Evidence for Intelligent Design-is there any?

and what is more real that evolution which has been seen in action at least at the micro level.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

This characterization of Gould's views is incomplete and misleading at best, but it is definitely off-topic. If you want to talk about Gould's views on evolution, indeed, anyone's views on evolution, take it elsewhere. This is uninformed and misleading, but again, please take these criticisms of evolution to a thread where they would be on-topic. This is just out and out wrong, but more to the point, this is as off-topic as everything else so far in your message. Now you're applying criteria inconsistently. No one was there when the "intelligent designer" designed or created, either. But more importantly, you're still off-topic. You've gone through an entire message of fair length without touching once on the topic, the evidence for intelligent design. Congratulations!--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Specified complexity is an unsupported assertion, not evidence. If you don't believe this, then just try finding the evidence used to develop the concept of specified complexity. In particular, find the descriptions of the experiments by which measures of specified complexity were determined, and by which the threshold amount of specified complexity requiring a directing intelligence was determined.In fact, just try finding a way to measure specified complexity.Here's a challenge for you: try to find out what the units of specified complexity are.If you go back to my Message 35 you'll find some suggested examples for where to look to find possible evidence of intelligent design.--Percy

I'll see if I can cook something up this week, of course if you do it sooner, no problem for me.

The title of this thread is -
Evidence for Intelligent Design - Is There Any?Apparently not...........?

Well Percy I'm sorry that you were not impressed by the logic of the argument for specified complexity because I was. I suppose since evolutionists do seem by and large to support 'the theory of no design' even when it looks like design, it is to be expected.The problem is again in the philosophy of the evolutionist - it can't be designed because there is no designer so even when it looks like design by reason of its intricate organization, we call it 'designoid' or 'apparent design' as if you know for sure that something that truelly looks like design truelly can't have been designed.In the Bible it is called 'willful blindness' -we can't see it because we don't want to.

Beretta.I'm not an Evolutionist, I didn't even study Biololgy beyond the higschool level. I dont care if the theory of Evolution is true or not, I only care where the facts take me.So, if you say something looks designed, fine ok, some of these things are indeed very intricate. However how do we know for sure? How can we tell the difference between "actual" and "apparent" design, I think finding a way to determine which is which is very important in this thread.

That statement is always followed by "however, upon further study of said phenomenon we find that a perfectly good naturalistic explanation is found that removes the 'appearence' of design to the person working directly with the phenomenon."So yes it may 'appear' designed, but no, after further study of it, its apparent that naturalistic causes are responsible. It has been pointed out to you in the past here on EVC that there are many natural structures on this planet that 'appear' designed but we know were caused my natural processes, so why do you continue to make a plee for the 'appearance' of design being actual proof for design?Do you have evidence for design other than your opinion of how nature appears to look? I believe thats whats being asked.Edited by onifre, : spelling

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Hi Beretta,What you've been asked repeatedly to avoid is criticism of evolution and/or evolutionists in this thread where evidence for ID is the topic. In this case you're arguing that evolutionists don't accept the argument from design because they don't want to, or perhaps because their world-view doesn't allow them to. It would be equally false for evolutionists to argue that creationists don't accept evolutionary arguments because they don't want to, or perhaps because their world-view doesn't allow them to. Neither argument is scientific nor based upon observational evidence of the natural world.If you want to argue in this way anyway then propose a thread and I will promote it as quickly as I can.But if you'd like to discuss the topic of this thread, then a response to my earlier post would be very different from what you just posted. It would instead address the questions I raised about specified complexity. Specifically, what were the experiments that established a) the measures of specified complexity; b) how to measure specified complexity; and c) the threshold of specified complexity beyond which intelligence is required?These are, of course, rhetorical questions. No such experiments have ever been designed, let alone performed.--Percy

Beretta, you can take 6 hours off to figure out how to respond and stay on topic.

Beretta, there is plenty of evidence for intelligent design available, provided you have a reasonable attitude about knowledge about freedom.Since about 10 years ago some scientists have discovered freedom, and so with this new science you can find decisions in the universe, and from there you get various theories that basically look like intelligent design.It would be too compicated for me to explain the "hyperincursive" math of the theory, so I think it suffices to say that according to this theory everything in the universe is from decisions, so it is basically consistent with the creationist way of thinking.

The argument of 'it looks like design' is very weak and is not evidence by any scientific standard. However for the sake of argument lets consider this.APPARENT DESIGN AND "MICROEVOLUTION"
Relatively minor adaptations that you would no doubt class as 'microevolution' also have a strong appearance of design. You however accept these as natural and observed processes. A polar bear looks like it was designed for an arctic environment. But you would no doubt claim this "apparent design" as being just microevolution from some sort of generic "bear kind". DESIGN: APPARENT OR REAL
The problem you have is distinguishing the design that you claim is necessarily a product of God (or whoever) and the apparent design of "microevolution" which you accept as natural, real and observed.If you are going to claim the appearance of design in nature as evidence for a designer then you need to be able to distinguish between the aspects of nature that can appear designed without divine designer intervention and those that cannot.
This presumably is where specified complexity comes in.SPECIFIED COMPLEXITY
Unless specified complexity can derive a method of classifying complexity of change such that it can distinguish between those changes that require designer intervention and those that cannot I don't see any real point to this theory in relation to your anti-evolution argument.Can it do this and if so on what observational or theoretical basis is this calculated?PS - You are still avoiding answering the question as to why you think ID has never ever once resulted in a single discovery Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

So you are presenting us with evidence of ID because toothbrushes can choose?You are again forgeting that choice can only come from a brain (of what ever kind).The whole point of ID is to show that the universe needed some intelligence (from a brain of some kind) to be 'formed'.What you are basically saying here is that ID would support your bizaar belief that toothbrushes can think.Still not evidence, is it?

No decisions come from a discrete harmonic oscillator also for instance.

God Verdomme, keep away from those Coffee Shops.