

The evidence is nature itself.

%d bloggers like this: