The Miracle of Water.

[nPeace]

It is only arrogance and self-deception, to think that myths and superstitions would personally threaten any critical thinker.

We can agree on that.
Is there a reason you did not address the post above that one? If it's that you agree, that's okay.

@Wild Fox I will get back to your post on Wednesday, hopefully.

One does not "believe" in a scientific theory any more than one believes in Earth having a moon. So, here's the actual definition with some explanation:

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment. In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.

The meaning of the term scientific theory (often contracted to theory for brevity) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of theory. In everyday speech, theory can imply an explanation that represents an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, whereas in science it describes an explanation that has been tested and widely accepted as valid. These different usages are comparable to the opposing usages of prediction in science versus common speech, where it denotes a mere hope... -- Scientific theory - Wikipedia

Thanks, but that wasn't necessary.

Absolutely false as it is considered one of the prime bases for the field of biology. Even common sense should tell one this as all material objects appear to change (evolve) over time and genes are material objects.

Look. You are using the word appear. What does that say?
If I used it and get a different result, what would you say?

No, because some use religion as a set of blinders rather that of enlightenment.

I experienced that for myself as I grew up in a fundamentalist Protestant church that taught us to not accept the science on this and some other things, and I left that church after concluding my undergrad and grad degrees in anthropology when it became painfully aware to me that I and others in that church were being misled. Fortunately, many churches do not teach this use of blinders, including the one I converted to.

Any church that teaches its congregants to turn a blind eye to basic science must be considered bogus because the Truth cannot be relative. The belief in the Creation accounts as somehow being literal history is so nonsensical that one really has to be quite ignorant about theology in order to conclude that this is the only option. The Creation accounts, taken literally, simply are not even remotely logical based on what we now know, especially since we're quite certain at this time that they were designed to teach basic Jewish theology through the use of allegory-- basically what appears to be a reworked Babylonian narrative so as to reflect basic Jewish teachings.

I said before that there is good science, and bad. Do you disagree?
So I don't disagree with anyone who - not turns a blind eye, because for one to turn a blind eye, means that they cannot see - but thinking people can see the difference, so I agree with their ability to use reason, and reject what they can see is not truth.
just as you have your opinions about the Bible, Christians have their opinions about the theory of evolution.

@tas8831 I really was hoping that you would have tried to act mature, and behave civil, but your behavior is becoming more and more obnoxious by the minute. I don't see a need for it. It's the worst I have seen on any debate forum, even worst than ecco's, so you have officially joined him on my ignore list. Goodbye.

 

[ecco]

One does not "believe" in a scientific theory any more than one believes in Earth having a moon.

Sure one does. Just as one believes it's raining or one is sitting on the couch watching the Miami Dolphins score an incredible touchdown. Fundies have tried to highjack the words "belief" and "believe".

be·lieve
/bəˈlēv/
verb

1. 1.
   accept (something) as true; feel sure of the truth of.
2. 2.
   hold (something) as an opinion; think or suppose.
   "I believe we've already met"

There is nothing wrong with saying "I believe in the scientific theory of evolution".

 

[metis]

Thanks, but that wasn't necessary.

It certainly was because you were using the more lay use of "theory", not the scientific use.

Look. You are using the word appear. What does that say?

I used it because, even though we see material items constantly changing, I tend to cloak my terms because we can't categorically say it with all materials over all expanses of time.

I said before that there is good science, and bad. Do you disagree?

No, because in "science" we use the "scientific method", and if one deviates from that, they're simply not using "science". Obviously, there are always going to be some who'll not follow that protocol, but that's not "science's" fault.

just as you have your opinions about the Bible, Christians have their opinions about the theory of evolution.

Yes, and that's fine with me, and in Catholicism at least, it is acceptable to view the Creation accounts either figuratively or literally.

The real question, imo, is not whether God created all but exactly which technique did God use? The basic ToE in no way contracts God's Creation as it is theologically neutral.

 

[metis]

There is nothing wrong with saying "I believe in the scientific theory of evolution".

I use the word "accepts" instead of "belief" when evidence is so overwhelming.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

An argument from incredulity basically states that the arguer doesn't believe that a particular thing is true or possible, and so declares it as such, as when a creationist thinks that all of the pretty flowers and animals on earth couldn't possibly exist without an intelligent designer, because he or she simply can't imagine how that could happen, so it didn't.

Thanks. Then that's not the ID argument.

That argument or a minor variation on it is made repeatedly by creationists.

