Intelligent design

[Edge]

what does all this arguing about the minutiae of flora and fauna prove? these things exist, the question is..what caused their existence ? why not just consider the very first live cell ?

did it have ID or not ? was the universe it came from created by ID or not? imo there is a hell of a lot more evidence for ID than against it. those that oppose ID are actually arguing

from a disbelief in God and creationism and disregarding the voluminous evidence of ID

present in the universe. why not forget religion and just consider the facts and evidence as you see it ?

Wait a minute. ID is not creationism. ID may as well mean that we where created from aliens or by Allah.

[TRoutMac]

what does all this arguing about the minutiae of flora and fauna prove? these things exist, the question is..what caused their existence ? why not just consider the very first live cell ?

 

Great point. The first cell is, in many ways, the largest evolutionary jump (assuming it is an evolutionary jump at all) that we could talk about… to go from inanimate matter to something that is "alive". And, it turns out that a single cell is "irreducibly complex". So, run this first evolutionary jump backwards, taking away just one little component from the cell, you get a cell which cannot do everything it needs to do to survive. Consequently, it dies. Conclusion: The first cell had to have everything it needed right from the start. It needed to have been designed.

[pgrmdave]

Ah, but there are definite steps from inanimate to animate. There are protiens which are able to replicate themselves, even without DNA, or any nucleic acids:

 

The theory that TSEs are caused by an infectious agent made solely of protein has been around since the 1960s (Alper, 1967; Griffith, 1967). However, it was not until 1982 that the prion protein itself was discovered, by Stanley B. Prusiner of UCSF, who was awarded the Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine in 1997 for this discovery (Prusiner, 1982). Prusiner coined the word "prion" by combining the first two syllables of the words "proteinaceous" and "infectious". It should be noted that Prusiner intended the word 'prion' to be pronounced 'pree-on'.

 

Prior to Prusiner's insight, all known pathogens (bacteria, viruses, etc.) contained nucleic acids that are necessary for reproduction. The prion hypothesis was developed to explain the discovery that the mysterious infectious agent causing Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease resisted ultraviolet radiation (which breaks down nucleic acids), yet responded to agents that disrupt proteins (Alper, 1967). Initially, this hypothesis was highly controversial, because it seemed to contradict the "central dogma of modern biology", which asserts that all living organisms use nucleic acids to reproduce. The "protein-only hypothesis" — that a protein (which, unlike DNA, has no obvious means of replication) could reproduce itself — was initially met with skepticism. However, evidence has steadily accumulated in support of this hypothesis, and it is now widely accepted. Rather than contradicting the central role of DNA, however, the prion hypothesis suggests a special case in which merely changing the shape, or conformation, of a protein (without changing its amino acid sequence) can alter its biological properties. The actual synthesis of the prion protein is still carried out by the ribosome, while the infectious form of the prion protein only transfers the pathological conformation to the proteins synthesized by the cell.

 

I have also heard of, although I don't have time to really research it fully, self-replicating molecules, which function similarly to prions. Viruses aren't cells, they aren't alive, but are simlar to them, and reproduce. Is there no evidence that things, similar to cells, but not cells, could have existed, and reproduced?

[Harzburgite]

There is about as large a gulf between pre-biotic chemistry and a typical prokaryote cell, as there is between that cell and a typical human or spiny anteater. That gulf is bridged by a progressive growth in complexity from the autocatalytic systems hinted at by pgrmdave; their absorbtion into lipid bounded containers; and their integration with systems that acquired heritable characteristics. Just because we cannot yet clearly identify each step in this complex development is not evidence that the development did not occur.

 

TroutMac your logic is flawed. You say take away one little component from the simplest cell and it dies, therefore it must have been designed. How well would you function without your liver? Yet you expect a cell that has evolved to its present balance of components to function if one of those components is removed. In reality you cannot remove an entire component. What would be the reverse of evolution would be to replace that component with one that did the job somewhat more poorly. That cell would still survive. Unlike your logic. :shrug:

[Boerseun]

"I hope you find Intelligence out there,

because there's bugger-all down here on Earth"

 

- Monty Python, The Meaning of Life (1982, or thereabouts)

[TRoutMac]

Ah, but there are definite steps from inanimate to animate. There are protiens which are able to replicate themselves, even without DNA, or any nucleic acids

 

First of all, these aren't "definite steps from inanimate to animate." You're merely interpreting them as such. That's not the only possible interpretation.

