quote:
Well Percy I'm sorry that you were not impressed by the logic of the argument for specified complexity because I was. I suppose since evolutionists do seem by and large to support 'the theory of no design' even when it looks like design, it is to be expected.
The problem is again in the philosophy of the evolutionist - it can't be designed because there is no designer so even when it looks like design by reason of its intricate organization, we call it 'designoid' or 'apparent design' as if you know for sure that something that truelly looks like design truelly can't have been designed.
In the Bible it is called 'willful blindness' -we can't see it because we don't want to.
Beretta, let me give you an example.
A while ago, astrophysicists discovered a very orderly, very complex string of data coming from space, and one of the initial reactions was "Oh crap! We might've just discovered intelligent alien life out there!" These were extremely ordered radio pulses, and after the initial excitement died down scientists started studying the phenomenon.
Turns out it wasn't aliens at all, but instead was the radio pulse of a rapidly-spinning astral body... and thus, neutron stars and pulsars were discovered. Something
looked designed, but after the real research was done that dug past the surface, it turns out there
was no design at all.
The lesson is that plenty of things look complex, intricate, and orderly... snowflakes, pulsar emissions, the "Face on Mars," etc. However, these are all perfectly natural phenomena when you actually do the science.
There is no "philosophy of evolutionists" that demands we exclude design from science. Quite the contrary. Plenty of scientific fields focus on the quest to find "design" in observed phenomena. Prime examples would be forensics, archaeology, or even the SETI project all want to find design. Science is perfectly open to the idea of design, but there has to be genuine, solid evidence for it, and ID proponents simply haven't provided this evidence at all, and instead spend all their time raging on about how closed-minded biologists are.