Since there is evidence of design in the existing order i.e. humans, plants, cells, elements and so on and so forth. Then why is it assumed that there is not a designer?

Dunno.
Maybe something to do with how all life stems from the same "stuff" and slight variations in conditions alter it's growth.
So essentially there is only 1 organism, called life. And life was made possible through chemical reactions that began a roller coaster-like ongoing reaction.

Dunno.
Maybe something to do with how all life stems from the same "stuff" and slight variations in conditions alter it's growth.
So essentially there is only 1 organism, called life. And life was made possible through chemical reactions that began a roller coaster-like ongoing reaction.

No I do not think you have given an adequate response. Maybe life is made up of the same "stuff" but how did that life come to be designed in such a way? O and what chemical reactions cause life?

Read Dawkins' Climbing Mt. Improbable and get back to us. The entire book addresses this question exactly. In short, evolution, by causing organisms to adapt to their environment, gives the impression of design without a designer. We know evolution happens, but there is no evidence of a designer - who would be quite an incompetent one if he existed.

Read Dawkins' Climbing Mt. Improbable and get back to us. The entire book addresses this question exactly. In short, evolution, by causing organisms to adapt to their environment, gives the impression of design without a designer. We know evolution happens, but there is no evidence of a designer - who would be quite an incompetent one if he existed.

I will indeed read this and get back to you. Thank you for your post.

I will indeed read this and get back to you. Thank you for your post.

Excellent. Your question is not a trivial one, and finding the answer to it will teach you a lot.

One thing to think about - the difference between us and Paley's watch is that a watch does not create new copies of itself with modifications. If mechanical objects did do this, then the watch might indeed have evolved instead of being designed.

Since there is evidence of design in the existing order i.e. humans, plants, cells, elements and so on and so forth. Then why is it assumed that there is not a designer?
This is, simply put, incorrect. There is evidence of STRUCTURE and evidence of ORDER...but what evidence is there of 'design'? Could you list some of this evidence...maybe we could have a debate then.

There is only evidence of design if you are predisposed to believe that there is. Read the book suggested to you. All the "design" theories put out there by Behe et al have been thoroughly debunked. Perhaps someone with more patience than I have will point you to numerous threads where this was explained. Or, poke around on talkorigins and you can dig stuff up for yourself.

BTW, Behe has a new book out called The Edge of Evolution. Dawkins reviewed it in the Time Book Review yesterday. :D He seems to be willing to admit that we are ape descended humans, but the theme of the book is that there aren't enough random mutations to account for the diversity we see. Dawkins refutes this by pointing to dogs, which have exhibited tremendous amounts in a laughingly short time. Yes, there was "intelligent design" in the sense of human selection, but Behe is claiming there isn't enough raw material, and dogs refute that pretty well.

In fairness to Behe, (although he has not really been honest enough to deserve being treated fairly), he has always claimed that he recognizes the basic reality of Darwin's evolutionary theory. In Behe's mind, however, natural selection requires a nudge from time to time to get over a few hurdles. For Behe, Intelligent Design does not mean that the Hand of God guides every mutation and selection, but that at key points in genetic history, "the Designer" stepped in to give the normal evolutionary forces a bit of a boost by inserting some new, workable code where it was "needed."

I have not read Dawkins' "Climbing Mount Improbable" - but I've heard good things. I would also recommend reading the book co-authored by Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan called "Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of Species". It gives a rather detailed account of HOW evolution generates new species, and how the first eukaryotic cell came about. It's brilliant.

Since there is evidence of design in the existing order i.e. humans, plants, cells, elements and so on and so forth. Then why is it assumed that there is not a designer?

Because if there was a designer people would have to be accountable to that designer.

People don't want to admit that what they do is wrong and they will be judged for their sins, so they deny God's existance.

Because if there was a designer people would have to be accountable to that designer.

People don't want to admit that what they do is wrong and they will be judged for their sins, so they deny God's existance.

hey you posted just like this in my thread

do you wonder the forums just to tell people to believe in god or except jesus or something

It's because humans are more arrogant and vain than any creator could ever be. Science is the epitome of human arrogance and a cult dedicated to our own perceived "intelligence". The study of the forces of nature is no longer called Natural Philosophy, but rather "science", which comes from the Latin term for general knowledge.