 

Secondly, it's a little misleading to say they "replicate themselves". Prions don't make copies of themselves from nothing… rather, they are able to get existing proteins to take on their shape. That's a whole different ball game. With that in mind, prions are just as "inanimate" as any other protein. And besides, the particular "shape" of a prion -- or any other protein -- is again evidence of intelligent design.

 

Is there no evidence that things, similar to cells, but not cells, could have existed, and reproduced?

 

Even if there is, it matters not to me. You still have to explain the origin of the information in DNA and you still cannot come up with a way to arrive at the first functional, living cell by way of small, incremental, successive changes.

[TRoutMac]

Just because we cannot yet clearly identify each step in this complex development is not evidence that the development did not occur.

 

It would appear that your view of science is that a hypothesis should be assumed true until and unless some skeptic comes along and disproves it? Imagine using that tactic in, for example, a court of law regarding a defendent, and you're the DA: "Well, just because we can't prove he did it doesn't mean he didn't do it".

 

Ultimately, all you're doing with that statement is admitting that there's no evidence to support the hypothesis, and you're just holding out hope that there will be evidence at some point, and you're asking us to just "trust you" in the meantime. Sorry, no sale.

 

TroutMac your logic is flawed. You say take away one little component from the simplest cell and it dies, therefore it must have been designed. How well would you function without your liver? Yet you expect a cell that has evolved to its present balance of components to function if one of those components is removed.

 

I wouldn't function without my liver. That's the whole point. And, no, I don't expect a cell "that has evolved to its present balance of components to function if one of those components is removed". First of all, I reject that any cell has evolved to any present balance of components. Secondly, the fact that a cell could not function without a given part only demonstrates that it cannot "evolve to its present balance of components" by small, incremental changes. Now, perhaps you would have me believe that the predecessors to the first cell had the same "inventory" of components that the first cell had, but that all of those components performed poorly. How did that "primitive" cell survive? What does a poorly formed DNA strand look like? Can the information processing system of a cell perform at all if all of its parts are not integrated correctly? The answer is an emphatic "No." Any functionally integrated system of components, in order to perfrom whatever function it must perform, must have all of its parts, and all of those parts must be in precisely the right form, orientation, scale, configuration, etc. or the system will not function.

 

A bicycle with a frame made from rubber will not function. An engine with pistons that are too small for their bores will not function. An airplane with wings that are misshapen will not fly.

 

In reality you cannot remove an entire component. What would be the reverse of evolution would be to replace that component with one that did the job somewhat more poorly. That cell would still survive. Unlike your logic.

 

But it has to do the job, Harzburgite. That's the key. It has to serve some minimal function… if it does not, then it may as well be removed. Take the mousetrap again… you don't have to remove one of its five parts to render the trap non-functional. Instead, you can simply replace the spring, for example, with a one that is weaker. Well, guess what? Now the mouse that trips the trap is not as likely to "assume room temperature" and might even be able to wriggle free of the trap. The spring has to have a certain minimum spring rate in order for the trap to function. A trap whose spring is too weak will not catch mice. Likewise, a cell that doesn't have all of its components performing at or above a certain minimal level doesn't survive. And the cell is already so efficient that it can't afford to compromise any amount of function of any of its components. That's irreducible complexity, and it kills evolution.

[Boerseun]

It would appear that your view of science is that a hypothesis should be assumed true until and unless some skeptic comes along and disproves it? Imagine using that tactic in, for example, a court of law regarding a defendent, and you're the DA: "Well, just because we can't prove he did it doesn't mean he didn't do it".

An analogy, that is, of course, equally appliccable in the case for Intelligent Design.

Ultimately, all you're doing with that statement is admitting that there's no evidence to support the hypothesis, and you're just holding out hope that there will be evidence at some point, and you're asking us to just "trust you" in the meantime. Sorry, no sale.

Being a bit crass, but nonetheless:

When a scientist tries to sell you a theory, he's saying "this is a good idea, trust me until we can prove it emphatically". That's why it's called a theory. Evolution is a theory, as is Intelligent Design. The only problem, as far as your side of the argument is concerned, is that the evidence in favour of evolution has been stacking up for the last 150-odd years. The evidence in favour of Intelligent Design is simply not there. I know, I know - arguments concerning 'irreducible complexity' and such abounds - but the level of complexity that must be irreducible is only determined by our current understanding of the system under discussion. A few years ago a simple thing like a desktop calculator would've blown your mind as far as irreducibility is concerned. Now that we understand something like a calculator, we can see how its constituent parts can exist in another manifestation, and serve other applications. So, are we to doom our offspring to a future of ignorance simply because our current understanding might be lacking?

