I'm not so sure, KMB.

>>I merely posed the question whether belief in intelligent design can be arrived at rationally<<

No-one "merely" poses a question.

Only religious fundamentalists bring up the topic of Intelligent Design. Neither atheists nor agnostics can be bothered with such trivia.

Only born-again christians bring poor old Antony Flew into the argument. As if an old man of eighty-six having a last-minute each-way bet with God proves anything.

A glance at his rationale says it all:

"It is all a matter of the enormous complexity by which the results were achieved, which looked to me like the work of intelligence."

The argument of the eight-year-old again. If I can't understand it, it must've been God wot dunnit.

To stretch that into a claim of "rational justification" is to make a mockery of the English language.

>>You wrongly conclude that I have a religious belief. I don't.<<

I beg leave to doubt that.

Apart from the indications above of both religious fundamentalism and born-again Christianity, there are your occasional outbursts of virulence against Islam. Religion usually only is of concern to the religious, is it not?

For a professed agnostic, you show a remarkable number of religious symptoms, KMB.

Incidentally, KMB, I meant to ask you about a statement in your opening post.

>>The imagery of a room full of monkeys pounding away at typewriters has been successfully used to argue for the chance emergence of life...<<

It made me wonder where you discovered this argument to have been successfully employed.

The use of this particular imagery - that here was an atheistic theory, ripe for destruction by a true believer - further pinged my "here comes another evangelist" antennae.

You have to admit, it does all rather point the same way, don't you think?

KMB

Any search for answers either personal or in general needs to be done in a rational manner.

Scientists are perfectly open in admitting that they don't have the answers to everything.

That species evolve is now pretty much beyond dispute (excluding religious fundementalists), the origins of life itself are buried under billions of years, and fossils of bacteria are unlikely.

The process of solving this mystery is to try and emulate the steps from base chemicals to a viable form. Mankind has only just started on this journey which will likely take many decades.

To try and prove ID by taking pot shots at this process so early on is like trying to shoot down a cloud. Disproving "it" is impossible without knowing what "it" is.

In fact without a smidgeon of evidence that a higher power exists, the only recourse the theists have is to throw stones at anything that suggests that life could exist without god. As they are generally ill equipped for this purpose their arguments usually end up as nonsensical spluttering (see UOG)

To cut to the quick, your posturing as an Agnostic is undercut by your posting of typically irrelevant techo babble that creationist delude themselves with.

Pericles,
You argue that my “occasional outbursts of virulence against Islam” are symptomatic of my religious fundamentalism.
The foremost anti-Islamist in Europe Geert Wilders does not, to my knowledge, profess any religious affiliation.
The murdered critic of Islam Pim Fortuyn did not, to my knowledge, profess any religious affiliation.
The murdered (by an Islamist) critic of Islam Theo van Gogh did not, to my knowledge, profess any religious affiliation.
“Virulent” critics of Islam, ex-Muslims Wafa Sultan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Ali Sina et al, do not, to my knowledge, profess any religious affiliations.
You seem to be engaging in the oft-used strategy of leftists, liberals and progressives:
If someone does not embrace atheism they are religious fundamentalists.
If someone criticises Islam they are Islamophobes and Christian fundamentalists.
If someone criticises homosexuality they are either homophobes or, more likely, repressed homosexuals.
Other than that your argument is very convincing.
Now where did I leave that Bible again?

It's true Pericles, you don't have to have be religious to be an uptighty righty.

Now, what about us getting back to learning what monkeys with computers have to teach us about intelligent design?

Oliver>>There are three known forms of selection:..>>..selection for what?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=MEDA,MEDA:2008-36,MEDA:en-GB&defl=en&q=define:selection&ei=z1PlSbHuApiIkQWb26DYCw&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

[selection means choice..signifies a choser]..lol

<<genetic variation is up there with natural selection.>>..up there is a vague non reply..[genetic vairiation is a result..[natural selection a way..your mixing nouns with adjectives

<<Changes happen at a genetic level quite apart from natural selection.>>..agreed



<<I should have said the development speciation in the new species.>.again you mix up cause with result

<<ability to achieve mutation.>>..again a vague abstraction[mutation is chance[achievment usually a concious goal achieved]

Pericles..<<Only religious fundamentalists bring up the topic of Intelligent Design.>>tell that to horse-breeders using their intel to breed a faster horse..lol

<<Neither atheists nor agnostics can be bothered with such trivia.>>..im sure scientists intelligently designing gmo are all antigod..[thus your oversimplification stands rebutted

<,To stretch that into a claim of"rational justification"is to make a mockery>>...i feel the same re GMO

Shadow Minister..<<Scientists are perfectly open in admitting that they don't have the answers to everything.>>..TELL THAT TO THOSE WHO FEEL THEIR TEACHERS ARE GOD,somehow the main propon-ants of evolution regard it as a fully proven fact!...lol[but it remains a theory!]

<<That species evolve is now pretty much beyond dispute>...yes micro evolution WITHIN a genus is valid...[BUT MACRO into NEW genus is fraud

<<the origins of life itself are buried under billions of years,and fossils of bacteria are unlikely.>>..no doudt there is some primevil oooze that holds their fossils too...[science just isnt trying to find the proof[because they know they wouldnt be allowed the publish the real truth..[genus stasis]

<<Disproving"it"is impossible without knowing what"it"is>>..egsactly thus those claiming authoritively evolution..use their own words and meanings...[knowing the average folower dont know his genus from his species]

<<..of evidence that a higher power exists,>>..funny that i see all life as proof..[you see all life as not proof..lol..[i only ask what proof is proof you cant validate?..cant replicate..cant scientificlly prove..has no faulsifyable fact...[thus isnt proof[only a loose collection of facts and valid sciences..cloaking the fraud of evolution og genus

<<nonsensical spluttering(see UOG)>>..present proofs[dont reply rebutal with insult..[if you have fact present it]..failure to present real fact proves your lying..[or lied to]