So what do you think that the argument for the existence of an intelligent designer as the source of the world we find ourselves born into is? Most everything we see is a criticism of evolutionary science - how blind, undirected, naturalistic forces are incapable of creating that world. We also see arguments such as that DNA is a code, there must be a coder, or that there is some barrier to evolution producing the tree of life from a single, unicellullar ancestral population

But notice that these are mostly incredulity arguments as well. The creationist just can't envision these things happening, so they didn't.

What is lacking is an argument for why the intelligent design hypothesis should be given serious consideration in the face of a scientific theory that functions well without one. The theory of evolution is a system of ideas that unifies mountains of data from a multitude of sources, accurately makes predictions about what can and cannot be found in nature, provides a rational mechanism for evolution consistent with the known actions of nature, accounts for both the commonality of all life as well as biodiversity, and has had practical applications that have improved the human condition in areas like medicine and agriculture - all without an intelligent designer.

You're going to need a pretty powerful argument in support of the existence of an intelligent designer to convince rational skeptics to throw all of that out in exchange for an idea that presently lacks supporting evidence, has no explanatory power, offers no mechanism, and is not useful.

The ID people came closest when they said that if they can find irreducible complexity in biological systems, it would indicate the need and the existence of an intelligent designer, a claim I can't find fault with. The problem is that they have been unable to identify such a system, with many well-known claims of irreducible complexity being debunked, including the eye, the flagellum, the immune system, and the hemostatic cascade. To their credit, they were trying to make a positive argument in support of an intelligent designer rather than the usual negative arguments against evolution, but their failure to identify such a system is exactly what the theory of evolution predicts, and would necessarily be the case if live evolved naturalistically.

Anyway, you said that incredulity arguments are not the ID argument. What in your opinion is? Other creationists reading these words are encouraged to give their answers as well. What's the argument for ID that's not merely an incredulity fallacy - some variation of not believing Darwin's theory because you just don't see how that could have happened? Are there any arguments that aren't attacks on the validity of evolutionary science apart from the irreducible complexity argument? And what do you say to those who do see how it could have happened, or at the least, can't see a reason why it couldn't have happened just as the theory stipulates?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Good. I am not in a conversation about how scientist categorizes things. If this is an evolution debate, no I do not accept that humans are lungfish, or any other animal. I do not accept that I am an animal. Do you accept that you are a child of the Devil?

If you could actually demonstrate that I am a "child of the Devil" in the same way science has demonstrated that we are animals, then I would believe it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Can you please show me where I...

I remember saying just this,,,,

Many people being born and given the knowledge that everything came from nothing, will likely believe that.

....They are raised by evolutionist - perhaps even atheist.

I explained what I meant...

Again, it seems you did not understand what I said.

Are there persons being born to atheist and evolutionist? Yes.

Do some of these turn to Christianity, or some other religion, and do some reject evolution? Why?

It's not because they were brainwashed to believe in God, from birth.

They weight the knowledge they gained - both the brainwashing from their atheistic upbringing, and what they heard from the religious side. Using their reasoning ability, they reached a conclusion.

Will that continue? Yes.

I already did. What do you think all this back and forth has been about?


Sorry, I'm not getting sucked into this game again.

Can't you just respond to what's been said here?

It seemed to have been blown it out of proportion, but let's forget that, the thread is about water, so I think we have gone way off topic, and it is leading nowhere.

Can we talk about water?.


Okay. ...and some don't. Post #601

I’ve already responded to that post.

Yes, all can't be true, but I believe one is true.

Beliefs aren’t necessarily truths. Stating that you believe one is true doesn’t address the point. Could you try doing that?

Are you saying that there are no atheist that push their dogma at their children, or other children, and adults?

I’m still wondering why you think atheists teach their children evolution. Your view makes sense if you think that atheists and “evolutionists” are one in the same, but not so much otherwise.


What dogma is it that you that people who are rejecting a single claim would be teaching their children?

That would not be true. I showed a few cases, and if you like, I can get more for you.

Atheism addresses one single claim: whether or not there is a God. Atheist say they don’t believe in god(s). That’s all that is required for someone to be an atheist. Nothing else. Otherwise, atheists can and do believe any number of other things on their own.