First of all, I reject that any cell has evolved to any present balance of components.

Well, now... then there's not any point to this discussion, now is there?

Any functionally integrated system of components, in order to perfrom whatever function it must perform, must have all of its parts, and all of those parts must be in precisely the right form, orientation, scale, configuration, etc. or the system will not function.

Not necessarily. A triangular wheel works better than a square wheel. Matter of fact, it bounces and bumps 33% less. But a circular wheel's still the best. This is not to say that a square or triangular wheel doesn't work, though...

A bicycle with a frame made from rubber will not function. An engine with pistons that are too small for their bores will not function. An airplane with wings that are misshapen will not fly.

Nope. A bicycle with a rubber frame will work, just not as well as one with a metal frame. And this is exactly where natural selection comes into play! An engine with too small pistons will smoke and leak oil like hell, and lose a lot of power, but it'll work - but not as well, once again, as one that's the right fit. An airplane with misshapen wings will fly, provided the airfoil is servicable, but will be fuel-inefficient, etc. Once again, natural selection comes into play.

But it has to do the job, Harzburgite. That's the key. It has to serve some minimal function… if it does not, then it may as well be removed. Take the mousetrap again… you don't have to remove one of its five parts to render the trap non-functional. Instead, you can simply replace the spring, for example, with a one that is weaker.

Any part of an organism that serves no function, and is not detrimental to the organism's survival, is kept as an oddity, a funny reminder of the organism's past. Hence vestigial organs. If there's a million mousetraps, and survival depends upon the strenght of the spring, and you replace the spring as above with a weaker one, that specific mousetrap will be selected against. The offspring that there are, will inherit the trait, but there will be decidedly less offspring that a mousetrap with a strong spring. Following generation, even less. Eventually, the weak-spring trait will disappear.

 

Trying to prove systems that seems on the face of it to be 'irreducuble', like that one favourite of Intelligent Design, the flagella, by invoking some Intelligent Deity, is to my mind just an admission that our knowledge of cells and flagella is lacking. Because if that's the final answer, my next question will be "By what method did the Intelligent Designer design the stuff he designed?" How did He/She do it? So, there's no end to inquiry - but it seems as if ID wants an end to it. I simply don't get it.

 

Viva Evolucion!

 

Boerseun

[Boerseun]

...Speaking of which - can an ID prononent explain to me where whales' hipbones come from? Or does the line between macro- and micro-evolution don't apply here? Was a land-dwelling whale with legs the same species as a sea-going whale, so that this isn't an example of speciation?

[Harzburgite]

It would appear that your view of science is that a hypothesis should be assumed true until and unless some skeptic comes along and disproves it? Imagine using that tactic in, for example, a court of law regarding a defendent, and you're the DA: "Well, just because we can't prove he did it doesn't mean he didn't do it"..

It would be wrong of me to accuse you of putting words in my mouth, so I shall take the burden of responsibility and say that I failed to explain myself clearly. (And in passing I'll note that there is no meaningful comparison to be made between a legal process and science, unless you wish to consider science an ongoing, non-stop, court of appeal.)

Science has several notions as to how the first cells developed, but as your argument itself acknowledges, indeed seems to based upon, the cell is itself very complex. It is only a couple of centuries since cells were recognised; the first cell likely took several hundred million years to develop. Do you really expect us to solve that problem so quickly? Scientists are confident, but the good ones are rarely arrogant.

Every year that passes our understanding improves and our grasp of how the first life may have arisen becomes stronger. I see no reason to believe that this will change.

Ultimately, all you're doing with that statement is admitting that there's no evidence to support the hypothesis.

Please do not take my statement in my prior post to mean I am admitting there is no evidence.There is a mass of evidence. It is the detail that is taking the time to work out. If I may make a crude analogy: I know I shall wear clothes to work tomorrow, its kust I don't know which ones, or whether I shall wear a tie.

First of all, I reject that any cell has evolved to any present balance of components. .

As Boersun said it rather ends the discussion right there.

I do not wish to put words in your mouth. You seem to be stating that you reject micro-evolution. Can you confirm this please?

. Take the mousetrap again… you don't have to remove one of its five parts to render the trap non-functional. Instead, you can simply replace the spring, for example, with a one that is weaker. Well, guess what? Now the mouse that trips the trap is not as likely to "assume room temperature" and might even be able to wriggle free of the trap. .

