And given any lack of evidence supporting the rational "designer" Occam cuts deeply.
Bertvan: 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.
Huh? Health of the environment? You also say "more and more", could you give an example?
Bertvan: 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.)
Wow, are you saying that the designer is still affecting its creation?
Bertvan: 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.
I expected as much: False duality. The same error Behe apparantly fell for.
Bertvan: 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?
The only difference between you and CC is the designer, if the question is irrelevant then so is the question of ID which adds nothing to science.
Bertvan