What IS evidence of design? (CLOSING STATEMENTS ONLY)

But this isn't an "observed lack" --- rather, it's a lack of observation. Which is different. Agreed. In fact, it's not just that we "haven't searched enough" --- we haven't even searched in the right way. So far, the only tests we have made are for life which lives in our near vicinity, which is smart enough to build radios and suchlike gadgets, which is dumb enough not to have built anything better, and which is incautious enough to want to broadcast this fact to the galaxy. That's a much narrower field.

Well, no.Suppose you actually (apparently) saw me take an ingot of lead and turn it into an ingot of gold.Now, you admittedly believe in supernatural forces. Nonetheless, wouldn't your first hypothesis be that I had used natural means to bring about this effect --- possibly some sort of conjuring trick? Would that not be more "logical" than the conclusion that I actually have supernatural powers?Heck, what do you think when you actually see a conjuring trick? Has it ever even crossed your mind that (for example) Penn & Teller have supernatural powers from Satan, or have you always assumed that they are using purely natural means to produce their effects?Whether or not miracles happen, we must admit that they are rare. Therefore, in the absence of any explanation of a given effect, we are compelled to believe as a default position that the cause was natural. This is not certain, but it is certainly the way to bet.

Yes, but you wouldn't know that --- what you'd know is that you'd seen something which looked like I'd turned lead into gold. And I think that you would be skeptical that I had done so --- even if I actually had. I'm not quite following you. Well, no. When I see, for example, Penn & Teller's bullet catch trick I don't have the ghost of a hypothesis as to how it was done, nor will I if I live to be a hundred. But I know that the universe tends to work in a regular and law-like way and that it is at least very unusual for someone to be able to suspend these laws at will. So my default position is that this is not what Penn & Teller are doing.That is, my conviction that the explanation is naturalistic is indeed merely supported by the observation that most explanations for things are.

That would be worthier of consideration if it was remotely true.

Has it not occurred to you that perhaps he is fighting a strawman, and is "investigating" this possibility not because it's the biggest argument against him, but the weakest?The obvious answer to Behe, which he has not to my knowledge tackled, is to point out that to show that something is irreducibly complex is to show that it couldn't have been produced by the last part of it popping into existence out of nothing.But this is not what evolutionists claim to have happened in the first place. As Behe admitted: "There is an asymmetry between my current definition of irreducible complexity and the task facing natural selection".Now we can see in the fossil record the evolution of something that is indubitably irreducibly complex --- the bones of the mammalian middle ear. This process did not involve the malleus, incus, or stapes poofing into existence, but a gradual modification of their forms and their relationships to each other and to other bones.Now gradual modification is, you must admit, more evolutionary than poofing, or indeed the occurrence of simultaneous well-coordinated mutations, so maybe Behe could discuss that instead. Where do they say that this has anything to do with simultaneous mutations independently conspiring to form a biological system; or that it has anything to do with irreducible complexity; or that they've even heard of Behe's ideas?

No.Are you aware that many (all) information theorists do not think that "information" means "something that was magicked into existence by God"?

Because they believe in Jesus; but not in your interpretation of Genesis. You will find that in almost every Christian confession you are much, much less important than Jesus.Look, here's the "Apostle's Creed" --- Note that there's not a word in there about you nor about any daft mistakes you may choose to make about biology.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.