Spotting Beretta's "designer" {Now only 1 summation message per member}

You don't have to know the nature of the painter to recognize that something was painted. This is not to say that the nature of the creator is unimportant just that you don't need to discuss that aspect when discussing the design alternative to random mindless evolution. Is it feasible that an intelligent creator may be a better explanation for what exists? Also on what basis can you eliminate that possiblity? But it may equate to design -that possibility is by no means eliminated just because evolution happens to be a popular concept in this day and age. Lots of people think it's obvious that a creator exists just by looking at life. Because not everybody agrees does not make it untrue. How do you know that that is true? Maybe we are creative because our designer put creativity into our brains, into our makeup somehow. Our design ability is pretty archaic next to God's and despite improving all the time -we still can't create the simplest lifeform so we're way backwards comparatively speaking. The problem with evolution is that it is by general definition found in any textbook a random, mindless process, which leaves God out of the question except perhaps as a distant first cause. While it is of course a possibility, the possibility that the creator would be more involved than just to jumpstart the process, is also feasible -I think more feasible. The complexity of life seems to me to point in that direction far more than chance and selection of chance mutations does.

Actually I'm not talking about just any painting -I'm talking about specified complexity. I'm talking about the difference between some random rock that kinda looks like it could be a face compared to Mount Rushmore that separately relates to something that we know about American history.Lets put it this way -if you see a painting of something you can identify separately like a cottage in a prairie, you know that random passing splatters didn't make that, somebody with intelligence organized that, somebody planned the outcome and it the picture works together and is identifiable. It means something. Do you need to know who the painter is? Perhaps ultimately you would want to, but for the meantime the argument is just "Is there a designer?" "Does the design of life require a designer or could random typing errors and selection of the better ones put together something as complex as a human being?" I understand that you believe that that is possible but then you have been educated to believe it and if enough people in a position of authority believe that to be true and tell you that it is possible, then chances are you will believe it too.What I am asking is - what about the possibility that that is not true and that a designer is required to put together an extremely intricate living being with intricately connected functions and parts that need to work together on a macro as well as a micro level -what if what you believe is not true? Is there a possibility that evolution without direction and a plan is not possible? No I really don't think that you have to understand anything about the creator or creative intelligence in order to recognize intelligence and design. If you found a crashed UFO, you don't need to understand anything about the ones who made it to know that their craft was created or designed and that they must have intelligence in order to have got here in the first place.
ID is looking at that perspective of the argument. It's not a religious argument, it's a scientific one -can we identify design? What is it that tells us that something is designed rather than just fallen into place from following the laws of nature?Who the creative intelligence is should not even be a part of science -it is more of a theological argument and science is not actually equipped to deal with it.

Well design seems to be something that requires intelligence to produce it.It can't have a repetitive formula otherwise it could have been produced due to a natural law.
For example if Macbeth had to be converted into a formula, the formula would be as long as the play - there's no simple reduction formula possible.
Also something created by intelligence is not determined by the physical properties that it is composed of.For example the words on a scrabble game. If you mess the words up, you have destroyed the information but not the carrier of the information because the information component, the words, are not dependant apon the plastic or whatever the board and letters are made up of.The same with Macbeth -if you burn all the paper and ink that carries the play Macbeth, you still haven't destroyed the information component, just the physical carrier of the information.
How did the information component of DNA come together -the information that tells the cell what proteins to make; how do the proteins know which 3d shape to fold into in order to do their job.This information is not a component of the physical properties of the DNA but is carried by the arrangment of the DNA. Well that's exactly how I see evolutionists.Their religious outlook is that everything that exists can be attributed to random mistakes and natural processes. I'll bet it wasn't quite as 'obvious' when they were children not yet indoctrinated by 'science' and it's philosophy of naturalism. Evolution says that there is no God or if there is one, he didn't play a role of any importance and is basically negligable.It's a religious viewpoint that appears obvious to its supporters and thus defensible. It is obvious to anyone who believes that the world was created -that covers quite a few religions not just some particular narrow or specific view. That's not true -the arguments put forward are scientific ones not based on any particular religious text and while some of the arguments are criticisms of the reigning view of evolution, there are also arguments based on the evidence for intelligence being involved in what exists. No, I would think it means that we are creative like God is creative and that if we ever manage to create life that would prove that the creation of life requires intelligence. That may be but it doesn't prove that the design of a human body or any other form of life follows any chemical or physical laws. There was a book written on the subject of DNA called 'Chemical Predestination' where the author proposed that DNA may have formed due to chemical law. The author was Dean Kenyon. The book was in use for 20 years as a standard textbook but Dean Kenyon has since changed his mind and no longer believes that it's arrangement can be explained by natural law.He came across some argument that he said he could not refute and is now an ID proponent. You might find it interesting to find out what the argument was that stumped him and changed his mind. I don't have those details.

