Intelligent Design explains many follies

your point is useless, you are using a faulty analogy, conputer circuits can never reproduce, and we know they are designed there is evidence that they are designed, it says "Intel" on my motherboard. using comparisions to human designed things is faulty because human intelligence has yet to design life the way life is currently - everything about ID is out to deny evolution from the get-go

then you need to read more about it, theres more to evolution than just adaption and mutation, theres natural selection and other factors, evolution does design it just isn't human like in anyway we do have answers but they have nothing to do with evolution, you want to look at the big bang theories and abiogenesis for answers why is it "folly"? i can only surmise that you think its folly because you don't understand it, so the conclusion is anything but ID is follycan you answer one question for me? what is complexity?

which following the evolutionary frame work would come from simple matter, which is really abiogenesis but since id covers that more than it does evolution.
Some how you are thinking that there are only very complex systems when they came from simple systems - you still need to give your definition of complexity when you use it this is why ID is and never will be considered science, if the designer is a god we can not test how he did it. if ID coniders god did it then it is religion

then it disqualifies itself just from that statement if this is your answer, then you need to read more about what science does and the theories scientists produce, and no ID is a wedge to get religion in schools, it predicts or explains nothing. No theory as been proven, but due to evidence can explain things better than another, so what does ID explain?

I'm still waiting for anyone in the ID camp to come up with something ID can be used for in any discipline of science
or for them to come up with something that can explain the evidence we have better than ToE can.the jist of ID is "some ultra-powerful being we cannot discribe in any detail, disigned everything using unknown means that we can't detect over a time-frame we can't figure out, yet we believe this even though we can't explain it, yet it is better than the theory of evolution, becuase it just is.."so how is it science again? and how do we learn anything from it?This message has been edited by ReverendDG, 03-28-2006 03:59 AM

what is is the meaning of complex to you and what logic led you to believe this is a requirement of the ToE? You need to read more about ID since in fact that is what they are claiming..that a god designed everything how is ID reasonable? Your understanding of theories, science and even what ID says seems to be faulty. thats just it how can you assume it was a "spark of life?" and that it had intelligence?

till you can answer what you mean by complex your useage of the word is meaningless, as for ToE, it hangs its "hat" on evidence and observation and prediction. where did i say assume anything i said your understanding of science is faulty, scientists who believe in the comet thing is more frenge than anything, being that organic matter came from "non-organic" matter, being that its a matter of how we are composed and there really is no line between organic and inorganic, but processes. this is really irrelivent if you can not answer my questions that doesn't answer anything, its all a smoke screen, the only thing this shows is ID answers nothing

And does any of this have anything to do with biological things?
everything you are talking about is related to human designed things, we know they are designed by relation that we can go see the designsif we use the basis of human design, then the very fact that biological things are "complex" rules out some intelligence since, from human intelligence we know that we go with something simple to get the job done and we don't make something harder or complex, the useage of complex by Idiests still is very frustratingsince by the fact that there is no example of anything other than human designed things we can compare things to, what do we compare biological structures to? we have never created anything bilogical as yet

nor is evolution about the universe, nor is it about how life started that is abiogenesis. how does UD explain anything>? ok explain the how then? explain how ID explains what we see in lifeforms better than evolution, this has been what i've been asking hmm agood number of times so far

what explanations? you havn't explained anything at all!what does ID explain that evolution,abiogenesis,cosmology can't?all of your examples are easily explained by the sciences they are from this is so far from mainstream ID, you might as well just call it what it really is - creationismAt least behe tries to make ID sound like science

You really arn't talking about ID anymore are you? Lets fess up and say what you really mean, which is creationismYour whole post is just a smoke screen for you not to answer anyones questionsso i'll ask you again:
What does ID explain? how does it explain what we see in nature?
How does anything in ID explain anything better than the relivent fields in science?By the way evolution is not a belief, we can test it see it and learn from it, what has ID taught us, what does it predict?
All i've seen it being used for is to get religion in school and to make people look stupid for not knowing anything about it

The folly seems to be not admiting that your arguement shows that ID is not science, but a wedge to get religion in schoolsyou have no arguement really if you have to resort to pulling scripture out of your arse

Umm.. So i guess GR,QM, nuclear physics, and just about everything in science isn't science then according to you? Because guess what? They are THEORYS! Your post is pure nonsense and it still shows that you have no clue about what science is or how it works.
since when is a theory not science? its the end point of ideas, or are you using the layman term for the word? which is a hunch?ToE is accepted with almost certianty because of the evidence and denying that evidence would be paramount to willfull ignorace
By the way you are mixing them, abiogenesis is not as well supported as ToE. We can see evolution in action so there is no need for any more time as you say, then nearly everything in science isn't science, which is a load if i ever heard one. You need to go read about science you don't seem to have any understanding of it at all if you are saying this nonsense

and thus, ID is not science and never will be if we can not find structure to ID. The second we start talking about belief is the moment it loses all credibility