You seem to have walked straight into my trap. The point is that in the early evolution of life the 'mice' to use your analogy, were damn weak. They didn't have the strength to wriggle free of this sub-standard (by today's standards) mousetrap.

There is a clearly recognised relationship in evolutionary ecology between the prey and the predator. They evolve together. So do the components of a cell, from very simple forms, to the complexity we see today.

There is nothing to stop that complexity being God-given Trout. She might just have done it by setting the rules, not by cookie cuttering the end product.

[Southtown]

(And in passing I'll note that there is no meaningful comparison to be made between a legal process and science, unless you wish to consider science an ongoing, non-stop, court of appeal.)

Hmmm... two predetermined methodical procedures for investigating facts, cross-referencing sources, exposing fallacy, verifying truth, and seeking mutual conclusions for the purposes of collectively deciding further courses of action? You're right, no comparison.[/sarcasm]

 

There is nothing to stop that complexity being God-given Trout. She might just have done it by setting the rules, not by cookie cuttering the end product.

Interesting acknowledgement. Would you agree that there had to be some initial ingredients present for the rules to be effective, or no?

 

why not just consider the very first live cell ?

did it have ID or not ? was the universe it came from created by ID or not?

Along this line, abiogenesis appears to be the antithetical extreme of statistical probability. And I think the argument would be won or lost upon deciding the actual age of the earth and time available to draw together this astronomical string of improbabilities.

“

Genetic material, DNA and RNA, is composed of nucleotides. In living things, nucleotides are always “right-handed.” (They are called “right-handed” because a beam of polarized light passing through them rotates like a right-handed screw.) Nucleotides rarely form outside life, but when they do, half are left-handed, and half are right-handed. If the first nucleotides formed by natural processes, they would have “mixed-handedness” and therefore could not evolve life’s genetic material. In fact, “mixed” genetic material cannot even copy itself.

 

Each type of amino acid, when found in nonliving material or when synthesized in the laboratory, comes in two chemically equivalent forms. Half are right-handed, and half are left-handed—mirror images of each other. However, amino acids in life, including plants, animals, bacteria, molds, and even viruses, are essentially all left-handed. No known natural process can isolate either the left-handed or right-handed variety. The mathematical probability that chance processes could produce merely one tiny protein molecule with only left-handed amino acids is virtually zero.”

— Dr. Walt Brown, “Handedness: Left and Right”,

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood

[

References

]

“

Living matter is composed largely of proteins, which are long chains of amino acids. Since 1930, it has been known that amino acids cannot link together if oxygen is present. That is, proteins could not have evolved from chance chemical reactions if the atmosphere contained oxygen. However, the chemistry of the earth’s rocks, both on land and below ancient seas, shows that the earth had oxygen before the earliest fossils formed. Even earlier, solar radiation would have broken water vapor into oxygen and hydrogen. Some hydrogen, the lightest of all chemical elements, would then have escaped into outer space, leaving behind excess oxygen.

 

To form proteins, amino acids must also be highly concentrated in an extremely pure liquid. However, the early oceans or ponds would have been far from pure and would have diluted amino acids, so the required collisions between amino acids would rarely occur. Besides, amino acids do not naturally link up to form proteins. Instead, proteins tend to break down into amino acids. Furthermore, the proposed energy sources for forming proteins (earth’s heat, electrical discharges, or solar radiation) destroy the protein products thousands of times faster than they could have formed. The many attempts to show how life might have arrived on earth have instead shown (a) the futility of that effort, (:shrug: the immense complexity of even the simplest life, and © the need for a vast intelligence to precede life.”

— Dr. Walt Brown, “Proteins”,

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood

[

References

]

“

Living cells contain thousands of different chemicals, some acidic, others basic. Many chemicals would react with others were it not for an intricate system of chemical barriers and buffers. If living things evolved, these barriers and buffers must also have evolved—but at just the right time to prevent harmful chemical reactions. How could such precise, seemingly coordinated, almost miraculous events have happened for each of millions of species?

 

All living organisms are maintained by thousands of chemical pathways, each involving a long series of complex chemical reactions. For example, the clotting of blood, which involves 20–30 steps, is absolutely vital to healing a wound. However, clotting could be fatal if it happened inside the body. Omitting one of the many steps, inserting an unwanted step, or altering the timing of a step would probably cause death. If one thing goes wrong, all the earlier marvelous steps that worked flawlessly were in vain. Evidently, these complex pathways were created as an intricate, highly integrated system.”