The case you provided in regards to Chinese children being brainwashed to worship the state and it’s leaders as gods is not an example of atheism, as I already pointed out to you.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes. An argument from incredulity basically states that the arguer doesn't believe that a particular thing is true or possible, and so declares it as such, as when a creationist thinks that all of the pretty flowers and animals on earth couldn't possibly exist without an intelligent designer, because he or she simply can't imagine how that could happen, so it didn't.

That's a logical error.

Thank you.

 

[Jose Fly]

The ID people came closest when they said that if they can find irreducible complexity in biological systems, it would indicate the need and the existence of an intelligent designer, a claim I can't find fault with. The problem is that they have been unable to identify such a system, with many well-known claims of irreducible complexity being debunked, including the eye, the flagellum, the immune system, and the hemostatic cascade. To their credit, they were trying to make a positive argument in support of an intelligent designer rather than the usual negative arguments against evolution, but their failure to identify such a system is exactly what the theory of evolution predicts, and would necessarily be the case if live evolved naturalistically.

Hate to be that "actually guy", but.....

"Irreducible complexity" is indeed a negative argument. It's basically "evolution can't produce this specific arrangement of parts, therefore it must have been designed". As you noted with other ID creationist arguments, there's no positive case there (e.g., no mechanism, no designer, no timeframe), just "evolution can't do it, therefore design".

Sorry to butt in, but I think it's important.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Hate to be that "actually guy", but.....

"Irreducible complexity" is indeed a negative argument. It's basically "evolution can't produce this specific arrangement of parts, therefore it must have been designed". As you noted with other ID creationist arguments, there's no positive case there (e.g., no mechanism, no designer, no timeframe), just "evolution can't do it, therefore design".

Sorry to butt in, but I think it's important.

You're not butting in, and I appreciate your input. Perhaps you are correct.

Unlike other unsupported or weakly supported claims regarding what naturalisitic processes can and cannot do, I'd say that a demonstration of irreducible complexity falsifies Darwin's theory. It's more than just an incredulity argument.

Of course, this introduces a new wrinkle - how does one demonstrate irreducible complexity? Failure to discover how naturalistic forces could incrementally generate a given biological system never validates the conclusion that they did not. That is, a claim of irreducible complexity can be falsified as it has been with every such prior claim, but never confirmed.

 

[Bear Wild]

We can agree on that.
Is there a reason you did not address the post above that one? If it's that you agree, that's okay.

@Wild Fox I will get back to your post on Wednesday, hopefully.


Thanks, but that wasn't necessary.


Look. You are using the word appear. What does that say?
If I used it and get a different result, what would you say?


I said before that there is good science, and bad. Do you disagree?
So I don't disagree with anyone who - not turns a blind eye, because for one to turn a blind eye, means that they cannot see - but thinking people can see the difference, so I agree with their ability to use reason, and reject what they can see is not truth.
just as you have your opinions about the Bible, Christians have their opinions about the theory of evolution.

@tas8831 I really was hoping that you would have tried to act mature, and behave civil, but your behavior is becoming more and more obnoxious by the minute. I don't see a need for it. It's the worst I have seen on any debate forum, even worst than ecco's, so you have officially joined him on my ignore list. Goodbye.

Cant wait.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

nPeace

Are you are referring to that long-winded gish, that only demonstrates your ability to cut, copy and paste, about things that you know very little about(post #703). Let's start with your first false assumption. Science is not about PROVING anything. It is about explaining natural phenomena. Science is represented by the convergence of facts and data from many scientific disciplines. Science can't prove absolutely that even Gravity exists. But it can provide to a high level of certainty that Gravity does exists, what it is, and how it works. It does the same with the Theory of Evolution. Maybe you would like to explain why all living things are genetically related? Maybe you can explain why all living things use the same amino acids to build the same proteins? Maybe you can explain why all living things use the same or modified versions of the same biochemical processes, to produce and use energy? Maybe you can explain why you look more like your parents, than you look like my parents? Or why Twins are genetically identical? Maybe you can explain how we are related/composed to inorganic materials, since we are composed of both inorganic and organic materials? These are just a few questions that are easily answered by Evolution.

Since you are claiming that an Intelligent Designer did it all, then who designed the designer? Is this Designer really God in disguise? Aren't you just saying that God did it all? This means that all scientists are wasting their time in their research. They need to go no further than the book of Genesis to find their answers. Just like they did during the Dark Ages. You are the people trying to drag us back to the Dark Ages, to give your scientific ignorance some level of credibility. There is no rational excuse to justify adults who still believe in fairy tales and myths. Why do you care what a foreign middle-eastern, man-made, man-compiled, man-written, man-contracted, man-edited book of fables, myths, and superstitions have to say? It was a book written to excite the minds of children, and control the minds adults.

