Part of the problem is that ID proponents are unable or unwilling to appreciate the weaknesses of the actual arguments they make (We’re seeing it right here in this thread), so I think it’s understandable if we are unwilling to engage in this game with them, where they are likely to say “See? You do admit ID has good arguments!”
If there were some good faith from the other side, maybe I’d be more willing to play the game.
I think @dga471 is engaging in good faith. Play the game with him.
I’m not worried about him. 
I think it would be useful, when we’re doing playing this game in good faith, to flip it and go the other way around. That’s fine, I would be interested to see what arguments for evolution are most appreciated by YEC/OEC/ID folks.
This really isn’t that hard, but it can be a bit uncomfortable. As an educator, this is exactly the kind of activity that is helpful for people to learn what and how they believe. It’s like the classic speech activity where you are required to debate from a position you don’t personally hold. The point is, it takes work and practice to be able to step outside ourselves for a minute to consider another position.
Where does he rigorously demonstrate it’s impossible for evolutionary processes to produce the amount of information he claims? Especially given the vast time frame?
Has anyone come up with an ID argument which is NOT of the form “evolutionary theory can’t explain this to my satisfaction, therefore DESIGN!”. I’ve never seen one which didn’t follow that pattern.
@Timothy_Horton, I feel like the fine-tuning arguments are less that way than the complexity arguments
There could be more, but the one that I can think of is @Winston_Ewert’s work that has been shared with us here.
If that were true, genetic algorithms (also known as evolutionary algorithms) would have no value for solving difficult problems. (By the way, if anyone copy-and-pastes from a “creation science” website which claims that “genetic algorithms are written by intelligent humans”, that only demonstrates that those website authors have no understanding of how those algorithms work.)
Sorry. I see your point.
My difficulty in thinking of the strongest possible scientific argument for ID is that every time I think I’ve thought of one, I realize that it is a philosophical argument (which just happens to refer to scientific concepts) and not an actual scientific argument. I’m not at all surprised at my failure because I’ve been searching the ID literature for years looking for (1) some kind of Comprehensive Scientific Theory of Intelligent Design, and (2) I figure that much smarter people than I am have similarly failed.
So I will step back and follow this thread as a spectator for a while to see if anyone else is more successful in this worthy exercise.
I do not understand this claim. “Bits” appears to be something like the probability of producing the amino acid sequence of a specific human protein starting from nothing. The tornado in a junkyard scenario?
Why didn’t JES start by doing that?
Something that is not merely an argument, but a hypothesis that makes empirical predictions that inspire ID proponents to do actual work in the lab or the field.
That would produce evidence for intelligent design, not mere rhetoric.
Jonathan, please share what you consider to be the best evidence for evolution.
Do you see the striking lack of equivalence there?
You are again mischaracterising ID as a god of the gap argument. It is not the case that ID argument is of the form « evolutionary theory can’t explain this, therefore DESIGN ». Rather, it is more like this : naturalistic theories can’t explain this; DESIGN can; therefore DESIGN is the best explanation.
You are perfectly at liberty to start a different thread on that very topic.
Sorry for going off topic, but what I consider good flat-earth arguments are not highly technical or contining
But rather, simple arguments that depends on seemingly uncontroversial premises, like you said yourself. For example, flat-earthers claim that the furthest photograph ever taken should not be possible as the peak of the faraway mountain should dip bellow the horizon. This is a very simple claim that is not technical at all. To make that argument even better, in order to counter it, one needs to delve into technicalities about atmospheric physics and light refraction - which makes the counterargument not as persuasive, because as you say,
Except that they never explain how design “can” explain it. Unless you can provide a reference to the detailed ID model that identifies who or what the “designer” might be, how it originated, and the step by step process by which the design process occurred.
Thanks in advance.
I agree completely about the flipping as an indicator of good faith, except that as a biologist, I would never even consider asking someone to offer arguments for evolution, because the evidence is what convinces.
What can’t saying “DESIGN” explain? How is saying “DESIGN” any different from saying “MAGIC”? Both are untestable, make no predictions, provide no mechanisms, are unfalsifiable. Completely worthless in other words.
That is pretty much the whole strategy used by Meyer, Behe, Axe, and the rest of the DI crew. Publish popular press books with lots of sciency-sounding bafflegab, lots of polysyllabic words and math equations, watch the True Believer laymen’s eyes glaze over.
I post on various other C/E boards and not a week goes by without some gung-ho ID-Creationist coming through just C&Ping great gobs of such ID empty rhetoric. Then when I ask them to explain in their own words all I hear are crickets.
i think that we can do that. first: i think that we both agree that a self replicating watch is evidence for design. am i right? if so can you tell me what make it difficult to conclude design in a living thing when we accept that notion about self replicating watch?