3. The Law of Reproducible Results: Anything found in nature was Designed, unless it can be reproduced in the lab. Corollary: Anything intentionally done in a lab is not natural; it’s a purposeful result. Therefore, all lab results are evidence of Intelligent Design
I do know some fellow-creationists that argue this one. Not sure I have heard of anyone arguing the other things of design though, they almost seem like they've been written by evolutionists to misrepresent creation/ID arguments.
But this one is argued by some creationists and I try to tell them not to argue it because of an example for example of the water-cycle. If we recreate the conditions of the water-cycle then obviously we can't then attribute it to intelligent design because we have only reconstructed/replicated natural conditions which logically proves that the intelligent lab equipment being designed is MOOT/meaningless.
At the risk or repeating myself, to conclude something is intelligently designed you have to show it has all of the usual features of design.
I just don't know of many creationists that argue these things to be honest, that is the only one I remember some of my fellow-creos arguing.
8. The Law of Supernatural Superiority: Whenever two explanations of a phenomenon are presented, one natural and one supernatural, the latter is always better. Naturalistic bias must be avoided.
This one seems particularly tenous, all you have to do to refute it is swap, "naturalistic" and, "supernatural", like this;
8. The Law of Natural Superiority: Whenever two explanations of a phenomenon are presented, one natural and one supernatural, the former is always better. supernatural bias must be avoided.
As you can see, if I can point out the holes in such arguments and they strike me as simplistic and unintelligent, then I can't be the one arguing them.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
