To say that matter is organized and acts according to predictable laws is to say more than "stuff exists." The ubiquity of intelligent design is such that, like the air you breathe, it goes unnoticed. It is considered natural only because you were born into it and have become accustomed to it.
At any rate, Intelligent Design is well-qualified to be called a "theory," because it explains the data, which, if it were without design, would be incomprehensible to reason and senses.
"At any rate, Intelligent Design is well-qualified to be called a "theory," because it explains the data, which, if it were without design, would be incomprehensible to reason and senses."
But I already told you, MY theory of Unintelligent Design (The universe just *is*) also predicts that matter is organized and acts according to predictable laws. My theory has just as much explanatory power as yours. Why is yours better? What evidence can be put forth to choose between the two?
So if it is "well-qualified," what predictions does ID make?
How is ID falsifiable?
Gumlegs, are you laughing yet? I am.
Admittedly it's a beautiful concept, a wonderful faith. I just wish he'd quit trying to call it science and quite bandying around the vernacular "theory" as if he were referring to scientific theory.
How?
The ubiquity of intelligent design is such that, like the air you breathe, it goes unnoticed. It is considered natural only because you were born into it and have become accustomed to it.
As it happens, I notice the air I breathe because I'm allergic to much of what it carries. In any case, your statement is, in fact, nothing more than, "stuff exists."
At any rate, Intelligent Design is well-qualified to be called a "theory," because it explains the data, which, if it were without design, would be incomprehensible to reason and senses.
Here we go again. Intelligent design explains nothing, it predicts nothing, and it has nothing to do with science. Your Grand Theory that states "Nothing is comprehensible except for design" is so vague as to be meaningless. I was in the Navy. I can comprehend the ocean. Where's the evidence that it was designed? That it always and everywhere mysteriously goes exactly to the shore and no farther!!?
You again conflate human intelligence, for which we have evidence, with some sort of "other" intelligence, for which there is no evidence and which is beyond our ability to test.
Can you state something that ID doesn't explain?
I'm coming to believe there may be something to The Hitchhiker's Guide theory, which is that human thought is considered to be so primitive that it's considered to be infectious disease in much of the universe