Lack of Defining Features of Intelligent Design

There is an abolute lack of evidence that: Therefore any belief that the above is true can only be described by belief in the absence of evidence. That is called: That is what makes ID a theology. The only way to support it is though faith due to the entire lack of and lack of intent to produce evidence by its advocates.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

I am not aware of ANY evidence for ID whatsoever after many years looking for it and asking its advocates. That is sort of the point right. Then this is simply a further indication that what you believe is not founded upon the evidence. Quite simply, you are completely and utterly destroying your original claim that ID is not a religion. It is not that I don't acknowledge it, the issue is that such evidence simply does not exist. If it did exist, I would acknowledge it.For starters, define purposeful intent, define a metric on how we can measure purposeful intent, and explain how to apply that metric to an internal organ so that all of us skeptics can see very clearly the evidence that organs express purposeful intent as compared to some other unintelligent object such as a rock.Doing so will put you lightyears ahead of any so-called ID advocate. I have not called you an "ignorant creationist". You simply are advocating a faith-based belief by definition. When you communicate something that you call a "belief" that is not based on the evidence or is contray to the evidence then that is called "faith". Plain and simple. This simple fact is not controversial in my mind. It is simply a description of what you have communicated to the readers of this forum thus far.I do not denouce people who question materialism. I would not mind taking part in a discussion about materialism. Unfortunatly for you that is not what you are bringing to the table. So far the only thing you have done is reject known reality as religion and proclaim the superiority of un-evidenced ideas which have a well documented geneology to fundamentalist Christian ideology. What they heck does any of what you have said so far have to do with materialism or the acceptance/rejection thereof?

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

So you are basically admitting that the conclusions of intelligent design are completely and utterly subjectively derived. How is that supposed to be compelling?You claim to be non-religious but yet are also dismissing objectivity and evidenced based reasoning. That only puts you in a no-mans land of beliefs where literally you have less than no credibility or persuasion.The religious types, at the very least, can claim divine revelation. You don't even have such a meager and fragile foundation. Actually, yes it can. Evolution is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence. Therefore the choice to accept it as the proper model to explain the origin of the diversity of life is most certainly NOT subjective. In fact it is literally the opposite.Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)