chirp....chirp More proof that Z and Teleologist are the same person- Teleologist is now starting to take my posts and cut and paste them and use them as replies. A dead giveaway. As soon as Teleologist posts a bizarre image or threatens anal penetration, as Z does when confused or upset, we will have irrefutable proof.
There are fossils of dead biological organisms. True. That means these organisms were necessarily the product of "evolution" via ignorant chance? False. Who is saying that these biological organisms dropped out of thin air? LOL! No one that I have read... I do hear the crickets still chirping though...
You asked for what we would accept as evidence of ID. I just gave you two possible proofs. Now this is the part where you provide the proof. We're all waiting.
Here is what I find funny, and exemplary of the dogmatism of the Darwinists. If you begin with an assumption of design, much in the same manner Darwinists begin with an assumption of ignorant chance, it becomes pretty easy to make a case for design, common sense arrives at that conclusion naturally. Things appear designed, biological organisms react in an intelligent manner...biological organisms try to survive, most people see that as intelligent. The mechanics of biological organisms are predictable, we have learned lots about them via observation and scientific inquiry, which allows to be able to predict more and more with greater accuracy of what happens. We have gone from beliefs of random "spirits" causing sickness, to understanding of germs causing sickness. We see cause and effect everywhere we look...but somehow, in this one area of Darwinism...we have been led to believe that effect is there, but no cause, no pattern, no plan, and the existence of this situation of no cause, no pattern, no plan itself is just an accident. Not so accidentally of course, they are able to understand it though, right? An accidental existence understanding accidental existence, LOL! So when ID proponents suggest that life is by design, the non IDers get huffy and essentially say "Produce the designer!" as proof of design. "Give us evidence." Of course the evidence must meet the level of intelligence and development of the non IDers. So, that would require a designer to bring himself down to the level of non IDers, and communicate such that they would believe that he is actually the Designer, and is responsible for the design. Uhhh, how would this be possible? Imagine 3,000 years ago, someone came across a book by Einstein, that had been transported back in time. Would those people understand it? Firstly, they could not even read it. Wrong language. If they could somehow read the language, would they understand what Einstein was saying? Not bloody likely. Were Einstein's theories more or less true or false back then? LOL! Think about the intelligence disparity between the people 3,000 years ago and today. Pretty big. However, compare the level of today to some intelligence that would have planned life itself? The gap between 3,000 years ago and today is incremental, the gap between man today and a designer of man? Unmeasurable. So how could they possible understand and have evidence of design, unless they themselves could rise to the same level of a designer? So, the so called scientists would expect that they could understand the language of a designer, the thinking of a designer, the planning of a designer...of life itself? Shoot, people can't even understand why they do the things they do, how their own brain works, where thoughts come from, why their thoughts come they way they do etc...but they are going to understand the designer of a human brain? Laughable... So, why is it then, that scientists make up this theory of ignorant chance, with no way to verify it or rule out design or designer (can't even come up with a test for design or designer), get to decide what unprovable foundation to build a theory on, then declare that ignorant chance is right, and ID is wrong...without every having to prove it to be so? Because the masses have been hoodwinked... When what is presented as science conflicts with common sense, they tell the common man he is wrong, and that they are right. Those who stand up and ask why the emperor has no clothes are derided and ridiculed for daring to question. Hmmm, sounds very much like the Catholic Church of the past... Why there is no inquiry, no critical thinking applied, a dogged defense of a theory which has no way to verify its underlying premise, a fearful attack of alternative ideas and theories is proof enough of the level of dogmatism and fear that is underlying the position of the atheists who are terrified to seriously question the concept of ignorant chance.
100% evidence that the the theory of ignorant chance is itself without evidential support. When data needs to be interpreted as a product of ignorant chance to support a theory of ignorant chance...well, it is obvious to any rational person how circular the thinking really is....
I'll agree that believing in ID is a stretch. Almost as much of a stretch as believing that once upon a time there was nothing, and then for no particular reason nothing exploded. From the nothing explosion came something that for no particular reason evolved into something else. Fast forward a few billion years and here we are typing away. Yep! I'd say both beliefs require a great deal of faith. The difference is, one group of believers will admit that, the other group won't.
The problem is that scientists can't build an effective theory and push it on the fulcrum of "I don't know" so they act as if they do know... Which is why it has evolved from Darwin musing on a possible explanation of life, to the dogmatic teaching of ignorant chance as being THE cause of life, with full blown emotional and reactionary responses to the suggestion that the very foundation of their theory is lacking merit. Human nature at work...
You are mischaracterizing the issue. The question is whether or not ID is scientific. Science requires only a hypothesis and an experiment to verifiably confirm it. Nothing more nor less. That the hypothesis may be based upon some prior inconsistency is irrelevant within the limit of the experiment. Ultimately everything is inconsistent and unprovable, because when one is dealing with limitless possibilities, all outcomes are equally likely. But, within a defined subset of the universe of possibilities, science explains things by conducting verifiable experiments to confirm hypotheses. Evolution is proved by a myriad of experiments which confirm its hypothesis. ID advocates don't conduct experiments. Instead, they complain about the experiments conducted by their opponents, and then rest their complaint upon the foundation that nothing is provable if you widen the set of possibilities without limits. No one can dispute that ID is as sound an idea of evolution if limitless outcomes are allowed. But, once you have done so you must allow for everything from Tolkein's Middle Earth to the Gods of Mt. Olympus, because these are all equally likely outcomes of a limitless set of possibilities. Within the limits of what scientists can measure, evolution explains life on Earth, and ID explains nothing, because no evidence supported by verifiable experiments exists. Yet, the ID supporter continues to fall back on requiring scientific proof of that which cannot be scientifically proved: measurment of limitlessness. A ruler of infinite length cannot be measured. That is where faith comes in. No faith is required where the ruler is only one foot long. For that, science is sufficient.