I wonder if there might be a definition of design upon which you and I could
ALMOST agree. I believe the laws of nature are designed, and while I
consider the existence of a "designer" irrelevant, I doubt any designer ever
personally interferes with the process. You believe the laws of nature are
rational. Our difference lies in whether that rationality is the result of
accidental processes.
I do believe there is an unpredictable aspect of nature, but I don't define
it as random. I believe individual choice plays a part. Take the loosely
defined entity known as "public opinion", as an example resembling a living
organism. It is the summation of many similar and diverse beliefs. To you,
how each individual opinion was reached may appear to be random. However,
how you personally reached your opinion was not random. It was the result of
nature, experience and choice. Perhaps you would leave choice out of the
formula, but I doubt you can prove choice does not exist. (No burdens of
proof, please!! While I doubt anything in this realm can be proved, don't
insist proof be presented when arguing something doesn't exist which most
people take as an obvious given.)
I've read predictions of design which might verified. For instance, more and
more traits might be found which add nothing to the survivability of the
organism, but contribute to the health of the environment. The essential
contributions each organism makes to the design of the biosphere will
continue to be discovered. Other predictions might be that the genome is
not a "hodge podge", but that each and every piece of the genome plays, has
played or will play, an important part in the evolution of the organism and
the biosphere. Another prediction might be that only those mutations which
are harmful to the organism will turn out to be random. (And evey they have
causes.) Other mechanisms will be found for any mutations which add to the
complexity of the organism. I'm sure design theorists will think of more
examples, but of course the loudest prediction of design is that random
mutation and natural selection play very little part in macro evolution.
According to my definition of design, our biggest area of disagreement is the
existence of a "designer". I consider the question irrelevant. It seems
important to you that a "designer" NOT exist. Is that question important
enough to you to prevent any consensus on the question of design?
Bertvan