Oh BOAZ David, careful what you might say. “is supported by one of the most well attested events of history, being of course the resurrection of Christ, and the conversion of Paul”

Now I am not a religious person but lets just look at this statement. The resurrection of Christ?
As far as I remember the body of Christ was removed by somebody unknown who moved a large stone blocking the tomb? Aliens coming in a taking the body could be possible?
The appearance to the disciples later, well holographs are starting to get sophisticated so was somebody/something giving hope to the hapless primitive humans.
Mary’s conception without sex? Implantation of a test tube embryo?
Angels telling the shepherd that the savior is born. Aliens flying around gathering some interest??
Sodom destroyed by an advance weapon?
I know this is rather stupid but it illustrates my point.

Remember what Arthur C Clarke said, Immensely advance science is indistinguishable from magic (something like that)

For ID to become a “theory/fact” then these hypothesis must be tested. You cannot start with the observed "ID" and conclude there is a God. ID need to prove what type of intelligence is behind it. The type of intelligence may give insight into the design. If this intelligence has periodically visited earth then the design/intervention is periodic?

Philo - my comments stating whether you eat or get ill - were poor humour - sarcasm, to which I admit guilt.

Arrogant? Not. Arrogance is the assumption of superiority based on a lack of knowledge. Such as your blind assumption that as a dairy farmer you know more about evolution that do I. No, Philo all it proves is that you are a religious farmer.

There is abundant fossil evidence showing the evolution of the eye - which BTW is not perfect, may never be perfect.

As follows:
"Brilliant as the design of the eye is, it betrays its origin with a tell-tale flaw: the retina is inside out. The nerve fibers that carry the signals from the eye's rods and cones (which sense light and color) lie on top of them, and have to plunge through a large hole in the retina to get to the brain, creating the blind spot. No intelligent designer would put such a clumsy arrangement in a camcorder, and this is just one of hundreds of accidents frozen in evolutionary history that confirm the mindlessness of the historical process. "

This was taken from Show Me the Science By DANIEL C. DENNETT
at http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/opinion/28dennett.html?pagewanted=1&th&emc=th

Where is the evidence of this intelligent designer? Will It/She/He be returning to this small planet any time soon? Is this 'intelligent designer' an intimation of life on other planets? Why is it so preoccupied with life on this planet?

ID - no evidence, just blind faith.

Can somebody clarify a point for me?

Is the designer a perfect, or imperfect entity, or as quantum physics may put it a superimposition of both sates?

If the designer is perfect, then his design must also be perfect. Therefore there can be no miracles and human pray is a wasted effort. Given that by definition a perfect design can not be bettered.

If however, the designer is imperfect, then it is possible that he may still be tinkering with the design. Miracles will be two a penny. Further as is the way of most odd job men, he can change the design as a consequence of human request. This implies that with an imperfect designer prayer and devotion will bring its rewards.

Can any body suggest how a super imposition of states would work? Perhaps they collapse into one state or other at the commencement of a biology classes

How did the single cell amoeba from its gene pool develop into a more complex gene structure like an eagle’s eye without intelligent design? According to Trinity’s logic it just had to stay in the sun for long periods of time and it would eventually grow eyes. The same logic would apply to those who believe we can grow wings by continuing to jump off tall buildings; sooner or later someone would survive and find they have grown batlike wings. Batman is the new development in human evolution - well we have been dreaming of it long enough - so soon a latent gene from a prehistoric batwing will accidentally mutate into the human genome. Believe it or not! All the evidence is there, it is not blind faith or intelligent design that causes this accidental mutation - evolution has shown it works in fact. So let us start jumping of high buildings.

Quote Trinity answer,

As follows:
"Brilliant as the design of the eye is, it betrays its origin with a tell-tale flaw: the retina is inside out. The nerve fibers that carry the signals from the eye's rods and cones (which sense light and colour) lie on top of them, and have to plunge through a large hole in the retina to get to the brain, creating the blind spot. No intelligent designer would put such a clumsy arrangement in a camcorder, and this is just one of hundreds of accidents frozen in evolutionary history that confirm the mindlessness of the historical process. "

This was taken from Show Me the Science By DANIEL C. DENNETT
at http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/opinion/28dennett.html?pagewanted=1&th&emc=th

Her conclusion: ID - no evidence, just blind faith.

Trinity,
In the evolution of your knowledge of design you fail to recognise the eye is not made of inert material but of living organic material that functions on organic principles. You may see no need for the blind spot, but the nature of the materials used require that the internal functions of the retina be linked to the central nervous and circulatory system.The fovea is a small rodless area of the retina that enables acute vision.

I have no problems with the blind spot because I have two eyes. Do you suppose if we were to sit on mountain peaks like eagles for long periods we would improve the function of our eyes? This is the type of logic used by atheists who do not perceive intelligent development or purposeful design.

The article you give above does not identify how or from where new genes appeared or why light sensitive patches became more relevant to the existing species or how the emergence of the importance of light sensitivity played any role in the existing species. It merely gives an assumed history. You assume there were merely accidental mutations occurring I assume the process of design was happening in a certain direction to create superior and more complex living species. There was intelligent genetic design energy exerting its influence to create, not merely accidental mutations - but intelligent design. We can now observe what is optimum design of a species because we can evaluate mutations that are not normal within the design of the species. There is a forward thrust in design to have more complex and resulting in the ultimate intelligence of the human species. The human species has an optimum intelligence that is rarely employed, so human intelligence did not occur by continual exposure to need for higher intelligence. In fact some primitive tribal groups that have been isolated for thousands of years when educated are equal to the intelligence of any sophisticated line of persons exposed to thousands of years of formal education.

>>I repeatedly use the 'phrase' because it is educational to the ignorant mind to be exposed to the logical ramifications of a 'no God' view of life<<

My point, Boaz, is that you have oversimplified Sartre's message to the point of absolute incomprehension. He was trying to explain how atheism transferred responsibility of action from God to man. A believer can rely on his deity for a prescribed path through any moral dilemma, while an atheist has to make his own decisions.

The intention is not to describe a situation of total license, but to underline that man is capable of making "good" moral choices without reference to an outside source. Sartre points out that every man creates his own morality. Because he is free to do this, he is sometimes put in a situation where he needs to choose between two different courses of action. He would not have to make these decisions if God existed. Instead, by choosing, he creates what he really believes in - choosing his morality, developing his own morals and beliefs which result in his individual set of principles.

If you believe the result is necessarily horror, moral anarchy and widespread mayhem, it is only because you have a low opinion of your fellow man. Sartre on the other hand is prepared to bet on a strong independent humankind that thinks for itself.

>>When faced with certain otherwise unexplainable phenomena, it is justified to explore any possibility<<

I have no argument with this, except that ID is not in the business of "exploring" anything except the holes that exist in other folks' arguments. It might have a little more value if there were some positive, as opposed to negative, "hey, look at this" moments