I see design in nature everywhere. It seems to be an engineer’s mentality to see design in everything. Termites design structures like modern architect’s do.
2 Likes
Yes, absolutely!
But what if EVERYONE agreed that Creation was designed!
And the only thing left to dispute was whether Design could be scientifically proven or not.
Do you think science can Prove design?
If so… you are saying that after 25 centuries of fruitless searching … that really will be an actual PROOF of God ?
I don’t think science can prove anything. And I don’t see ID arguments as being designed to prove the existence of God.
I am not sure I agree. Let us say there are two arguments for design, A1 and A2. Let us say that A1 is a good argument, but A2 is a bad argument. What value is their in associating with an organization that promotes both A1 and A2, even going so far as to prohibit internal critique of A2? This ends up polluting trust in A1. Wouldn’t you trust someone merely making the A1 argument, and leaving the A2 argument in the dust? Now multiply A2 times 50, to proliferate bad arguments. What value is there now in staying? The fact that A1 is valid does not help much.
As for this situations e are looking at now, at appears that @Mung things that ID is ultimately right, but all their arguments are wrong. Now, we do not even have A1 to redeem the effort, just the fact that the final conclusion is the same all around.
It just seems more rational to take my path (and it appears your path too @glipsnort) of staying away from ID as a movement, even though believe God created us.
I have to say that your views completely baffle me. Let’s enumerate them:
1]I don’t think science can prove anything. And
2] I don’t see ID arguments as being designed to prove the existence of God.
3] thus, @Mung , we can deduct that ID will not be able to confirm or prove Design. If it could, it would immediately prove the existence of God once someone eliminates “ancient aliens” as the only other contender.
This means, @mung , that the only thing left for the ID camp to demonstrate, is that regardless of science, there is good reason for Christians to accept God as the designer of all Creation. Not because of science, but because of Faith.
And yet, @mung , this doesn’t appear to be the axe you grind. You are grinding an axe enumerated somewhere in [1], [2] or [3].
Maybe you would like another stab at trying to build a coherent case for your discussions?
I don’t have an axe to grind. That would have been my grandfather, not me. 
You’re arguing against trusting an organization, which is not something I was addressing, i.e. you’re arguing that bad arguments for design are a reason for rejecting the DI, which need not be the same as rejecting ID.
I think the only disagreement here is based on ambiguity in what “ID” means – is it a movement, or a concept? I was talking about the logical status of the latter, while you’re talking about the former.
5 Likes
If everyone in a room agrees that God designed creation , what percent of these room occupants can design an experiment where God or an operation of God can become the independent variable in an experiment?
Hint: think alchemists.
Answer: zero percent.
@marty, would you agree or disagree?
1 Like
That would not be a correct representation of my views on ID. I would never say that all ID arguments are wrong nor do I have reason to believe that all ID arguments are wrong. In fact, one of the questions I was asked was what argument of theirs do I find most convincing and I answered that question.
As always, if someone wants to ask me about a specific ID argument I am more than happy to share my thoughts about it. It simply goes to far to say I think that “all their arguments are wrong.”
@Mung, then answer the question. Which ones do you think are correct and valid? It is a straightforward question. Please answer it. If you can’t answer it, we could say:
I don’t keep a list of ID arguments. I’ve repeatedly invited you to get specific. Present an ID argument and I’ll give you my honest opinion. And I have already given you one.
You could say that. It would not make it true.
What’s up with these demands Joshua? Don’t they tend to undermine dialog rather than encourage it?
1 Like
I would agree. The answer is “Zero percent.”
3 Likes
Sorry. and totally off topic, but when I read your response, for a second, I thought you were my wife replying to me! 
Hahaha…
3 Likes
Thanks for pointing that out! Very funny the way it was. I made an edit…
2 Likes
@swamidass and @Mung
Perhaps I can propose a couple of design arguments for you guys to chew on:
- The universe appears fine-tuned for life like us.
- Given what we know about early earth and how biomolecules work, the first cell had to be designed.
Hope this helps!
1 Like
I actually think their are good arguments, though the at you specified includes both good and bad arguments. I’m trying to figure out what @mung holds to here.
That Neo-Darwinism fails as an explanation for the appearance of design. I was hoping we could both agree on that.