Don't worry, I don't expect you to deposit any of your own ID-specific evidence to support your claim. Especially, when it is so much easier to exploit and paste any questions, disputes, and inconsistencies in science. What you will never understand is that you, and people like you, will have to exclude and eliminate every possible natural and rational explanation about reality, before you can even begin to deposit any supernatural or irrational explanation about reality. The goal of scientific explanations is to eliminate the number of questions. If we accept ID, we open Pandora's Box to an infinite number of questions. Why can't you understand this? Wouldn't you be concerned if your child told you that he/she had an imaginary friend at 20?

Was there any reason why you didn't address why you misconstrued the significance of the question asked of the scientists? Or, why intelligence does not equate to rationality? In fact did you avoid answering ANY of the questions I asked? I suppose that it is easier to close your eyes and cover your ears, than open your mind, especially whenever your beliefs are challenged.
​

 

[tas8831]

@tas8831 I really was hoping that you would have tried to act mature, and behave civil, but your behavior is becoming more and more obnoxious by the minute. I don't see a need for it. It's the worst I have seen on any debate forum, even worst than ecco's, so you have officially joined him on my ignore list. Goodbye.

LOL!

I guess my breach of decorum included exposing him as a phony and refuting his ignorant claims. Poor snowflake...

 

[metis]

This means that all scientists are wasting their time in their research. They need to go no further than the book of Genesis to find their answers. Just like they did during the Dark Ages.

But to make things worse they all too often don't even do their theological homework and realize that there's an alternative to literalistic interpretations, and in this case it makes far more sense to see the Creation accounts as being allegorical, probably an early Jewish reworking of a much earlier and more extensive Babylonian epic that we know at least some in eretz Israel were aware of prior to the writing of Genesis.

[how do ya like that for a run-on sentence, eh?]

 

[Jose Fly]

You're not butting in, and I appreciate your input. Perhaps you are correct.

Unlike other unsupported or weakly supported claims regarding what naturalisitic processes can and cannot do, I'd say that a demonstration of irreducible complexity falsifies Darwin's theory. It's more than just an incredulity argument.

Of course, this introduces a new wrinkle - how does one demonstrate irreducible complexity? Failure to discover how naturalistic forces could incrementally generate a given biological system never validates the conclusion that they did not. That is, a claim of irreducible complexity can be falsified as it has been with every such prior claim, but never confirmed.

That's a good question. Behe has given multiple definitions for IC, eventually landing on one that's little more than "You have to show every detail of how X evolved, including the size of the population in which it evolved and the selective forces that were at play". IOW, anything less than a video of the entire history of the event is not enough.

But honestly, it doesn't really matter since ID creationism is dead.

 

[nPeace]

Steven Meyer debate with Lawrence Krauss (intelligent design vs evolution) debate revealed the ID argument is one argument only which is life is too well designed to be natural. - That argument is not science it is looking at a complex system without understanding the slow steps in the process. Some seeing a computer without seeing the steps leading to it could come up with the intuitive belief that no person could create such a complex devise on their own that god created computers. There is no attempt provide evidence of how a god created the genetic code there is only the statements only god could create such a design - it is too complex to be natural.
This is the worst form of argument. It is not an attempt to prove ID but to rather make the assertion that if something is complex it could not form from the natural world so a god or goddess had to come in and make it as well as direct it. Again no evidence but rather using the incredible research effort of so many scientist to learn about the natural processes which are gradually proving how evolution did develop and say here are some yet to be fully explained gaps so therefore it cant be true. This is a desperate argument when they know there is no evidence of the Intelligent designer starting life or directing the direction of life.
The research to show how the intelligent designer started life does not exist. If they can finally show the positive evidence of an intelligent designer and not just because the system is complex since simple to complex can be explained with our current understanding of genetics. Then the next question the ID scientist will need to figure out is which god or goddess did the intelligent design. Was it Odin, Athena, Morrigan, Dagda (the good god - possible good choice since Dagda is good), Danu, Thor, and a long list of others to chose from. Might be embarrassing if Danu is the true Intelligent Designer since everything would have to change from god to goddess.

I'm not sure where you got this information, but it seems different to the ID argument, I understand is being presented.

