>
> It is interesting that while we have grown accustomed to seeing this type
> of challenge applied to scientific theories, we seldom if ever see a similar
> challenge made to ID. What might such a challenge look like? How about
> this for starters:
>
> What evidence do you have that an intelligent designer
> would be able to design and build something like a cilia?
> Do you have the blueprints?
> Technical memos?
> A description of the manufacturing procedure?
> A patent?
> Where is the design mechanism which ties the designed object
> to the designer?
******************************
I would be pleased to answer.
ID is not a scientific theory it is a philosophical conclusion from an
arguement that current scientific theories are inadequate.
I do not have evidence of an ID outside of my understanding of the
revelations of God as understood from the scripture.
Irreducible complexity does not tell us that a God exists but it does
make the material process only explanation hard to accept and leaves one
to search for another explanation.
The blueprints are being understood through daily research and I do not
know what they are exactly and the IDer has no obligation to give them
to us.
There is no contention that the ID has given us any details or wants to
or that the theory of an ID needs this level of detail to be forwarded
to us. It is not a scientific theory.
Bert M
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 07 2000 - 16:34:19 EST