Defence of Intelligent Design

I am curious why you have not responded to my post #151. It was addressed to you and contained points you later ignored while responding to others. You even managed to respond to a person who was defending my post... but not mine.In addition, if you are from that school Flies mentioned, then one of your classmates' threads are still open and you can see the material I laid out both for and against ID.You may not come around to evo, but it is important to understand ID as it really exists. You cannot make claims that "the pieces are there and it takes an intelligence to put them together". That is not ID theory. That is simple creationism.In order to make ID theory work, you need to come up with concrete scientific arguments (just like all the rest of us use to support any other theory) which show that an organism, or a feature of an organism, MUST have been designed.Dembski will argue that MUST is too strong of a word, but then use whatever other term you can come up with which describes a case where an evolutionary mechanism is so improbable that design is the best alternative. I do not like semantic games, so I say MUST.You cannot use pure logic, as that is a full return to Paley and Plato and ultimately creationism, and so counter to ID theory (as is set out in there literature). While they would love to return to Paley and Plato, and use many of their arguments, the key difference is that they claim the same knowledge is available through evidence.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Oooooookay. Mark let me give this one a try...

quote:

---

fossils that were alive at the time of the biblical flood, given that fossils decompose in the natural

---

Watch your terminology!!!! Fossils neither live, nor do they decompose. Living things die. Some die in an environment where they do not decay completely.Depending on the environment, parts may be preserved pretty much as they were in death (extremely rare and usually only for a certain period of time), and others have their chemicals replaced by minerals as the sediments they are within become stone. That latter process is what is commonly called fossilization. So a dead thing is only a fossil if you manage to find it because it has not "decomposed".

quote:

---

the Cambrian explosion... gives a record of the creatures alive 4,350 years ago, when this flood poured out the sediments upon the earth

---

By saying this, you must then realize the problems Mark24 has set out for you. There are only a set group of creatures found within the Cambrian deposits. This makes little sense if as you yourself say that it is a record of creatures alive back then. Where'd all the other creatures go?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)