Interesting. Where has that been ‘explicitly defined’? I just assume the designer could do with the design as He/she/it desired. Maybe I’m wrong and ID has shown the designer incapable of dealing with what was designed. Show me teh money!

Just playing devils advocate here, but why make something “intelligently” that pretty much completly dies out a few years latter?

At this point, in the modern ID synthesis, I’m pretty sure the designer has been explicitly defined as incapable of foreseeing extinction-causing disasters. (That and its inability to foresee and prevent disease-causing mutations.)

This is just a version of “God wouldn’t of done it that way” type argument.

It is an argument from fallacy.

http://triablogue.blogspot.com.....llacy.html

Also see Appeal to Consequences of a Belief

http://www.nizkor.org/features.....ences.html

But your right, your attempt at playing devils advocate was not exactly thinking clearly. So lets move on to more moving arguments.

Just playing devils advocate here, but why make something “intelligently” that pretty much completly dies out a few years latter?

Seems pretty random and fickle, not intelligent. Can we more on to more moving arguments?

“Unlocking the Mystery of Life delivered the left hook from biology. The Privileged Planet delivered the right punch from astronomy. And now, Darwin’s Dilemma is the pile driver from paleontology…”

Don’t we all love trilogies? I know I do! Especially comedies!

Of course not. Just one hint at a possible mechanism or a shadow of a possible intermediary would be enough to change all the textbooks and curriculum to say that the Cambrian is completely explained and for them to say “Next.” Amazing science, evolutionary biology.

Of course you would have the occasional skeptic but they could be dealt with in the usual ways.

Anyway, getting back to the Cambrian… hmm, so the problem is mainly the lack of intermediates? Or would the appearances of all those phyla still be a problem if enough intermediates were found?

SOP