First - I want to say that my view of ID is not exactly the same as the group of ID scientist, although I agree with some of their arguments, and I like their work, to a degree.
I find it differs from how I see it presented on Wikipedia, as well as here.
Intelligent Design: Is it scientific?
Intelligent Design has been defined by its proponents as the idea that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause." This "intelligent cause" is often assumed to be God. Despite this, some have tried to portray Intelligent Design as a fledgling scientific theory, almost ready to be embraced by mainstream science. Detractors have argued that Intelligent Design is nothing more than creationism in disguise.

These seem wrong, or am I missing something?
Steve Meyers does explain that members of the group may have slight variations in their views, so I can't say I know if anyone presented an argument for God. I don't know, but I am aware that Methodological Naturalism does not consider supernatural cause. I'm sure ID scientists know this better than I do.

There is a video here where a representative of the group gives a thorough explanation on the ID argument.

Or you can read the explanation here.
However, in my view, I believe that ID as Meyer describes, without extrapolating (see FOOTNOTE) toward a particular designer, can be considered a scientific hypothesis, and can even become a theory - not that I believe it will get any further, for obvious reasons.

FOOTNOTE
Interestingly a great deal of extrapolating is done with the evolution theory. For example, the millions of years required for one body plan to take on a whole new one. Yet no one complains that there is no way to test that, but rather they are quite happy with their assumption. They even apply that to soft tissue lasting hundreds of millions of years, even though they can't possibly falsify that either.

For obvious reasons, I also don't see the theory of evolution being falsified, nor moving off its props until God's time to make it extinct, along with its supporters.
For now, you seem satisfied with what you believe, so what more can I say, other than, enjoy it... while it lasts, but it's not for me, as I believe I already made clear.
I am sure you will continue to sing the song, that it's a religious agenda, but I know it's not, and I think it's just a matter of removing the blindfolds, and you would realize that. I don't know how much more we can say than we have already said, that will convince anyone otherwise.

However, like the millions of opposers opening the eyes of the blind, and preventing the unsteady from being duped into believing the lies, I will continue to proclaim the truth.
What's my truth? What you call myth.
Your truth, is what I call myths.
So it would seem we may be individuals looking at two different stories, and both having the same reaction.

Spoiler

They say a picture paints a thousand words, so I think this picture well illustrates the theory of evolution as I see it.
[GALLERY=media, 8802]E-Cell by nPeace posted Dec 11, 2018 at 7:15 PM[/GALLERY]

To me, it doesn't matter how often atheist and other intelligent designer deniers repeat themselves, in an effort to convince themselves.
"Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact...That didn't have to be true. It is not self-evidently, tautologically, obviously true, and there was a time when most people, even educated people, thought it wasn't. It didn't have to be true, but it is....Evolution is the only game in town, the greatest show on earth.”
― Richard Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution

Reasoning people know what is fact from fiction.
[GALLERY=media, 8803]E-Fact by nPeace posted Dec 11, 2018 at 7:16 PM[/GALLERY]

 

[nPeace]

It certainly was because you were using the more lay use of "theory", not the scientific use.

Apparently that is not true.

I used it because, even though we see material items constantly changing, I tend to cloak my terms because we can't categorically say it with all materials over all expanses of time.

So what I said was true then, but you said it was not, so I will repeat it.
There is no supportive evidence for evolution, other than what is assumed, based on three premises - 1. a proposition; 2. what is being looked for; 3. natural science. When I say evolution, I think by now everyone here knows that no Creationist argues against small changes seen in nature.

No, because in "science" we use the "scientific method", and if one deviates from that, they're simply not using "science". Obviously, there are always going to be some who'll not follow that protocol, but that's not "science's" fault.

Didn't you say common sense tells us things.
So we can all agree on what is clearly observable, is that true? Even with very little common sense.
So it's not science then. Okay.

Yes, and that's fine with me, and in Catholicism at least, it is acceptable to view the Creation accounts either figuratively or literally.

The real question, imo, is not whether God created all but exactly which technique did God use? The basic ToE in no way contracts God's Creation as it is theologically neutral.

May I ask, how do you view the creation account?
Do you view it the way God said, or the way man says?
How do you view Genesis 2:18-22?
18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

There is no supportive evidence for evolution, other than what is assumed

The evidence for Darwin's theory is so robust, it is considered settled science in the field. The scientists don't really care what non-scientists think about their consensus opinions, as I'm sure that you would agree should be the case. Who else should have a say? The Boy Scouts? The NFL? Creationists? None of them have any standing in the debate.

