Then you cannot explain design until you have explained its cause: complex intelligence. What is the origin of complex intelligence? If you cannot answer then you have no explanation for design.
They went extinct because their genes were not well adapted to a changed environment. Again, natural selection in operation.
Not really. Genes cannot predict what is going to happen in the future. The extinction event had nothing to do with genes and everything to do with the changed environment. Everything was fine at the gene level for the environment. Again your postulate of gene-caused extinction is more speculation based on a bias on your part and falsified by the facts. Extinction takes place in the finished product. In this case in circumstances beyond the control of genes.
But genes have variations within a species. Some of those variations are better suited to the future environment while other genes will be less suited. Because there is variation within the species, some genes will be suited.
The environment changed too quickly with the introduction of new predators, rats, which are the eggs. Dodos were ground nesting birds.
Or a major meteorite impact. Some species survived the Chicxulub impact while other species didn't. Which species survived was down to whether or not their genes were more suited to the very changed conditions afterwards. Bird ancestors survived, as did small land animals, while large land animals did not.
You can detect design without offering an explanation other than it was designed which always implies intelligence or a mind behind the design. The fact that we claim it was the Judeo-christian God is based on faith and not science.
Which gets us back to having a tested verified design detector. You have not provided any links to a successful double blind test of any design detection methodology. If your detector is not of proven reliability then the results from that detector are unreliable.
I have already given the example of M. Eiffel as a designer. There are many designers who are not the Abrahamic God. Do you have evidence that life on earth was not designed by intelligent space aliens? That is one of the possibilities ID allowed when it was still trying to be science rather than religion.
No, you can't. After decades of trying, IDers have been unable to come up with a method for detecting design. The best they can come up with - the best they will ever be able to come up with - is "This organism/structure could not have come into being by any natural process of which we currently know."
And you have not shown why ID is any different that the other sciences that uses design detection such as archeology and SETI. This goes along with my suggestion that secularist have eliminated the possibility of design without cause.
You see, that's the beauty of it. There is no evidence required for faith. As soon as you bring in evidence, it is no longer faith.
Archaeology uses a specific set of criteria: Where was this pottery fragment found? What is the date of that site? Does it resemble type A, type B or type C pottery commonly found in that geographical area at that time? It uses criteria derived from earlier archaeological studies. SETI is looking for a sustained very narrow band signal of a type which cannot be generated by currently known natural processes. Each area of study uses criteria specific to that area of study. They do not have, and do not claim to have, a generalised design detector suitable for all areas of study. SETI researchers do not need to know how to distinguish Athenian Black Figure pottery from Beaker culture pottery.
All science, secular or not, does not accept unsupported claims. You claim to have a design detector. Where is the scientific test of that detector to confirm that is works as claimed?
As soon as you bring faith into it you have excluded ID from science classrooms. That defeats the point of ID, which was to get itself taught in science classrooms. Thank you for confirming that the Kitzmiller judgement was correct.
ID is not a science; it cannot be used in the sentence "other sciences".
Scientists have eliminated design as a scientific explanation because the hypothesis is not science, as it is not falsifiable.
There's nothing beautiful about that. That's why faith is a terrible method for attaining truth.
IOW, there is nothing.
Yet you can't explain why ID has to jump through hoops while every other disciplines remains unchallenged.
You have already been selling Snake oil. I didn't buy then, why would I buy it now.
How swift the caveat is changed. ID is based on science and God as the Creator is based on faith. Do not mix the two.
Yes, ID has nothing except claims. It does not have a tested design detector. All it has is a claim to have such a thing, but no test data has been published to back up those claims.
Science is able to consider intelligent design as a possible hypothesis. Your own examples of archaeology and SETI show that. Also one of the earliest pulsars discovered was initially considered as a possible example of design: LGM-1 for "Little Green Men". That turned out not to be the case, but design was initially included as a possibility.
I did not introduce God to this discussion, you did. You are criticising yourself here. It is good that you can recognise your own error.
The previous claim by secularists was that DNA/RNA was not really information but rather just molecular arrangements and now design is rejected because there is no design detector. Complex specified information is its own design detector - the same kind specified information that SETI is looking for in EM waves.
The design hypothesis for LGM was a repeating radio signal from a Pulsar. It was rejected because they found other similar Pulsars. This is rather flimsy evidence for information when compared to the vast amount of specified information in the human genome.
I brought in God into to discuss the difference between science and faith. There is no criticism or error involved.
CSI has a big problem, finding a valid specification. Finding a post-hoc specification is easy and goes straight to the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. As Dr. Dembski makes clear, you need to set up the target before you take the shot. ID has failed to do that with DNA.
It was not evidence for information. It is evidence that science is willing to consider a design hypothesis. In this case the design hypothesis failed, but that happens to most hypotheses. Design was not automatically rejected; design was considered and only rejected when the evidence showed that is was incorrect.
Failed in this case not to be confused with falsified. It fails/subjectively rejected because it does not jibe with your a priori ** unscientific (real science is detached and analytical and follows the data only) commitment to naturalistic mandates.
It failed because there was a better hypothesis: a rotating neutron star. The LGM hypothesis could not explain the very wide distribution of pulsars in this and other galaxies. The rotating neutron star hypothesis could.
Not needed nor is this a mandate of science. It is made up. Unscientific.
As opposed to what,... simple intelligence or mindless?
What is the origin of life?
If you cannot answer then you have no explanation for naturalistic goo to you evolution.
So? Suppose a polar bear would go extinct in a desert. There are trade-offs to environmental adaptions. None of this is inconsistent or in dispute with anybody. You seem to think NS happens at the gene level. The significant change happens with the finished product. Everything else is simply rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. This was all explained and rejected/ignored by you.
Not really since NS takes place at macro levels. The short-necked giraffes are eliminated at the macro levels in favor of the long necks.
Just another example of making your adversary jump through hoops. The archeological artifacts are all post-hoc and without pre-specification as well as anything over 20 centuries old. And you don't really understand Dr. Dembski on this subject.
You have an explanation for evolution and adaptation to the environment. You don't have one for the information in DNA/RNA or how it came about while intelligence is always an option in anything that specified and complex and in fact should be the prime candidate. This is an example of downplaying the competing theory while exaggerating you own pet theory.
The claim was never that science rejects design which is preposterous since we ourselves design. The charge is that design is rejected in the design of life and is automatically rejected without cause.
We do have an explanation, it is just that "evolution and adaptation" you talk about. The environment contains information. For example, the information that white things are difficult to see against a snowy background. Evolution adapts organisms to their environment, so a lot of organisms living near or above the snow line are white. That information has been copied from the environment into the DNA of organisms living in that environment. Evolution is a copying process, it copies the available information into DNA. The copying process is not very efficient, but it does work. Natural selection picks the random mutations in DNA that best match the information in the environment. White fur survives better than light brown fur in snow. Light brown fur survives better than dark brown fur in snow. In some cases, where the environment is snowy in winter but not in summer, the animals change their coat colour. White in winter, which is then shed for a brown coat in summer. That is information about the seasons copied into DNA by evolution.
Intelligent design is not an option for the first intelligent designer. That designer cannot have been intelligently designed, because it is the first intelligent designer. There was no earlier intelligent designer.
We agree that science does not automatically reject design, and the LGM hypothesis shows.
Ask pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. You treat its publications as authoritative, but you don't ask why this specification publication doesn't validate your YEC beliefs...