Help me understand Intelligent Design (part 2)

Only if all the requirements are actually considered. For example a machine that I can't open the covers of is "simpler" but what if I want to upgrade it or fix it?As I think Jar has noted before. The only "intelligent design" that a God could possibly implement for living things is the mechanism of mutations (but limited) and natural selection based on the current environment. At least, I haven't seen anyone think of a better one yet unless God wants the environment to remain extremely constant (and boring).

Which of the major IDists make this claim? We seem to have arguments from Behe and others about biochemical pathways that don't fossilize at all. Gaps between taxonomic groups where there is no suggestion that these can't be crossed in small steps are not of interest to neo-paleyists. Only those in the original YEC creationist cults that do not understand "ID" think that there is any support for their views. The major IDists are actually supporting and old earth and evolution as biology accepts that it unfolded. What they argue about is the details of the actual mechanism. I'm surprised that you would want to join with that camp at all.The lack of a particular piece of fossil evidence is NOT support for ID. ID supposes that specific steps can not be managed none of those steps are the size that span major taxonomic groups or that can fossilize. This is, of course, because there is evidence for such spanning via evolutionary pathways of the parts that can be expected to be found in fossils.The steps that ID is fussing with are bacterial flagella and blood clotting pathways. These is the neo-paleyists issues. They do not suggest that there will be gaps in the fossil record.I hope you aren't going back to the original stuff of old paleyists which has long been done away with which is why the neo-paleyists had to come up with new material.

This thread is for just such explanations of exactly what ID is.Why don't you tell us what the discovery institute, Behe et al have to say?No one here has show how ID is supported by the fossil evidence since no one here has said how the designs are implemented or the genome is "tweaked" to overcome the supposed hurdle of IC.All we have so far is the general case put forward that somethings are "too complex" or the specific case of irreducibly complex parts (such as a flagellum or blood clotting). Neither level applies to anything that fossilizes. Unless, of course, the reptilean to mammalian jaw was ever put forward by some now embarrased proponent.

Then it's too bad he's never laid that out somewhere. Did you ask him where you could find out what it is that he does know?