Okay, so we can’t be 100% certain that mutations are naturalistic as opposed to the work of a designer. That leads to a metaphysical question, but in light of no compelling evidence to the contrary it’s reasonable to assume for now that natural causes and effects are at work. Unless you can show that there was a designer with the ability to create those things who was around when they were created.

I see that you often claim ID is “glaringly obvious” because some things in nature have some similarities to human designs. How much similarity in these analogies is necessary to assume the cause must be the same? As humans have designed spherical objects does that mean we should conclude any spherical objects in nature (eg. planets and stars) must therefore have been designed? How do you know that nature and humans cannot independently arrive at solutions which have some (but not all) things in common?

That leads to a metaphysical question

This presupposes that designers are metaphysical. I’m a designer. I don’t feel metaphysical. In fact at my age I feel way TOO physical. -ds

Unless you can show that there was a designer with the ability to create those things who was around when they were created

Wrong. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. There is no evidence whatsoever that complex machines such as the digtally programmed ribosome can come about without intelligent agency. We already know intelligent agency exists. What we don’t know is if intelligent agency came about only in the very recent history of the universe. Given there’s abundant evidence of design (illusory in your opinion I’m sure but not illusory in the opinion of many others) in living things the reasonable presumption is that intelligent agency existed in the past and was responsible for the appearance of design. The unreasonable thing is to posit there’s a mysterious unintelligent process that created these complex machines without any positive evidence at all that such a thing is even possible much less to promote it with an assurance that excludes even mentioning that an intelligent agency might have been the cause. Your position is untenable and rests on ancient assumptions about the simplicity of life at the cellular level that we know today are incorrect in the extreme. -ds

Comment #107909
Posted by ‘Rev Dr’ Lenny Flank on June 24, 2006 05:22 PM (e)
I wouldn’t want to live in a world run by PZ.

Comment #108260
Posted by Tom Curtis on June 25, 2006 02:34 PM (e)

PZ has invited us to argue. I’m not interested, but I will comment just once.

I am an atheist. I accept the overwhelming evidence for evolution, and find creationism abominable. I have also, for all intents and purposes retired from the creation/evolution debate.

The reason is simple – fanatics like PZ.

Salvador
PS
Though I disagree with atheists, it is not my custom to treat them poorly or as second class citizens in society. I have friends who are atheists and who have supported my IDEA work, such as the poll mentioned here done by the JMU Freethinkers, a group of atheists and agnostics.

IDers should also remember that former atheists are now key supporters of ID: John Sanford, Allan Sandage, Antony Flew, Frank Tipler, Richard Smalley, Lee Strobel, and more than I can even list….I encourage IDers then to bear in mind a future Antony Flew may be reading our posts.

Dave Scott! WRITE A BOOK!!!!!

Popcorn anyone?

PT participation is actually a prerequisite site experience course for all Bio majors at 3 of the 5 major universities these days according to the NCSE (besides pippetting and stamp-collecting). Obviously they don’t want this practical course totally in-house atour esteemed centres of education so that there’s some room for plausible deniability in case it gets too much out of hand. But so far it’s really working!

First of all these are not “documented” processes in nature. To call any mutation “random” requires that you demonstrate 1) the unverse is not entirely deterministic and 2) you have demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that no unknown directed process is involved. I won’t hold my breath while you show me where these are demonstrated. What random in this case really means is “unknown cause”. Natural selection is nothing more than a tautology which can be restated as survival of survivors. If you want an explanation of the evidence for design in nature beyond the glaringly obvious observation that cells have digital program driven machines in them and that in all cases where the origin of such machines can be determined they were the result of intelligent agency and no unintelligent process has been shown as even remotely capable, then I suggest you read Bill Dembski’s books. -ds

Hell hath no fury as a enraged atheist!

Bob

Do cartoons look serious to you, Bob? Oh hold it… I forget who I’m talking to. Anyone that thinks there’s [cough] “overwhelming” evidence that RM+NS can create novel cell types, tissue types, organs, and body plans is not going to be able to distinguish a cartoon from reality. Soldier on, Bob. -ds