1)"Explain technology as a non evolving reality."
Technology is an extension of human knowledge. Human knowledge develops over time (discoveries etc) and thus technology improves.

2)"Who designed the designer."
If the designer was designed, who designed the designer of the designer? And the designer of the designer of the designer and so on?
The whole point is, there is one uncreated designer. An unmoved mover.

3)"You need to explain what the material elements of the universe were formed from and where the designer and those materials came from."
The designer, as above, did not "come from" anywhere. "I AM Who AM" (Exodus). The material elements of the universe where created (out of nothing). They began existing by virtue of an act of the Omnipotent Will which created them.

4)"If the designer were intelligent, then would it not have removed aspects of violence and cruelty from the “own image” design."
Human beings created in the "Image and Likeness of God" means that we have an Intellect (cognition) and a Will (connation).
The aspects of voilence and cruelty are due to the disordered nature of human beings. This disordered nature is resultant from the loss of original priviledges. This loss is accounted for in Genesis (the same book you got the "Own Image" concept from).

Just to clarify for those who misinterpret:
When I said "the disordered nature of human beings" this does not mean we were made with a disordered nature. We were made with an ordered nature and then this was lost through a free act of disobedience. The order of God being above Man was given the flick and the result: The man rebels against God and Man's nature becomes likewise disordered.

sjk: You ask for inter-dependancy,
Try a plant in WA which can ONLY be pollenated by one, just ONE! certain insect (wasp?). This flower appears to this insect as a female, so he does what any male would do he tries to mate with it - the flower - and it doing so pollenates the flower.
Then moss and lichen must be together to survive.
A certain bird will enter the open mouth of a meat eating crocodile to clean its, the crocs, teeth. Yes the crocodile waits for this bird with a wide open mouth.
Then there is a fish that cleans parasites from a number of different fish which would normally make a meal of this cleaner.They take parasites from the mouth, skin and the gills,that's inside the gills.the fish with the parasites go to where these cleaners are and wait their turn.
evolution - what utter dribbling tripe believed by twits. numbat

ID is religious creationism dressed up as science.

Most of the so called scientists that Mr. Pollard sites are connected in one way or another to the Discovery Institute, an American Conservative Christian Think Tank.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute

This institute has developed a strategy to discredit Evolution with the aim of replacing it with religious creationism in US public schools. Like Mr Pollard’s article, the strategy is to create in the public’s mind the impression of controversy around the theory of evolution when no such controversy exists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teach_the_controversy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design_movement

The idea that complex structures need a Designer is not new. William Paley in the 19thC used the argument of a watch and watchmaker to infer the existence of God, then along came Darwin and showed another way that complex structures could come to be.

The only difference between ID and Paley's ideas are that ID supporters pretend it is not about God but an Intelligent Designer. Also instead of worrying as much about complex macro structures like eyes, the modern ID advocate points to complex biochemical structures like DNA as evidence of a creator. But in essence it is the same argument and just as flawed.

Just because you can't imagine how something evolved over millions of years doesn't mean it can't, it just means your imagination is up to the task. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Paley
http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1995-06-16peepers.shtml

There is no scientific academy in the world that gives any credence to the claims of ID. Despite ID been around for many years there are almost no peer reviewed papers on ID. Have a search through PubMed
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi
And see how many you can turn up.

There is no way that ID can be viewed as scientific therefore it should not be taught in science classes in our schools. Scripture classes yes, science classes no.

For those wishing to read up a bit more ID, here's a page with links to articles by one of the main ID advocates Michael Behe, it also has links to scientific reviews of Behe's work and ID in general
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

Pericles – Yeah, the USA/CNN/Gallup poll was the one I was thinking of…

Deuc – On behe - Why do people continue to take comments out of their context, which was in light of Kenny’s comment that no scientist working in the field entertains ID. I have shown this comment to be obviously false. You may not like Behe’s inductive arguments, but that is irrelevant to the point being made.

You continue to make authoritative statements about what is a ‘basic point’ without backing it up. You are the one putting forward the claims, so you are required to back them up. If you want to withdraw all your claims as being unsupported that is fine, but until then, the burden of proof is on you. This is especially true since the claims you are making bear directly to the discussion in question on teaching ID as a competing explanation to common descent evolution.

“These two threads set out much of my reasoning, including … which you either missed or chose to ignore:”
Laugh. You’re right. I should have trolled through every previous article’s comments to find your reasoning. I’m sure you do the same for every comment you respond to here. Please. Don’t make such obviously ludicrous demands in an attempt to cast me in a bad light.

Swilkie – Predeterminism is more the domain of materialism (It is a logical necessity if matter/energy is all that exists). Only in theism/pantheism is there any hope of things not being determined.

Alchemist – If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck it is probably a duck. The pretense you put forward is dismantled by looking at your epistomology. Your disdain for religion is well known, especially Christianity. Your bitterness is saddening and I pray you can let go of the pain that drives it.

Since Grey has invoked my name in vain, I will add another comment to this very circular thread.

"If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck it is probably a duck"

You're talking about ID and "creation science", Grey... aren't you?

"Science educator" indeed... would that be home science, creation science, or science fiction?