You should look at William Dembski's argument for specified complexity and elimination of chance as a cause. He has come up with a way of assessing every situation using probability stats to decide causation of anything found in nature. It's well worth considering. That reminds me of the following:
"For the preaching of the cross is for them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved, it is the power of God." (1 Cor 1:18)I sure hope Agobard changed his mind before he met his maker.

Excuse my historical ignorance -I thought Agobard, from that quote, was opposed to the message of Christianity not to some of the things that people ascribe to Christianity -my mistake.

I would imagine anything that can't be reduced to a reductionist formula -something that requires imagination rather than pure physical law for its formation. No, not the chemicals, the organization of the parts of the DNA that allow them to send a message that can be interpreted by a receiver that then puts together something else.The chemical properties of the DNA is not the message or the code -it is the organization of its parts, much like a computer programme, that is beyond physical law. It's like the cd-rom that obeys the laws of whatever it is made of but the information on the cd-rom is not limited by the physical laws of the medium.
Got to go...can't finish now....

Maybe it would help with understanding but I don't think that it's necessary to know who the designer is in order to be able to identify design.It should give us reason to look for the designer but still first things first - are we alone or is a designer responsible for all the amazing creatures that do exist? I reckon that once you recognize that there has to be a designer, you would want to try and find out who that designer is. If you are told from early childhood that there is only apparent design but that it is not real design and nothing is responsible for our being here, you won't be particularly interested in the question and may miss out on something major about life that you really need to know. Design? We live in a different environment, maybe it's not a 'better' design just different reflecting something they need that we don't. I can only think our eye design is pretty brilliant if you look at the details. Common genetic code - we need to be able to eat and use what we eat for our own growth and maintenance. Very imaginative, very mathematical, very brilliant - way beyond our limited brains and abilities to understand in more than a fairly elementary way.

hmmm, well frankly I don't agree at all but you have a great imagination.

I believe I am not alone in seeing design absolutely everywhere - it's in the organization of information. Perhaps not but it sure shows that there is a lot wrong with the ToE and we really should be looking at that not just writing it off as irrelevant when we don't want to see it. Not at all, I'm saying that the design apparent everywhere is evidence of a designer.i'm also saying that total or even partial understanding of the designer is not a prerequisite for what is actually obvious to those with eyes to see and a brain to comprehend. Those who cannot see what is obvious to so many are blinded by human wisdom and human wisdom is really very limited. What is superstitious about being able to see design? ID deals with what is observable. Evolution is a supposition based on a belief that a designer is not necessary - perhaps evolution should be called a superstition based on denial of the obvious. How about first things first -lets just get it on the table for consideration and take it from there instead of steadfastly ignoring the very obvious and real possibility that a designer is required. There we go, the limitations of science -we see erosion, we see water as a causative agent. We see design, we are sure there is no designer.It doesn't follow, so one should not limit oneself to what we cannot possibly know for sure. Something like the ToE which is really not so well supported by the evidence despite all the religious dogma and absolute God-like assurance of the evolutionary believers who for some reason are absolutely sure that no God is required.

Perhaps that's where education has led us -people who don't see design where it is so absolutely obvious to so many. Even Richard Dawkins concurs that it looks like design, only problem is he's absolutely sure that it didn't require a designer and is not in fact design. That is a belief system not based on fact -it is a philosophy that obscures the obvious with the utterly ridiculous.
How does one really imagine that all different kinds of incredible eyes in all different kinds of incredible creatures all fell into place by random events and the selection of the best random events that apparently worked by chance without the slightest bit of intelligence. We see chemical reactions and physical laws but we do not see evolution -we believe in it and we believe that no designer was required for the design which is apparent. We see physical matter and we believe as a matter of necessity that a whole bunch of time was required for what we believe must have happened.In fact without a whole bunch of time, the entire story falls apart completely. No time, no evolution. Even with time, how can we be sure that evolution could have happened? We see what we want to see sometimes and we believe what we've been led to believe and while you think that that is true of ID, I have no doubt that that is true of the whole evolutionary myth and all its supposed support which is really thin on the ground and hopeful beyond what is reasonable. The only ones that see evolution are the ones that have been indoctrinated into believing it and have a religious outlook to support. It's called 'blind to the obvious,' you see what you're supposed to see and all the 'evidence' convinces you because if so many others are convinced, then it must be true. But consider the intricacies, how many many absolutely miraculous chance mutations had to come along by purely random processes at just the right time. It isn't happening now -only variation which is already written into the genetic code.You don't know how the first cell came to be and just because peppered moths changed their relative proportions and finch beaks got longer and shorter you have to imagine that that same observable process created peppered moths and finches from pre-existing one-celled organisms millions of years ago.It's pure belief, it's not supported by the evidence -it's believed despite the evidence against it. It's actually tragic. I don't believe for a moment that science is in desparate need of a designer -I believe that scientists in general are in desperate need of making sure that a designer is never allowed to be considered despite the designs. It's in the nature of man to flee accountability to anyone apart from themselves. You look at your own hand, you consider the capabilities of your own brain and you break out of the box that you're living in -you've been deceived and you don't even have the slightest recognition of the problem.Unlike evolutionists and their constant carping about ID supporters and their lies, I don't believe that you are lying, but I'm absolutely sure that you're deceived.

