intelligent design

Please show me an irreducibly complex system that is the product of intelligent design? Intelligent design by man always goes to simplicity and basics. Rube Goldberg complexity is the exception to design.

 

Testable how? Dropping a ball an watching it fall? It would be disproved when you find a ball that doesn't fall. That is observation and experiment.

From Wiki: "Newton's laws were verified by experiment and observation for over 200 years."

So you take a mousetrap. We have observed that no mousetrap has ever spontaneously generated. We have tested that there are no environments that can be created or conceived in which a mousetrap will spontaneously generate. Experiment and observation. Science.

 

Gotta agree with you there. In all seriousness, since this is R&S and not R&R or NOTD, that statement makes absolutely no sense. ID says a hand is guding the process and that it isn't random, which contradicts the process entirely.

If the process wasn't random, then what is the expected outcome? If it's certain that there is control, then the outcome must be predictable. Mutation has always been proven to be unpredictable, which supports the randomness of its nature.

 

A simple mouse trap.

 

Is irreducibly complex? Wow.

 

And still functional? Absolutely. That is the definition.

 

No, by altering the force applied to a thrown ball to confirm whether it retains its energy from contact with the control (hard surface) at various velocities.

You simply cannot do anything like that with ID and your "complex design" examples.

I will give you this Sly - you are a master of muddying waters with false context, i.e. what Vito posted above.

 

God's greatest gift to man was free will - even if it meant that certain people use that free will to reject him. To me, evolution and adaptation within a species is simply a logical extension of free will.

 

Once again. You are simply talking about experiment and observation. Newton's laws would be proven wrong if you could find an object that did not retain its energy. ID would be proven wrong if you could find a spontaneously generated irreducibly complex system.

 

BTW, since we seem to be getting away from the notion, I'm not here to refute ID. I have no problem with ID. My problem is with calling ID a science and teaching it as science when it isn't scientific. Nothing more. It's a wonderful philosophic question that I enjoy debating and encourage people to explore for themselves.

But it isn't science. It's not a product of the scientific method. It was formulated and now folks are trying to stretch it over the scientific framework, which is the very antithesis of science.