Posted: Jul 03, 2010 5:06 am
by hotshoe
I don't think academic training matters; what matters is thinking logically and following the scientific method, which has a wonderful track record of weeding out spurious claims

It's a fair point that the main difference is in ascribing how much variability is due to chance. But I'd say it's more than a "difference in opinion". It's not that biologically trained scientists are biased against design, it's that there is no reason to even consider such a possibility unless its proponents can supply evidence that it might even possibly exist. True, it is possible that a designer exists and did set up pre-conditions which allowed for complex life to arise, or even meddled directly in certain tricksy steps. I can't think of a way to disprove that.

But I don't have to disprove that. It's not my case, it's yours. That means you have to supply the evidence. Locating the designer and providing proof of its existence may be beyond your ability, but you have to have at least some evidence of its possible existence other than scraps of poetry. Until you can supply some evidence, I don't have to take a (probably non-existent) designer as a factor in evolutionary theory, any more than I have to take into account Santa's elves or intelligent-falling spirits. That way lies madness, not science.

Actually, locating the designer might be the easier problem to tackle, compared to tackling the questions: what parts did it design, and how did it carry out its work?

How do you support your answer ? What's the measurement of designedness ? Without evidence, your claim is just more poetry, not science.