The Power of the New Intelligent Design...

What's interesting about the creationists is that their "design" argument can be turned back on them. If you believe in a deity, then you presumably believe that your deity is a big and complex thingy.So there must have been something to create that big and complex thingy.But presumably the creationists don't believe their god was manufactured by something else, do they?So creationists must believe that something very big and complex can come to exist without an intelligent agency manufacturing it.Which is the whole idea of evolution.

MrID seems to have crapped out...

Bump for MrID. Fine. What is that? How do I use that? What do I do? So your new ID2.0 system is to look at the thing and see if there are any obvious signs of design.Like what? What attributes would be seen as ‘designed’ versus what attributes would be seen as ‘not designed’?Is it all your personal feeling or is there a rigorous set of rules like in a real science hypothesis? And what’s this human made error stuff? An error in what? What does that look like? How would I recognize an error?I’m not getting anywhere. Your write-up is no help.

Those are mutants and everyone knows one when they see it, obviously.

Show why this is wrong:"What is evolution? Simply put, evolution is non-intentional change in biological world."

WHAT are you talking about?

OK. Here it isif intellen (intelligently designed), you will expect that problem-solution-solutionor cause-effect-effector action-reaction-reaction...If JWST is intellen, you could expect that the NASA engineers had used many Solutions to Problem.

The new ID has a positive theory - the Biological Interrelation, BiTs.

We have no way of deciding what is an intention.In ordinary life, humans are said to have intentions. But we cannot measure those intentions.Yes, we ascribe intentions to other people. And when we do that, we often get them wrong. You have probably had experience of people accusing you of intentions that you never had.Intentions are not reliable things that can be used in science. Whether evolutionary changes are a result of intentions is beyond what science can determine. We cannot determine what is intentional. It is better to look to evolution in terms of change, and avoid the question of whether that change is intentional.People who want to think of evolution as guided by God may see God's intentions behind the changes. But that adds nothing to the science.

You have no way to show or measure intent.

... is "That's not what I expected!"

It's the old "First Cause" question (AKA "First Principle") and following it to its logical consequences. Basically:

1. Everything that exists has a cause: cause and effect.
   ​
2. Every intermediate cause exists because something else had caused it.
   ​
3. Philosophers have extrapolated that chain of cause and effect back to what they postulated as a "First Cause", which they identify as "God".
   ​
4. Those same philosophers fail to ask the obvious question: "Since everything needs a cause, Who caused God?"

Sadly, I'm not surprised that you didn't know that and that you cannot understand it when you do finally encounter it.

You need to explain these. Why separate words? Categories? What is the meaning of each positional?This is the major problem. There is too much unexplained that you ASSUME you cover in your write ups but are, in fact, totally devoid of discernible meaning. Your paper is not understandable.We have no clue what "problem-solution-solution" means. What is "problem"? Why are there two "solution"s?Do you have any idea what you are talking about? Why can't you explain these things?We need details, in copious amounts, on the meanings of your words. Definitions in cogent english that we can understand.You label JWST as intellen which you define as intelligently designed. Understatement.JWST is one of the most intelligently designed systems to ever grace this universe. And it was intelligently designed and painstakingly built by natural random chemistry that blindly evolved into monkeys. Unintended naturen intelligently built the JWST. Show us otherwise if you can.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

It's the fundamental flaw in the "design" argument. If creationists say that a complex organism couldn't develop naturally, but would have to have a "designer" then what does that say about their god, who (presumably) is a seriously complex structure. Surely they don't contend that they worship something that was "built" by something else.Do you see the contradiction here?

I saw a magpie building a nest today. It's rather good, domed with a hole in the side.It looked intelligently designed to me, but I couldn't see the plan he was working to. God's plan I guess. It's an English bird so it'll be a Christian bird. Probably. It's getting a bit hard to know these days.