The Power of the New Intelligent Design...

Like the JWST is intelligently designed and built by simians, magpie nests are intelligently designed and built by avians.Neither was from some god's plan. These specific avian structures are the Magpie's plan. JWST was the engineers' plan. Gods, being fictions, have nothing to do with any of it.I wonder if magpies sit and argue over drawings on the backs of paper napkins while enjoying a drink. Must be since all engineers do.

You don't even need to speculate about a First Cause. If the universe is infinite in time (admittedly a big IF!) then there need be no first anything, just causes and effects going back forever. Still, if a deity is a complex thing, and complex things don't develop naturally, then the deity must have been built by something.Which is certainly an odd situation!

Christianity seems to be fading in the UK these days. Could just as easily have been a Hindu or Muslim magpie. Or a druid. Who knows?

Well, that doesn't change the fact that much of their thinking and many of their arguments are based on the Aristotlean idea of a "First Cause", "Prime Mover", etc, which believers identify as their "God". Over the decades I have encountered many creationists and just plain fundie proselytizers (usually indistinguishable from each other, except that the creationists rely more strongly on false "creation science" arguments while just plain fundies go more purely biblical-ish) who had gone straight for the "First Cause" argument. So speculation about a First Cause is very much in their DNA.The difference is that they fail to take the next inductive step which you presented: so who created God? They say "nobody", but in doing so violate their entire argument of "intelligence cannot create itself, etc". Of course, many others have also taken the same inductive step as you have and theists defending their "First Cause" have weasel-worded their way out of it. I'm just saying that this is nothing new, except maybe to the less educated creationists (which isn't as redundant as it sounds).It's kind of like the old joke of proving that the Pope is a Protestant:

Of course we have to sketch our drawing on the backs of paper napkins. It has become very nearly impossible to find any shirts with a pocket that we can carry a sheet of scratch paper, our writing implements, and our glasses. How is an engineer supposed to function anymore?

I know it sounds like an apocryphal trope but in the early 80's we seriously had to buy some of a restaurant's cloth napkins. After one guy started and realized his media error we asked the manager to put it on our tab. He agreed. We went through three of them.

I worked at my last job for 22 years before retiring (so I count myself very fortunate for that steady work). Towards the end the company would give us a new company polo shirt every few years or so. No pocket. Our senior-most engineer would always remark, "Well, there's another shirt I won't be able to wear."Due to my Scouting and military training, I have always kept at least one sheet of scratch paper folded up in my shirt pocket for notes, etc. Right now that sheet of paper has printed on one side a table of Morse code for study purposes and a Vigenère Square in case the discussion ever returns to cryptography (with my Secret Jewish Space Laser Corps decoder wheel in my pocket as back-up).

As a biologist I learned to give up the shirt pockets and rely on pants pockets or a collecting box on my belt or a backpack. Every time I bent over with stuff in my shirt pocket it fell in the water.

Except, you have #1 wrong. It should be "Whatever begins to exist has a cause: cause and effect". With that, #3 should make more sense, and #4 is irrelevant.

No, you have the "design" argument wrong. Perhaps that is what creationists say. But those who hold to ID (that presumably make the "design" argument) do not say that. So please do not conflate the two. Again, if that is what "creationists" say, then you have a point. But that is not what ID is saying.You have a misunderstanding of the term "complexity" when it comes to the design argument.

Except no he doesn't.Everything that exists has a cause: cause and effect.Further, everything that has ever or does now exist was caused. Everything.That is the experience of this universe. No one can show anything different.Edited by AZPaul3, : re-word

No, Sarah has it all quite right. You ID/Creationists are the ones who misunderstand design and complexity.For all the decades of ID/Creationism you folks have produced no useful effective theory on anything let alone creation.

I had already explained this in details in my OP as linked. Why are you always talking about religion in scientific discussion?Why Evolution Is Wrong In Biology And What is Right? | ZenodoEdited by MrIntelligentDesign, : No reason given.

Here is the very elemental problem that you have: you cannot scientifically define intelligence and and non-intel, and yet you are using it and applying it in biology.Stop that. That is not how you do science. Why are you always talking about religion in scientific discussion?Why Evolution Is Wrong In Biology And What is Right? | ZenodoEdited by MrIntelligentDesign, : No reason given.

Why are you always talking about religion in scientific discussion?Why Evolution Is Wrong In Biology And What is Right? | ZenodoEdited by MrIntelligentDesign, : No reason given.