Replies

"Hehehe. Let's take a car over to some aboriginal tribe and set it out in the forest without their knowledge. Then, when they happen upon it, we can record their reaction and see if they are so stupid as to think it sprung up out of the ground as a product of something totally unguided, totally undesigned, totally unintelligent. Just a fluke in every day matter. Just "nature taking its course." Hahahaha!"

When the conquistadors came to parts of the Americas, the natives thought that they were being attacked by a race of man-horses, because they had never seen a horse before. Why is it so odd that someone who had no knowledge of automobiles would be stumped at what they were? What criteria would they use to rule out natural causes?

"In case you didn't notice, regularity and order are inherent in items that are intelligently designed."

And also in things that act naturally. You have redefined regularity and order to by synonymous with intelligent design. Well duh! Of course you are going to be able to *prove* your claim, it's a circular argument! Oh, excuse me, you don't think that logical fallacies are incompatible with a good scientific theory. I almost forgot

Not exactly "synonymous," not exactly coterminous either, but "inherent in." That is to say, every designed object has regularity and order. Where we find regularity and order, therefore, it is not necessarily unreasonable, or unscientific, to infer design.

Most of Western science has begun with the assumption that God created the heavens and the earth and still sustains them. It is a sound working assumption. It is no surprise that science is chock-full of evidences to show an intelligent designer was, and is, involved with the creation. The information contained in a single strand of DNA is just one small case in point.