Why complex form requires an Intelligent Designer

unless there's a logical fallacy contained within your words, I dare say you have disproven that god made everything. why? he's still deciding what to make. but it doesn't look likely that he will ever make a decision. And who said we atheists needed evolution in order to have no god.(oops)

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

correct me if I'm wrong, but your contention that has no bearing. why? this intelligent designer must still consider his choices. It doesn't matter that I can recognize 5 choices at one time, I still have to consider each one individually in the act of deciding.

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

but . . .the ICR is for promoting God--that is thier "intelligetn design".The intelligent design movement (this iteration, at any rate) appeared right after creationism was defeated in the courts. and the "new" ID movement was/is largely headed by the original creationist people.Science has a srict methodology that explicity leaves the question of God's existence open and outside of the realm of scientific inquiry.We don't have any conspiracy, unless you count spreading around a better understanding of just what science and evolution actually is.As to the "attack position, not person" bit, motive is not safe. Attacking the person is saying that "he's an ass", or "she's so confused that . . .". But when you ask "why are they doing this? what is their reason?", you're safe. Hell, in history that's half of what we do--ask why do they view this as such, or some other similar questions. In science, this same bit happens--why is he advocating this? what's his reason for supporting it? It's part of the process of getting to an objective decision, not a subjective one.point is, attacking motive is okay. motive is not equivalent to who, or what, the person is. attacking person, I agree, is not okay.

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

mind elaborating on that?

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

so you would rather we not attempt to root out bias by examining motives?all you've said is that it's wrong to attack the person, and the motive. and you've linked the two. you haven't shown why it's wrong to attack the motive, other than to say, "it just is".Examining bias, as I pointed out, is a crucial part of history and even science. May as well add philosophy to that too. And in understanding international relations. And in trying to figure out how to properly respond to other nations. If we don't examine motives, we may as well be those with "child like faith".You don't insult Iran by saying something like "they're nothin' but a bunch of arab terrorists" (they are, for the most part, persian. second, most of the them aren't terrorists)you do question why they want to make a nuclear power generator with enriched uranium, when they can be operated with non-enriched uranium (as far as I understand it, they can be, so . . .).

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

okay, now you're just being a touch wierd. Not against examining motive, but at the same time, we shouldn't because it doesn't necessarily skew one's perceptions and/or results? I think that you're position is from the third quote, so the others become a touch odd.as to the last one--Herodotus is dismissed on many things. Egyptian records are often dismissed. The "official" date of Kim Jong Il's birth is dismissed (official, that is, as given by the DPRK government). ICR is dismissed because of their bias/motive. I am wary, highly wary, of a translation of Hammurabi's code that only has forty of the over two hundred laws in a history book. Personal motive is enough to destroy a person's position. Their bias is enough to destroy a their position. Their motive is enough to destroy their position.My Iran example, while apparently random, deals directly with the specific off-topic topic we're on. I meant it as an example of where questioning motive is incredibly important. And notice how the motive (that we think they have) destroy's Iran's position of "just wanting it for peace"?It seems we're moving a little bit with this off-topic topic, with the bias/motive thing. I just want to clarify, that the motive establishes a bias. A bias doesn't necessarily establish a motive, but I'd say that it often happens (if you're biased in favor of something, you will, even if it's subconciously, portray it in a better light, the motive being to show how much better it is. a tad confusing, I think . . .)

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.