If it's so "obvious," then why are you unable to produce any scientific evidence in support? The answer, of course, is that the evidence of design, is exactly as obvious as is the evidence that the Earth is flat. That is to say, if you don't actually conduct any experiments, you'll never know if you're hypothesis is correct. But, you can still believe it, just as long as you don't travel to the horizon, That would be the equivalent of an experiment. And, when you get to the believed edge and no abyss appears, you will have to adjust your hypothesis to explain why the edge of the Earth seems to be exactly as far away as it was before you began your journey -- only now it's behind you, and located precisely at the point where your journey began. Continuing to assert that the Earth is flat, as you do, is the very epitome of "circular" logic.
Scientific equipment is from design. Science itself is by design. Or are you thinking it was all from chance? You continue to ask for evidence. Okay, exactly what would you need in the form of "evidence?" Would you need a label on each biological organism that says "Made by ID?" Would you need to shake hands with some ID personality? LOL!!! Evidence is everywhere, denial is the problem... "Continuing to assert that the Earth is flat, as you do, is the very epitome of "circular" logic." So when you are floundering, you put words in people's mouths? Is that the technique? Just try to find somewhere that I claimed the earth was flat. Maybe you need to calm down, dial down the emotions, and just reason more effectively. Just trying to help...
I've already stated that there are an endless number of possible evidences you could provide, and I've offered two. Let me repeat it, for the benefit of your alter ego. "OK, Z, show me a complex multipart lifeform which has no fossil ancestry. In other words, a complex lifeform which appears to have been dropped into its environment out of thin air. Or, show me a complex lifeform, existing on Earth, made from something other than DNA/RNA -- a creature made entirely of parts other than cells. Something like a toaster that eats bread to nourish itself, rather than uses electricity to cook toast." Have you ever seen the movie "Blade Runner?" In that film, the genetic engineers did in fact place their trademark into the genome of the engineered organism. You laugh at the idea as lunatic. I think it's quite reasonable -- evidently so did Ridley Scott. But, I'm open to any scientific evidence you may produce. The problem is, that thus far, you have produced nothing but the bare claim that ID "is" and evolution "is not." If you have no proof, then all you have is your faith. Science requires measurability. If all you have is faith, then your belief in ID is not scientific. My position is that ID is unscientific. You continuously prove this hypothesis, by failing to provide any scientific proof. Logical constructs, such as "science comes from design," is not scientific proof of ID. There is no experiment confirming that science comes from design contained in that statement. You could say that "science comes from ancient civilizations who were the first to conduct experiments in a methodical manner." And you would be correct. But you haven't proved that science comes from design, because you are hypothesizing the existence of a supernatural designer. That's your hypothesis, so it's up to you to prove it, if you intend it to be scientific. Otherwise it's unscientific. Whereas I am not hypothesizing a supernatural designer, so I don't need to prove his existence. All I need to show is that evolution happens. There are thousands of peer reviewed scientific publications showing that evolution does in fact occur. My hypothesis is thus proven. Yours is pure speculation. If you want to be taken seriously, then narrow the limits of your hypothesis to something scientifically measurable, and then conduct an experiment to prove it. If you don't, then my hypothesis stands confirmed: ID is not science.
