If you should still be lurking. ID does not require a supernatural designer for life on Earth. ETs could have done it.

Now, who would have made the ETs, is not addressed by ID seeking to describe life on Earth.

Obviously, somewhere along the line the matter of an infinite loop would have to be resolved, but how is that different from methodological naturalism?

Move along to another thread please. You’re not contributing in a constructive manner to this one.

From an ID perspective, the natural-vs.-supernatural distinction is irrelevant. The real contrast is not between natural laws and miracles, but between undirected natural causes and intelligent ones.

Mathematician and philosopher of science William Dembski puts it this way: “Whether an intelligent cause is located within or outside nature (i.e., is respectively natural or supernatural) is a separate question from whether an intelligent cause has operated.”

Human actions are a case in point: “Just as humans do not perform miracles every time they act as intelligent agents, so there is no reason to assume that for a designer to act as an intelligent agent requires a violation of natural laws.”

On the other hand, even if an object were miraculously created, it could still be studied. Take the flagellum, for example. No matter what its origins, a flagellum is a flagellum. We can take it apart, we can examine its components, we can modify it, we can figure out how it works. And we can do that whether it evolved over eons or popped into existence two seconds ago.

In the world of human technology, this is called reverse engineering. But the same process is also used in biology.

“That’s basically what everybody at the bench is doing,” said Scott Minnich, a microbiologist at the University of Idaho. “We don’t have the blueprints in the true sense. We have the DNA code for a lot of organisms, but in terms of the assembly of these molecular machines, it’s a matter of breaking them apart and trying to put them back together to figure out how they function.”

This is also the kind of work that will be done with the human genome. Speaking to the New York Times in late June, when the human genome breakthrough was announced, Harold Varmus, former director of the National Institutes of Health commented, “The important thing is having pieces of DNA in your hand, and being able to figure out how they work by modifying and mutating them. That’s where the game is now.”

Fittingly, the metaphor he used to describe this process was examining a clock: “You can take the clock apart, lay the pieces out in front of you, and then try to understand what makes it tick by putting it back together again.”

The designer must be supernatural because ID says it is.

That is odd because ID doesn’t say anything about the designer.

ID does not require a supernatural entity for the OoL.

If it is outside of nature then we can’t say now can we? No we cannot. And that is because what is outside of nature is not amendable to study.

So the best we can do is say it is outside of nature and leave it at that.

And your claim of super is meaningless.

MY point that is in any “infinite regress” game, your position regresses back to the SAME point.

non-natural = supernautral

It could, but it does NOT have to.

You know that Venn diagram and all.

Tu quoque

A makes criticism P.
A is also guilty of P.
Therefore, P is dismissed.

I am not dismissing anything. I am just saying there is equality.

Please read what was written.

Joe – “And even YOUR position also requires something beyond nature.”

that’s Tu Quoque Joe, and fallacious within the context of Why ID requires a supernatural entity for OOL.

Work on that Venn Diagram, it will help.

2. Joseph points out that claim X, is not only false, it also pertains to IDskeptic’s position

Nope, no ‘tu quoque’ involved

http://dictionary.reference.co.....%20natural

“
nonnatural

adjective
existing outside of or not in accordance with nature; “find transcendental motives for sublunary action”-Aldous Huxley “

non-natural = supernautral

Tell you what, help me out. Draw a Venn diagram of natural and non natural for me.
Then we can discuss.

As for “wah wah wah” tu quoque, I don’t care – and the posts isn’t “Does naturalism require a supernatural genesis?” I’m just addressing the post above, using ID theory. The designer must be supernatural because ID says it is. I’m not necessarily agreeing with it, just staying on topic.

• adjective not produced by or involving natural processes.

IOW you still lack reading comprehension skills and you still do not apply your skepticism evenly.

All your definition says is that the supernatural is beyond nature. Well duh.

Not everything beyond nature has to be supernatural. Things that are unnatural fit the bill.

Things that are other dimensional also fit the bill.

And even YOUR position also requires something beyond nature. You cannot get around that simple fact.

Ya see IDskeptic YOUR position still regresses to the SAME point.

I think perhaps you might want to (re)read some of Dr^2 Dembski’s work on the UPB.

Why? Did I say something that contradicts it?

If you think so please present it.