Design Counterarguments

Hi Zar,Arguments against ID based upon the presence of evil are not scientific, which is I think why some of the responses are seeking clarification of the term. However, your two initial premises seem sufficient to scientifically exclude ID, ie, there's no evidence for an IDer.I don't understand why you introduced evil into the discussion of ID. Do you believe evil has an objective existence outside the minds of men?--Percy

For the sake of those of us trying to follow along, could someone state in simple language what the opposing positions are? Thanks!--Percy (moderator)

Thanks for the clarifications of positions. I didn't know the meanings of deontological, teleological, nomological, and so forth, but I have since looked them up and have been dropping them into normal conversation ("These grapes sure are teleological, I think I'll have some more").My interest perked up at mention of the nude photograph - do you have a link, or am I missing the point?I'm sure there's a difference of opinion hiding in all the verbiage, but darned if I can find it. I hope you guys believe in miracles, because that's what it'll be if I end up making sense of all this.Consider this post just an interlude and continue the debate, I'll just quietly summarize my ignorance and tiptoe from the room.Zar doesn't believe in the objective existence of evil. He merely postulates it as the first step of a logical process that arrives at a contradiction, thereby implying the initial primise ("There is an IDer") is false. Either that or he disproved Lent, I'm not sure which.While Thrombo and Nials agree with Zar in principle, they do not accept the premises and processes by which he develops his conclusions. Or not.Okay, I give up. Next batter!--Percy (moderator intimitado)