I've already stated that there are an endless number of possible evidences you could provide, and I've offered two. Let me repeat it, for the benefit of your alter ego. Endless possible "designers?" Okay, fine by me. Just means not ignorant chance. You forget that all I arguing is non ignorant chance. "OK, Z, show me a complex multipart lifeform which has no fossil ancestry. In other words, a complex lifeform which appears to have been dropped into its environment out of thin air. So there are fossils of biological organisms, who came to be here through non ignorant chance. Or, show me a complex lifeform, existing on Earth, made from something other than DNA/RNA -- a creature made entirely of parts other than cells. Something like a toaster that eats bread to nourish itself, rather than uses electricity to cook toast." DNA and RNA are nice designs, aren't they? Nice job of programming there... Have you ever seen the movie "Blade Runner?" In that film, the genetic engineers did in fact place their trademark into the genome of the engineered organism. You laugh at the idea as lunatic. I think it's quite reasonable -- evidently so did Ridley Scott. So genetic engineers are doing their work by ignorant chance? Or by design? LOL! But, I'm open to any scientific evidence you may produce. The problem is, that thus far, you have produced nothing but the bare claim that ID "is" and evolution "is not." I assert non ignorant chance. Prove me wrong. Isn't that your MO? Assert something, then say "prove me wrong." If you have no proof, then all you have is your faith. Science requires measurability. If all you have is faith, then your belief in ID is not scientific. If you have no proof of ignorant chance, then all you have is faith, right? My position is that ID is unscientific. You continuously prove this hypothesis, by failing to provide any scientific proof. Looking at the sky, seeing the sun move across the horizon repeatedly is scientific. Predicting that it will do so tomorrow based on past experience is also scientific. Concluding that the sun revolved around the earth was equally scientific. Then, when scientific instrumentation got better, the point of view was changed, and the conclusions changed. The approach of science did not. So what we see is change, and we don't know why things change, but that they do change. So? What can we conclude with a high degree of certainty: 1. Things change. 2. Sometimes we know why they change. Sometimes we can make them change, sometimes we can't. 3. Sometimes we don't know why they change, sometimes we don't. From that we can conclude that the changes we see, where we don't know the cause...is necessarily ignorant chance? Just doesn't follow... Logical constructs, such as "science comes from design," is not scientific proof of ID. Maybe semantics here. ID to me means not ignorant chance. Means by design, by programming, by the nature of the system to produce changes by design, not by random ignorant chance. Biological organism interact with their environment, and try to adapt where necessary, this is their design. Were it not for this design to adapt, they would likely perish as the environment changes. What a phenomenal design, to change and adapt to meet with the environment. Were a man to design a machine to do that, we would marvel at how smart he was, but when nature does that on its own, the conclusion is lucky guess random ignorant chance? In this world, we have gone from greater mystery, to less mystery, and with each step we have discovered causation...causation once unknown and attributed to all kinds of things, but science takes the mystery out of it. So if the goal is to take the mystery out of it, why does science build this lavish Darwin theory on the basis of mystery, the mystery of ignorant chance. Makes no sense at all. However, if ignorant chance is not the cause, then the whole thing changes dramatically, as we see that change is not ignorant and chance at all, but rather by design, which freaks out the atheists... There is no experiment confirming that science comes from design contained in that statement. Science came from the human mind, right? By design? Yes or no? That science fits so exactly as an overlay on the world and nature is just random ignorant chance? Now that would be truly incredible... Just like imagining that mathematics just happens to fit so well with our universe, just an ignorant lucky guess... You could say that "science comes from ancient civilizations who were the first to conduct experiments in a methodical manner." And you would be correct. But you haven't proved that science comes from design, because you are hypothesizing the existence of a supernatural designer. I have not said it needs to be a supernatural designer, just by design. That's your hypothesis, so it's up to you to prove it, if you intend it to be scientific. Otherwise it's unscientific. Since there is no proof that change is produced by random ignorant chance, then it is unscientific. Okay, I agree... Whereas I am not hypothesizing a supernatural designer, so I don't need to prove his existence. Oh, there is no need to prove a supernatural designer at all. All I have to do is show that ignorant chance is not proved, and the door is then wide open for people to believe whatever they want, rather than be preached to dogmatically by atheists or theists as to what to believe. All I need to show is that evolution happens. There are thousands of peer reviewed scientific publications showing that evolution does in fact occur. Change does happen, but is the change a product of design or ignorant chance? My hypothesis is thus proven. Yours is pure speculation. No, actually yours is resting on the speculation of ignorant chance... If you want to be taken seriously, then narrow the limits of your hypothesis to something scientifically measurable, and then conduct an experiment to prove it. Measure and prove random ignorant chance, ruling out design as a possibility. Is that too much to ask? Oh, and just because someone says "we can't see or find a design" is not proof of a lack of design, it is just an admission of ignorance of the fact. If you don't, then my hypothesis stands confirmed: ID is not science. Since your hypothesis is not confirmed, the latter does not follow.
No, it's not. I assert something and then I show an experiment confirming it. You assert something and say "prove me wrong," rather than conducting an experiment to prove yourself right. So you have just an assertion, which is not science, while I have an experiment which is science. Therefore, ID is not science, because you can't conduct any scientific experiment to confirm it.