The problem is, there is still this constant in ID "complexity implies a designer" and the question will still be "begged".
As well, there is still the constant in BB "expansion implies a singularity" and the question - whats before the singularity - will still be "begged".
Still though, BB isn't just thrown out and in the same way, ID shouldn't be thrown out for this reason alone (which I realize you haven't advocated...yet).
But if nothing can be asumed at all about the designer including complexity then there really is no theory of design that is applicable to any recognisable entity.
Hrm... that's a little ambiguous. I wish you would've put italics somewhere in there to stress the point. And I'm not sure exactly what your refering to with "recognisable entity". But I'll give it a shot anyways
By the way, its recogni
Zable...
But if nothing can be asumed at all about the designer including complexity then there really is no theory of design that is applicable to any recognisable entity.
But in the same way, it is applicable to
every recognizable entity. That doesn't do much to answer questions that follow though, does it?
But if nothing can be asumed at all about the designer including complexity then there really is no theory of design that is applicable to any recognisable entity.
I don't think the theory requires the entity to be 'recognized'. In fact, don't they purposefully NOT recognize the designer? If so, why does it matter that it be recognized?
But if nothing can be asumed at all about the designer including complexity then there really is no theory of design that is applicable to any recognisable entity.
Again, kinda the same point. Why must we put our finger on the entity? The theory just says that there must be some entity, and then stops there. It says nothing of the entity other than it must be intellegent.
But if nothing can be asumed at all about the designer including complexity then there really is no theory of design that is applicable to any recognisable entity.
I really don't think that
nothing at all is assumed. For one, it is assumed that the designer is intellegent. But also, there are some other minor things we can assume about it in the same way that some of the properties of the singularity are assumed even thought we can never really "get there".
But yeah, I don't really know what your point was exactly. What did you mean by being
applicable to any recognizable entity?