Defence of Intelligent Design

Well, one thing you could do is peruse the ID theads here.To summarize the so called (my bias shows) support for ID seems to be.1) There are somethings we don't know enough about to know how they happened. (origin of life is one, some biological structures are others) Therefore some thing with intelligence must have been involved.2) Some things "obviously" could not have happened using the current explanations. These things are called irreduciably complex. So something with intelligence must have been involved.3) Things look, to an individuals eye, designed therefore they must have been designed.I think that covers it (it will have to do until someone comes along that believes it).I'll leave my rebuttal to the above for the next post. But again you should go to the threads in the ID forum for much more detail.

---

Common sense isn't

Now I'll have to show you how dumb that NosyNed guy is. This is just another form of God-of-the-gaps theology. (gotg). That is, if we don't know something "god did it" is the answer. Historically this has proved to be a rather bad idea. As we learn more the gaps keep getting closed. Most Christian theologians don't think that this is a good idea. This may appear to be another form of gotg and it is but has it's own twist. What it is saying isn't that we don't know, yet, how something happened but that what happened is impossible. Of course, since it happened there is something wrong with that. From this the leap is made that the solution must be something intelligent. How that leap is made is not clear. In addtion, how to determine if something is IC (irreducibly complex) isn't clear to me.Additionally, many examples of things which are supposed to be IC have been shown to NOT be impossible after all. However, no one seems to be able to say how we tell if something is designed or not. Whenever asked to do so they refer to things which we know are designed by humans. They, implicitly or explicitly, contrast these things to natural things. But it is exactly natural things which are then claimed to be "obviously" designed.This was an interesting arguement until Darwin (for one) showed that "design" is possible without being created by any intelligence. This has since been demonstarted in a number of ways. So the argument has weakened considerably.Sorry Nosy ol' boy, but you haven't got it covered yet have you?

---

Common sense isn't

We can only hope that s/he has no children.

---

Common sense isn't

Not a useful comment, Crash. Don't bother venting that.I'm not trying to be nasty, just noting that the debate doesn't move anywhere with that. Ok?

---

Common sense isn't

But we already know that some do believe and some don't. We also know that most of those who do don't have any evidence for that belief. They just believe. That's been discussed a lot. Why bother?Once someone picks the existance of God as an axiom there is still plenty to discuss.

---

Common sense isn't