Well perhaps I'm just incredulous because of how little it takes to satisfy the average philisophical naturalist that what he wants to believe is in fact true because no other alternative is even allowed leaving evolution in some form as the only candidate in the running.Tom Bethell put it this way:"No digging for fossils, no test tubes or microscopes, no further experiments are needed.For birds,bats and bees do exist. They came into existance somehow.Your consistent materialist has no choice but to allow that,yes,molecules in motion succeeded, over the eons, in whirling themselves into even more complex conglomerations, some of them called bats, some birds, some bees. He 'knows' that is true, not because he sees it in the genes, in the lab or in the fossils, but because it is embedded in his philosophy."After all if nature is all that exists then some purely naturalistic process must have generated life in all its diversity. For the materialist, real evidence is not needed, it's a matter of logical necessity to believe in evolution. The same old same old...
Can't seem to divide these two because it is convenient. Science advances technology, therefore evolution must be true. No. Repeatable, experimental science advances technology (oh and a vast number of those scientists that advance technology do not believe in evolution nor need to in order to carry out their experimental advances). You see, whether you 'believe' in evolution or not, you are able to do science well - evolution is not about science, it is about philosophical presuppositions and recalcitrant 'evidence'being forced to fit into the party storyline. And that satisfies you completely? For every macro change,how many random micro genetic changes do you think you require? You have one possible, maybe, could be line (without all the diffucult details filled in) and that apparently enables the committed evolutionist to fill in all the enormous macro gaps in the fossil record with what they believe must have happened. It's one thing to point out the gaps, it's another altogether to claim the right to fill the gaps with what you have already decided is true despite the lack of evidence.

There we go, subbie -that's the faith part, the philosopphical presumption - some biologists 'believe' that natural processes were responsible. That's quite a different thing from science -repeatable, experimental science. I know all about what they believe but is it actually believable when you look into the little details of what would have had to have happened in order for things to evolve the way you imagine they do? What if I didn't do that at all? What if something that looks created is created and all the imaginings in the world about natural processes that might have done this and that should not be the default position at all? So it's maybe possible that natural processes did manage it but then we need a little bit of proof that that is what happened, not a hypothetical series of maybes in a nice little tree. In the meantime, what if a creative intelligence was actually needed and until we can prove that no intelligence was needed, we should keep all our options open and not state as fact that which is far from it.
Anyway nobody in their right mind ends their enquiry there, we study these created things and find out how and why they work. That is what science does.

No there are philisophical presumptions that material processes must have done it. If material processes,no foresight and no intelligence is capable of creating the intricate interconnectedness of all the functions of biological design -I'd call that magic. Well you know science is supposed to be based on evidence but you're probably right -a lot of scientists do seem to work according to these philisophical assumptions while apparently not realizing that they have any. No, you're wrong there -some of them find it believable, some don't, some might change their minds about what they imagine is believable if they looked deeper into this controversy.
It seems that the public at large don't generally believe it either. Perhaps their indoctrination hasn't been intense enough but don't tell me that only sceintists have brains and that the educated lay public are in no position to assess the conclusions drawn from the evidence or the lack thereof.
By the way, it's by looking into the details personally that I find it 'unbelievable'. They didn't reach those conclusions by doing science, they limited themselves to material conclusions from the outset.

Well it's like saying that a motor car engine works without its creator stuffing his fingers in the moving parts and blowing diesel through the pipes.It was created to work therefore it carries on due to the organization of the parts and input of energy requirements.
We don't imagine that an engine with its parts fell together by chance but we don't have to have the creator in our sights to get the engine to work.
So just because complex things in the natural world work by designed processes and parts does not necessitate that the interconnected parts fell into place by natural law without any designer. Well in this case we would naturally assume natural causes since we know that natural causes do create such circumstances. But we do not necessarily presume that the original tree with all its interconnected functions working together necessarily came about by natural processes. That's the hardware (the tree) but we need intelligence, the software to put trees together in the first place.That to me would be an intelligent supposition knowing what we know about things that are designed to work. Well one shouldn't really presume such a thing. One should, in order to avoid philisophical assumptions, put all the possibilities on the table and then gather all the evidences together not just those that support our favored philisophical supposition. If there are no possible alternatives to materialistic causes, why bother to collect the evidence at all? The one that imagines that software can write itself with time as the magical ingredient. Great then I'd have to agree with you there. No I'd have to not agree with you there -origins are not easily explained through natural causes -in fact the whole field seems more based on imaginative scenarios than on anything concrete. I'll agree with you on that as well but when your natural explanations start to look non-explanatory or even imaginary, then it's time to look again!

Only to people that have decided, based upon their philisophical biases, that living things look exactly like they are not created.