True science follows the evidence wherever it leads (The design of the eye)

Let's clear this up. If scientists simulate the weather on a computer, this does not prove that God makes the thunder by shouting. If scientists simulate evolution on a computer, this does not prove that God made species appear by magic out of nowhere. If scientists simulate gravity on a computer, that does not prove that the planets are being pushed round by angels.Rather, these simulations prove the exact opposite: that no supernatural explanation is required.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

But this is simply untrue. A non-thinking source doesn't know anything. Can you not even pose the question without anthropomorphism? Blind faith is not required. Knowledge of the evidence is. Such as those intermediate forms to which you are, how shall I put this, "blind".Knowledge of the theory is also necessary. If you're still at the stage of asking "how would a non-thinking source even know that we needed to see to begin with?" you are "blind" to what the theory says. So, perfect roundness is a hallmark of design, is it?Did you ever notice that the arc of a rainbow is a segment of a perfect circle?I presume that you learnt why this is in school, but just to remind you, it's the result of physical laws, not God getting busy with a paintbrush. Or evolution.You are still at the stage of assuming the thing which you want to prove. If the only way I knew to produce the appearance of design was in fact design, then I should take your argument to be a valid one. As I know of lots of other processes which produce the appearance of design, I do not find your argument convincing.

I know of no intelligent design that gets anywhere near the complexity of the human body.So I guess I should conclude that the human body was not intelligently designed.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.