When does design become intelligent? (AS OF 8/2/10 - CLOSING COMMENTS ONLY)

One of the mysteries being --- why does the living world look(a) exactly like a product of evolution would(b) as though any putative creator must be staggeringly incompetent?Of course, these things are only a mystery to you. I know the answer. Your strawman is ridiculous. Not to mention dishonest.

In short, things that look like good design are evidence for an intelligent designer but things that look like bad undesign aren't evidence against one.So whatever the natural world was like, you could still claim to see intelligent design in it. If it had a thousand times more stupidity, cruelty and waste in it, you could still recite: "If the designer is all knowing and all powerful, and he loves his creation then he must have a reason to have designed these bodies with weaknesses", and not ever admit that you were looking at a series of screw-ups unworthy of a wise and benevolent God.This has the dubious merit of ensuring that you would never have to notice that you were wrong in attributing nature to the work of such a God even if you were as wrong as wrong can be.Me, I prefer my hypotheses to be falsifiable.

So ... "fairy rings" of mushrooms used to be intelligent in origin ... until someone figured out another explanation ... at which point they ceased to be intelligent in origin?Funny world you live in.

Your abject ignorance of the theory is not a weakness of the theory.

Of all your blithering nonsense, this bit struck me as particularly laughable: There are lots of other "supposed theories" which suffer from the same supposed weakness.For example, the theory of electrodynamics explains why some things are conductors and why some things are insulators. It explains why some things can be magnetized and some can't.The theory of gravity explains why some things (like apples) fall to Earth and other things (such as the Moon) don't. It explains why some things orbit the Sun and other things orbit Jupiter.Chemistry explains why some things (such as chlorine) react with sodium and other things (such as argon) don't.Damn, our evil atheistic science is in such a mess, isn't it? It's adequate to explain all phenomena, which is apparently a weakness.So, please tell us about the superiority of intelligent design. Apparently to be a good theory, it must account for either beauty or ugliness, but not both. Which can't it account for? It can explain either strength or weakness, but not both. Which? It can account for altruism or evil: so please tell us which of these two aspects of reality it fails to account for. Does it explain resistance to disease or susceptibility to disease? --- for, as you have explained, a theory is no good if it can explain both.Does creationism explain the Sun --- or the Moon? Cats --- or dogs? Salt --- or pepper?Let us know when you guys have made up your minds.

As GM did not say or imply this in any way, I think we can safely assume that she hasn't. No, of course not. This is why GM never said any such thing. No, of course not. In this GM differs from the imaginary people whom you made up in your head. If you are tired of people pointing out your gross and contemptible ignorance, and the obvious remedy for it, then the solution to this is in your own hands. Apply the remedy. Cure your ignorance. Learn something about the subject you're discussing.Instead you get all cross and call people "fucking stupid robots" just because they can all see what's wrong with you and what you need to do to cure it. Really, this is your problem, not theirs.If you were suffering from bubonic plague, would you throw a temper tantrum every time someone advocated the use of antibiotics?Perhaps you would. And the consequences thereof would very nearly serve you right.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Yes. But, of course, there is. That's why it's the default position. That depends who's doing the considering. Scientists consider it scientific. Halfwitted religious bigots who don't know science from a hole in the ground consider it unscientific.Me, I tend to agree with people who know about science about science, but hey, that's just the way I roll.

Wee have facts enough to convince biologists, who are familiar with the facts. But we will never have facts enough to convince someone who is disgustingly ignorant of the facts and who throws silly tantrums when it's suggested to him that he might learn something about the facts. You know, if you told fewer really stupid lies, people would be less inclined to think of you as a really stupid liar.

Well of course not. That goes without saying.I sometimes wonder whether people like Bolder-dash tell lies in the hope of actually deceiving someone, or whether it is merely a compulsion akin to Tourette's syndrome.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Who alleges this, and in what psychiatric institution are they confined?

It's true by definition. Without chemicals that catalyze their own synthesis (i.e. self-replicate) you don't have life. You've just got ... stuff.

You can, if you don't mind being wrong.If I told you that 2 + 2 = 4, would you reply "Cool. Well then by that token I can allege that 9 + 3 = 4"?I wonder what you think the phrase "by that token" means?

Such scintillating wit! Sir, you should be buried next to Oscar Wilde! At the earliest possible opportunity.

Why are you pretending that Richard Dawkins said that we are "descended from flecks of silicon"; and whom do you hope to deceive? In the English language, to be ignorant is to lack knowledge and to be dumb is to lack intelligence.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Whenever we are in a position to find out how something happened, it always turns out to have happened in accordance with the laws of nature, rather than by magic.That's empirical evidence, and that's why non-magical explanations are the default position. Anyone who claims that some particular thing did happen by magic is lumbered with the burden of proof. That little bit of gibberish ranged from the nonsensical to the puerile to the dishonest in a mere two sentences.Ah yes ... creationism.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.