WILLOWTREE,
Just thought I would comeback and give you a reply, knowing full well that I will not get a response. This post is for clarification more than anything else.
quote:
What is the source for this belief that cellular systems SHOULD be simple ?
If complexity evidences randomness, how so ?
Given that ID theorists claim that an Intelligence designed cellular structers, they should have the hallmark of intelligent design, efficiency of design. Cellular structures are not effeciently designed. Instead, they are unnecessarily complicated.
quote:
You are assuming much of how an alleged IDesigner should design. What is the source of this belief that overly designed structures indicates the lack of intelligence ?
As IDists claim, humans can detect design. That is their whole premise. I detect a lack of intelligent design because of inefficient and unecessarily complicated design, even within IC systems. Therefore, intelligent design does not exist. Using ID theories own premises, I have shown the lack of intelligent design.
quote:
You are judging design by a rigged litmus test - rigged to fail, which means no IDer involved.
And that is the problem with judging design through ID theory, it is arbitrary and subjective. I no more rigged my litmus test than Behe rigged his litmus test of IC systems. Why should IC systems be used as evidence for intelligent design? For no other reason than IC systems exist and it fits the presuppositions that Behe wants to promote. This is why science uses objective evidence instead of design inferrences which are subjective.
quote:
No matter how you slice it you are requiring a Designer to be evidenced exactly opposite of how things are.
There is no reason a cell could not be more effeciently designed by an intelligence equal with that of man. The reason we have a medical field is to fix problems with ineffecient design.
quote:
I believe IDists discover evidence contrary to the way the ToE has things. They assume ToE evidences against a Creator, then, to find/evidence otherwise is fair to deduce for a Creator.
The whole point of this thread is that the evidence they present is not counter to the ToE, as discussed by the OP. IDists rely on incomplete knowledge, not positive evidence.
quote:
Romans says He can be deduced, it also says why some cannot.
And through studying the natural world we have deduced his creative mechanism, evolution. Some deny this and are no longer able to see evolution as God's creative force. At least this is the way I looked at it when I was a believer.
™ Version 4.2