It's because humans are more arrogant and vain than any creator could ever be. Science is the epitome of human arrogance and a cult dedicated to our own perceived "intelligence".

Sir, I'm going to have to ask you to disconnect from the internet. Thank you.

Because if there was a designer people would have to be accountable to that designer.

People don't want to admit that what they do is wrong and they will be judged for their sins, so they deny God's existance.

Humanity is accountable to itself first and foremost. God is yet to be seen.

It's because humans are more arrogant and vain than any creator could ever be. Science is the epitome of human arrogance and a cult dedicated to our own perceived "intelligence". The study of the forces of nature is no longer called Natural Philosophy, but rather "science", which comes from the Latin term for general knowledge.

"What's in a name?"

Humanity is accountable to itself first and foremost. God is yet to be seen.



"What's in a name?"

:(........ letters? *scratches head*

Hello friends,
Very sorry for the prolonged absence but I have been trying to get my hands on this book and ... lacking the funds for purchase I attempted to go to the library but unfortunately I am number 21 or something like that on the list. So if you could give me some links that would be great, sorry but I am lazy and would probably find different ones than what you have suggested, plus it is easier to argue when there is a common text. Anyhow I noticed a few questions or remarks I could respond to. Mind you, I have not read this book or chapter yet so excuse me if Dawkins has spoken to it, but I am in the process of trying to be objective it is just not available to me yet. Now, my question would be, for the person that said there is evidence of order or structure, what does order come from? If you believe that the big bang is the proper theory or the most correct theory being thrown around today my question would be why in the world does it defy the second law of thermo dynamics? If however you hold to be belief that the universe is self existing then i would like to know what parts are eternal and if something is eternal it must be of a higher order than the regular universe so what is this transcendent eternal thing? This does indeed tie back to the fact that if there is indeed order, than the only place order comes from if its defying the law of thermodynamics is intelligence or maybe an eternal something or other that I would like you to explain.

Hello friends,
Very sorry for the prolonged absence but I have been trying to get my hands on this book and ... lacking the funds for purchase I attempted to go to the library but unfortunately I am number 21 or something like that on the list. So if you could give me some links that would be great, sorry but I am lazy and would probably find different ones than what you have suggested, plus it is easier to argue when there is a common text. Anyhow I noticed a few questions or remarks I could respond to. Mind you, I have not read this book or chapter yet so excuse me if Dawkins has spoken to it, but I am in the process of trying to be objective it is just not available to me yet. Now, my question would be, for the person that said there is evidence of order or structure, what does order come from? If you believe that the big bang is the proper theory or the most correct theory being thrown around today my question would be why in the world does it defy the second law of thermo dynamics? If however you hold to be belief that the universe is self existing then i would like to know what parts are eternal and if something is eternal it must be of a higher order than the regular universe so what is this transcendent eternal thing? This does indeed tie back to the fact that if there is indeed order, than the only place order comes from if its defying the law of thermodynamics is intelligence or maybe an eternal something or other that I would like you to explain.

There is no answer to what caused or preexisted the big bang. However, everything post big bang has obeyed the laws of thermodynamics. Order can come about without a designer, evolutionary theory demonstrates this... Snowflakes demonstrate this...

The point is, if something looks designed, that does not make it so. In fact, a designer must be a very complex entity and, thus, makes it a very improbable explanation. It also just raises more questions like "what designed the designer?" Something as complex as a designer must have been designed too, right?

There is no answer to what caused or preexisted the big bang. However, everything post big bang has obeyed the laws of thermodynamics. Order can come about without a designer, evolutionary theory demonstrates this... Snowflakes demonstrate this...


Yes, but not everything after this big bang followed logic, they say hydrogen with the help of stars formed other elements........Ill let you think about that one.

Yes, but not everything after this big bang followed logic, they say hydrogen with the help of stars formed other elements........Ill let you think about that one.

It's called fusion, look it up.

ETA: Entirely supported by everything we know about physics.