— Dr. Walt Brown, “Buffers, Barriers, and Chemical Pathways”,

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood

[

References

]

[questor]

if Dr. Brown is correct, and the numerous other scientists that question evolution have some pertinency, and if we are not sure whether or not there was ID present at the beginning of the universe, then why does the cabal of non-believers have the most weight in this discussion? there certainly is enough evidence at this time to point toward ID.

certainly more than to believe it was all accidental. surely our beloved free press has not joined with those that are pushing the Godless society as the most desirable of human conditions? what is the gain for those that want to destroy the idea of God ? is it to eliminate ultimate authority, or is it just a conceit to pose as more intellectual than others ?

[TRoutMac]

if Dr. Brown is correct, and the numerous other scientists that question evolution have some pertinency, and if we are not sure whether or not there was ID present at the beginning of the universe, then why does the cabal of non-believers have the most weight in this discussion?

 

Two reasons: The biggest scientific leaps toward I.D. have occurred relatively recently, (beginning, some might argue, with the discovery of DNA) and since evolutionist dogma had already become entrenched by that time, I.D. has to play "catch up". We see dogmatic references to evolution everywhere, in music, in sitcoms, in the news, on the Discovery Channel and worst of all, in public school. So much so, in fact, that even revealing to students the scientific weaknesses in evolution is somehow "controversial". In the media, the issue is treated as though it is proven scientific fact. It's difficult to combat that "saturation bombing" style of marketing.

 

Secondly, because people on "my" side of the issue, (Christians in particular, but not just Christians) have tried to accommodate the evolutionist view into (primarily) the Biblical view or a deistic view of origins. This has only helped to advance the evolutionist dogma. Of course, for many years you couldn't blame them because the evidence for ID hadn't been uncovered yet. It was still "the Bible's word" against science. So, the saturation bombing has taken place and "we" have put up almost no anti-aircraft fire… until now.

 

Surely our beloved free press has not joined with those that are pushing the Godless society as the most desirable of human conditions? what is the gain for those that want to destroy the idea of God? is it to eliminate ultimate authority, or is it just a conceit to pose as more intellectual than others ?

 

The free press certainly has joined with those that are pushing the Godless society, and stop calling me "Shirley!!" (sorry… a little Leslie Nielson there)

 

Their "gain" is only a perceived gain, and you nailed it on both counts: the elimination of ultimate authority and the desire to be seen as being more intellectual are the perceived gains as far as I can tell.

 

Trouble is, denying an ultimate authority, if indeed there is one, does nothing to "eliminate" that authority. It's just so much self-deception. Nor is it truly more "intellectual" to accept evolution. I'd even say it's "anti-intellectual".

[TRoutMac]

And in passing I'll note that there is no meaningful comparison to be made between a legal process and science, unless you wish to consider science an ongoing, non-stop, court of appeal.

 

Southtown nailed it, Harzburgite. While there are obvious differences between science and the court, both institutions have a common over-arching objective, elusive though it may be, and that is to discover truth. You can deny this if you wish, but to deny that science pursues or seeks truth is to discredit science. If it's not seeking truth, then why should anyone trust it for anything?

 

Science has several notions as to how the first cells developed, but as your argument itself acknowledges, indeed seems to based upon, the cell is itself very complex.

 

And Darwin (and others) believed, since they lacked the technology to discover otherwise, that the cell was actually very simple. That the cell is very complex doesn't help you make your case… it helps me make mine. After all, evolution is far more palatable, far more plausible if you imagine the cell as being very, very simple. Unfortunately for Darwin, that science has discovered a level of complexity in the cell that has been compared to the space shuttle does not help Darwinists out in the least.

 

It is only a couple of centuries since cells were recognised; the first cell likely took several hundred million years to develop. Do you really expect us to solve that problem so quickly?

 

And as I've already demonstrated, it is not possible for a functional cell to "develop" from something more simple because it has no function until it reaches its present complexity. It's very, very simple logic. There's no "gradation" in complexity between inanimate matter and a functional, living cell. You either have a blob of undifferentiated matter, or you have a living cell. There is no middle ground. It's impossible.

 

Every year that passes our understanding improves and our grasp of how the first life may have arisen becomes stronger. I see no reason to believe that this will change.

 

Every year that passes, the evolutionary world view become more and more preposterous (as if it weren't preposterous enough to begin with) as science discovers more layers of unimaginable complexity in living systems. The handwriting is on the wall.

