Joined: July 2005
The definition of ID precludes your response from being meaningful. If you assume the definition of ID by its proponents is untrue and a lie there is no logical way to debate unless you can show evidence that ID has been practiced in the public schools and has proven to be a guise for the presentation of special creation or that there is court acceptable evidence of a secret plan to do so at the first opportunity. Since that has never been permitted or put into evidence there is no evidence other than your unsubstantiated assertion of lying. Your argument is illogical.
Actually there is prima facia evidence of only one creation whether the big bang or special creation because if there more than one there would be observable traces of it in the universe and no one has ever detected other than a single originating event in cosmology or astronomy. There is no data that evidences sporadic and frequent and unpredictable suspensions of natural law over time. It is logical to assume that the rule of natural law is the normal operation of the universe.
In addition, the bible records only one creative event and one worldwide catastrophe, never to be repeated. Further, conservative scholars hold to the absolute economy of miracles and that when and if they occur over time they are clear unambigious supensions of natural law so apparent as to be clearly distinguishable from natural law. The logical approach to science is to assume the universe operates by fundamental laws in every aspect of life.
example: I believe God could perform a miracle of healing of a terminally ill person. I would however assume that God expects me to take advantage of all talent and intellect and expertise humanly available to accomplish such healing if possible. And to remain open to the possibility that if that effort fails He might act to heal miraculously. The economy of miracles.
If chemotherapy etc cures cancer that is not a miracle it happens with some frequency. I can depend over the long haul on that frequency of cure rate from chemo for a specific form of cancer.
ID is indeed a third alternative to the false choice argument now being presented to the court by the plaintiff which is that ID is creationism and thus fits into the second of the only two choices permitted. Otherwise the plaintiff would agree that ID is an independent third choice of approaching the apparent design argument but that it is inherently religious because it postulates an ID and not because it is special creationism.
Practically speaking the ID concept of original design and then natural law should be appealing in that almost never does the original designer of anything get involved in the routine operation of the entity.It is left up to repairmen, etc. to keep it going based on detailed examination of how it works. Of course eventually the Maytag fails so catastrophically it can't be fixed by anyone, but I have never had the patent owner out to diagnose and repair an appliance.
Oh! That's right evos never utilize practical human experience in their thought processes otherwise they would know that a design always has an intelligent designer that is never an uncaring random process.