The evidence for design and a designer

Let's start off with empirical evidence for design.Whatever standard you apply must conform to the rules of science, and must separate, to a high degree of certainty, those things that are designed from those that are not designed, i.e., that are natural.Can we agree that snowflakes, stalactites, and quartz crystals are natural?If so, then you need to provide rules that separate those from items you claim are designed, and those rules must be based on empirical evidence.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

What you are thinking of are called classical racial traits. These are traits that evolve as adaptations to local environments.For example, residents of the high Andes Mountains have adaptations to allow them to survive and reproduce in an oxygen-poor environment. Those traits are less than 10,000 years or so old, as the mountains were not inhabited earlier.The neighboring tribes do not have those adaptations.Not design at all: this is evolution providing adaptations to environments.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

ID is a religious belief based on scripture, dogma, divine revelation and the like.That has nothing to do with empirical evidence. In fact, it is the opposite of empirical evidence. No. One is based on empirical evidence, and can change if that evidence changes. The other is based on such squishy things as dogma, scripture, and "divine" revelation. How does one test any of those empirically?(See tagline.)

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

The problem with math is that it is abstract.To be meaningful it has to relate to the real world. Remember the story of the mathematician who showed that bumblebees can't fly? The story is clearly not true, but it does illustrate a caution that mathematicians need to be aware of.You can have perfectly good math that does not correctly model the real world, and accordingly is of no value.One of the classic examples I have seen is using math to estimate the odds against life forming, and some of the numbers come up seriously against such a possibility. (I have even seen the odds estimated at 1⁷²⁰ against life forming, but that's another story.)The example of throwing 50 dice and getting all sixes can be used. You could be there your whole life throwing trying to throw 50 sixes and still not come close. The odds against it are huge. This is what many mathematicians see as the odds against evolution or abiogenesis.But there is another way to try this: throw all 50 dice and keep the sixes. Throw only those that are not sixes. You'll be done by lunch, with plenty of time for a mid-morning break. That's more of the way evolution operates.When you are doing your math, please take the real world into consideration.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

We have evidence for change, natural selection, etc. in science.We do not have evidence for "design." We can't even get creationists to come up with definitions and criteria to differentiate design from non-design. The best we have seen is "I know it when I see it." That's not science.Face it, the whole ID movement is religion with the serial numbers filed off in hope of fooling the school boards and the courts.Hasn't worked out too well, has it?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

But that is where you go wrong.You are right that design is a conclusion, but it is one without supporting evidence or standardized method to get there. It is a conclusion because it is based on religion. You can't point to a specific item and say it was designed, or not, using any specific criteria. We have shown that over and over in these threads. It is design because, "I know design when I see it!" That doesn't make it in science.If you want to establish a scientific field of "design" a good start would be a reliable definition of what is designed and what is not. That definition will have to separate things that are clearly natural from things that are clearly designed, and it will have to make a good start on determining whether those things which are borderline are designed or not. If you can come up with rules which make a good start in these determinations, then we have something to work with. So far creationists haven't even tried to come up with such rules. ID has everything to do with religion. And nothing to do with science. Just look at the folks pushing design. They are virtually all fundamentalists with religious beliefs which overshadow any scientific training they might have had. They are not scientists producing peer-reviewed papers for scientific journals. As long as you are pushing fundamentalism and avoiding what the evidence actually shows, and as long as I can provide evidence for what I claim, I don't consider my ears pinned anywhere.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This is where you are having problems. Your definition of what is designed is no more than, "I can tell it when I see it.""Orderly, logical, and law abiding" can describe the formation of crystals, ice, stalactites, "silk frost" formations, earth hummocks, and hexagonal clay shrinkage cracks.What is your rule for determining whether these types of things are designed or not? Without some rule, you are left only with the useless "I can tell it when I see it" definition.Do you have any rules or not?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.