Lack of Defining Features of Intelligent Design

Oh sure, that's the way to do science. Start out with a preconceived belief system, declare it to be fact, and therefore evolution has to be true.I read the rules to this forum before joining, and one of them was lying wasn't allowed. I'm seeing a hell of a lot of it though. Fact is there is a higher intelligence and there is also a lot of life out in the universe. I'd dump a bunch of proof onto you, but I know the admins like things to stay on topic. I'll start a topic about that later on.And there are many things that can't be explained by evolution, that's why there's still so much controversy. But if you think everything can, I'll keep track of your name and in the future I'll run things by you to get the answers.

I sure gets annoying hearing people make such bold declarations that don't seem to be true. There appear to be many systems consisting of a number of interacting parts in living things that can't be reduced, or perhaps, can't be explained in a slow step by step evolutionary process, unless you believe that lifeforms actually had lots of partly formed useless systems for long periods of time. But something that isn't working serves no benefit nor would be expected to be passed on by natural selection.I've seen some supposed explanations given by some anti-Behe people and have yet to see complete step by step explanations for many things, or a realistic ones for others. A couple of dumbasses on Youtube put up contradictory little cartoons for reducing a mousetrap, one turing the mousetrap into a completely different object with each reduction and the other reshaping all the other parts of it with every reduction.However, as I've said to another person here, I'll keep track of your name, and when I post some problems that seem irreducibly complex, I'll have you to explain the problem away.Edited by Elhardt, : No reason given.

There are two main problems with the anti-ID people.One is the hypocrisy. Identifying intelligent design is part of many scientific fields. When a paleontologist digs through the dirt and finds a rock flake, he makes a determination as to whether it might have been shaped by man into a speer point or not. A zoologist makes a determination whether a group of twigs were put together by a bird as a nest or not. Archeology and forensics included. The SETI program is looking for extraterrestrial life based on identifying a signal that would require intelligence. I don't hear anybody complaining about those uses of ID despite the fact that it's far easier for nature to create something that looks like a mortar and pestle or a birds nest than create a human being from some interstellar star dust.The other is I keep hearing people saying there is no way for the IDers to come up with a falsifiable test and therefore it's not scientific. The thing is it might be impossible to approach it that way. Sometimes it has to go the other way, and that is testing whether something can come about without intelligence. I can't prove that my car was designed, but I can probably prove that it couldn't have NOT been designed. If I can do that, then the only remaining conclusion is that it was designed. That's why ID people are looking for gaps or things that evolution can't explain. And that's every bit as scientific and testable as evolution and natural selection are.So next time somebody bitches about ID, it might be a good idea to look for any hypocrisy in their posts where they might be relying on ID in another field, and when they do, it can be discounted.