Why complex form requires an Intelligent Designer

I agree with you. Actually, in practice they all seem to refuse to make a statement on who the designer is.Look, I'm not saying that the IDists I describe actually exist. I even questioned their existence in my previous posts. What I am saying is that they all (or at least the ones that claim to be the "real experts") seem to not take an official stance on who the designer is. And until they do, we can't discredit them by attacking their motives. You're absolutely right, they don't have any evidence to suggest it. And as far as I know, all of them have said that they believed that the judeo christian almight god is the designer. But you forgot to also include the fact that they also put a big fat "this is just my personal belief" statement beside their previous one.When talking science, politics, or whatever, I wouldn't want my personal beliefs to be dragged in and used against my logical argument. Would you?

Forgot? You quoted and enlarged me doing it. What exactly are you accusing me of forgetting?It speaks to motive, though. Isn't it a little ridiculous to assert that you can prosecute an investigation in ID without assuming the deity of the Designer, when every single ID proponent of note makes exactly that assumption? If you can be an ID theorist without being a theist, why are they always theists? Your basic premise is false - ID isn't something you can seperate from religion, because it is religion. The fact that ID is always employed to promote the God of a particular religion is a proof of this. They're not making logical arguments. They're appealing to ignorance and incredulity, while at the same time obscuring their true motives. It's not a dissociation born of a desire for objective science; it's a front to insert their religion where it doesn't belong. ID is inextricable from religion because it is religion. The proof of this is that not even its followers can entertain the idea that the Designer of ID is not God except in a purely rhetorical sense.

Rarely in public, and for good reason. Here follows just a tiny part of the evidnce given during the Dover ID case. Yes we can. As long as they have no scientific evidence for a designer, what else can their motives be? For a bet? Or a dare, perhaps?Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

Well, I guess I agree to... agree, once again. You're certainly persistent at misreading/misunderstanding what I write.

Fine, then point out the fact that they lack evidence.

We have been. What planet are you on?

To be fair to the design of our neck my understanding is that having one pipe allows us to swivel our heads.Anyway, carry on.

This of course raises the following further questions:Why is our central control device, the brain, so isolated from the other mechanisms that provide it sustenance?Why is our central control device not better protected by being inside our body?Wouldn't an intelligent designer provide a backup system for providing oxygen to the system, such as if everyone were born with a tracheotomy?

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

I don't quite understand that. How would having multiple pipes prevent swiveling our heads, particularly considering how limited the degree of motion is in a human? We do not swivel around the windpipe anyway, but rather arount the spinal cord.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

My point is attacking their position by pointing out their lack of evidence is fine. What bothers me is questioning their motive, which makes us look just as bad as the christians that accuse evolutionists of spreading the atheist agenda. Attack the position, not the person.

but . . .the ICR is for promoting God--that is thier "intelligetn design".The intelligent design movement (this iteration, at any rate) appeared right after creationism was defeated in the courts. and the "new" ID movement was/is largely headed by the original creationist people.Science has a srict methodology that explicity leaves the question of God's existence open and outside of the realm of scientific inquiry.We don't have any conspiracy, unless you count spreading around a better understanding of just what science and evolution actually is.As to the "attack position, not person" bit, motive is not safe. Attacking the person is saying that "he's an ass", or "she's so confused that . . .". But when you ask "why are they doing this? what is their reason?", you're safe. Hell, in history that's half of what we do--ask why do they view this as such, or some other similar questions. In science, this same bit happens--why is he advocating this? what's his reason for supporting it? It's part of the process of getting to an objective decision, not a subjective one.point is, attacking motive is okay. motive is not equivalent to who, or what, the person is. attacking person, I agree, is not okay.

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

I don't agree.

mind elaborating on that?

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

How can you not agree? When someone presents an argument, and their support for it is essentially "why would I lie to you?", it's very reasonable and salient to question their motives, because they've just established their own motives as evidence for their position.

Already have, on multiple occasions.