 

Please do not take my statement in my prior post to mean I am admitting there is no evidence.There is a mass of evidence.

 

There is absolutely no direct, empirical, incontrovertible evidence for macroevolution. There is only direct, empirical, incontrovertible evidence of microevolution, which us IDers don't even dispute. There is only subjective evidence which gets interpreted as support for macro-evolution, or evidence for micro-evolution is misrepresented as evidence of macro-evolution. Whatever has been presented as evidence for macro-evolution can be shown to be either a subjective interpretation of evidence, or evidence for micro-evolution being "repackaged" as evidence for macro-evolution.

 

I do not wish to put words in your mouth. You seem to be stating that you reject micro-evolution. Can you confirm this please?

 

No, I accept micro-evolution, and I have stated here many times that natural selection actually serves to confine evolution to the micro scale.

 

You seem to have walked straight into my trap. The point is that in the early evolution of life the 'mice' to use your analogy, were damn weak. They didn't have the strength to wriggle free of this sub-standard (by today's standards) mousetrap.

 

This is just evolutionist dogma all over again. You have no way to confirm this, no way to prove it, yet you present it as though it is established fact… like someone was there to observe these "weaker mice". Science shouldn't operate on the imagination of scientists. It should operate on what is observable directly and from this direct observation, we should draw out the best explanation and ignore our personal subjective biases. The only evidence you have for this "weaker mouse" is that without it, the entire house of cards which is macro-evolution would come crashing down.

 

There is nothing to stop that complexity being God-given Trout. She might just have done it by setting the rules, not by cookie cuttering the end product.

 

Yes, although I'm not at all sure whether the Intelligent Designer had genitals by which we can determine its gender, it is nevertheless apparent that the Intelligent Designer did set the rules. We agree there. Trouble is the rules appear to be set such that macro-evolution is impossible.

[TRoutMac]

...Speaking of which - can an ID prononent explain to me where whales' hipbones come from?

 

Yes, I can. Every bone in a whale, just as every bone in every other vertebrate, was designed.

 

Or does the line between macro- and micro-evolution don't apply here? Was a land-dwelling whale with legs the same species as a sea-going whale, so that this isn't an example of speciation?

 

It's simply an example of design, Boerseun. Homology doesn't "prove" macro-evolution. It can be interpreted as proof of macro-evolution, but it can also be interpreted as proof of common design. Therefore, it's not objective proof.

[Boerseun]

Yes, I can. Every bone in a whale, just as every bone in every other vertebrate, was designed.

...and that's the problem with ID. You presuppose the cause, therefore the question falls flat if it doesn't give you the right answer. And that's not science, not by a long shot.

It's simply an example of design, Boerseun. Homology doesn't "prove" macro-evolution. It can be interpreted as proof of macro-evolution, but it can also be interpreted as proof of common design. Therefore, it's not objective proof.

And in the face of a lack of evidence on both sides, ID must be right? Is that an objective conclusion? Or a manifestation of the basic want and need of a deity to be present? In which case ID should be moved away from the realm of the physics and biology, and into the field of psychology - as subjects, of course.

[TRoutMac]

...and that's the problem with ID. You presuppose the cause, therefore the question falls flat if it doesn't give you the right answer. And that's not science, not by a long shot.

 

Wrong-o. We don't presuppose the cause. It is methodological naturalism (materialism) which presupposed that ID cannot be the cause. If we are guilty of presupposing anything, it's that ID is as much an alternative as evolution. From there, we analyse the evidence and see that there's loads of evidence for I.D. and the evidence for )macro)evolution is incredibly thin. It is on that basis that we conclude I.D. is the most reasonable explanation. See, on the naturalist side, the presupposition prevents you from ever analyzing the evidence for ID. You can't even consider it, you've excluded it at the outset.

 

And in the face of a lack of evidence on both sides, ID must be right? Is that an objective conclusion? Or a manifestation of the basic want and need of a deity to be present? In which case ID should be moved away from the realm of the physics and biology, and into the field of psychology - as subjects, of course.

 

I was simply making the point that you can interpret the evidence either way, and so in neither case do you have direct, objective, incontrovertible evidence (otherwise known as "proof"). Therefore, we are left to arrive at what is the "most reasonable" explanation based on whatever evidence we have, and yes, the "most reasonable" explanation is I.D.. Why? Because it's the most reasonable explanation in so many other scenarios involving the detection of design. For the millionth time, nobody dares suggest the Rosetta Stone is the product of random, undirected natural processes.