Reply #60: Heh

[Az]

So you are saying we would never be able to recognise what a suitably intelligent designer would consider a good design. Forgive me but I think you just rendered the ID notion undemonstrable.

Lets look at this again. The theory of evolution predicts that species build up over time. Adaption is situational and once an adaption is made it cannot be reversed.

ID supposes that the course and design of each organism is orchestrated. In such an arraingement you would expect to see reversals and designs specialized for specific situations to be best suited for them. The flow should not enter into the equation. Forward and backward make no difference to a designer that can control the ebb and flow of life itself.

Reality corresponds better to the theory presented by the undirected Evolution.

In the case of the Panda's thumb it would be superior to have simply unfused the paw. Release the thumb and let it do the work the spur now has to struggle to do.

Consider further all the extinct animals. Were these failed experiments? What need has a omniscient designer have for experiments?

To suggest that the designer made it seem this way for inscrutible reasons simply begs to bring Occams razor in and do some trimming. It amounts to trying to argue the absense of evidence is evidence for a designer. And thats not going to work.

The system flows. At best from just the evidence of life on this planet you could theorise that a designer created the conditions for life and left it to it's own course. But that puts you into conflict with other fields of study and the debate of ID and Evolution is rendered null.