Nor do people like me. The evolutionary scientists would probably prefer that any given person agrees with the body's consensus, but don't really mind if they don't. Yes, I happen to find their arguments compelling, and conclude that they have something of value there, but the scientists' consensus opinions won't be any more tied to my opinions than yours. We're outsiders.

May I ask, how do you view the creation account? Do you view it the way God said, or the way man says?

I'm an atheist, so I don't believe God exists or said anything. Perforce, the creation story must be an invention of mankind if there is nobody else who could possibly be its source.

Also, it has human fingerprints all over it.

How do you view Genesis 2:18-22? 18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

Can you imagine what would follow if I told my liberal, liberated, atheistic, secular humanistic wife of 27 years that the Lord God said that she was made to be my help meet, so "Go make me a sammich, help meet"? Do you really want to be responsible for the aftermath of that?

[Just kidding - my wife would make the 'sammich' with no loss of self-esteem and no retaliatory barbs.]

 

[nPeace]

That argument or a minor variation on it is made repeatedly by creationists.

So what do you think that the argument for the existence of an intelligent designer as the source of the world we find ourselves born into is? Most everything we see is a criticism of evolutionary science - how blind, undirected, naturalistic forces are incapable of creating that world. We also see arguments such as that DNA is a code, there must be a coder, or that there is some barrier to evolution producing the tree of life from a single, unicellullar ancestral population

But notice that these are mostly incredulity arguments as well. The creationist just can't envision these things happening, so they didn't.

Evolutionary science?
That's a first. Where do you come up with these expressions?
I think this is one of the methods often used to make evolution sound believable. I did mention this before.

However, is there anything against challenging the theory of evolution?
I've never seen this one before

DNA is a code, there must be a coder,

I think persons really don't try to understand the ID argument.
Perhaps they feel threatened by what it may be capable of doing.

For this reason, I hope Meyer and his group have success, just so I can see a few become more uncomfortable.

What is lacking is an argument for why the intelligent design hypothesis should be given serious consideration in the face of a scientific theory that functions well without one. The theory of evolution is a system of ideas that unifies mountains of data from a multitude of sources, accurately makes predictions about what can and cannot be found in nature, provides a rational mechanism for evolution consistent with the known actions of nature, accounts for both the commonality of all life as well as biodiversity, and has had practical applications that have improved the human condition in areas like medicine and agriculture - all without an intelligent designer.

Because the theory doesn't function well without intelligent design. That's why it's getting a makeover.
Accurately makes predictions about what can and cannot be found in nature?
That statement couldn't be further from the truth.
It would probably be quite taxing to list the number of surprises that turned up, not to mention the failure to explain how its current mechanism works - or if it works.

You're going to need a pretty powerful argument in support of the existence of an intelligent designer to convince rational skeptics to throw all of that out in exchange for an idea that presently lacks supporting evidence, has no explanatory power, offers no mechanism, and is not useful.

I think this is the reason Meyers believe they have a chance, because that describes the evolution theory precisely - lacks supporting evidence, has no explanatory power, offers no mechanism, and is not useful.

The ID people came closest when they said that if they can find irreducible complexity in biological systems, it would indicate the need and the existence of an intelligent designer, a claim I can't find fault with. The problem is that they have been unable to identify such a system, with many well-known claims of irreducible complexity being debunked, including the eye, the flagellum, the immune system, and the hemostatic cascade. To their credit, they were trying to make a positive argument in support of an intelligent designer rather than the usual negative arguments against evolution, but their failure to identify such a system is exactly what the theory of evolution predicts, and would necessarily be the case if live evolved naturalistically.

Although, as I mentioned earlier, the constant adjustments to make the facts fit the theory, gives evolution the appearance of being strong, but it will have its day.

Anyway, you said that incredulity arguments are not the ID argument. What in your opinion is? Other creationists reading these words are encouraged to give their answers as well. What's the argument for ID that's not merely an incredulity fallacy - some variation of not believing Darwin's theory because you just don't see how that could have happened? Are there any arguments that aren't attacks on the validity of evolutionary science apart from the irreducible complexity argument? And what do you say to those who do see how it could have happened, or at the least, can't see a reason why it couldn't have happened just as the theory stipulates?

No one has shown how evolution could have happened. As far as I can tell, it's just wishful thinking.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

No one has shown how evolution could have happened. As far as I can tell, it's just wishful thinking.

Has anyone shown how Intelligent Design could have happened?