(January 9, 2016 at 6:56 pm)Irrational Wrote:(January 9, 2016 at 6:40 pm)AAA Wrote: It is true that I don't know for sure, but I'm not claiming that I am 100% correct, I am just claiming that the appearance of design is best explained by an intelligent agent. I don't know for sure, but neither do you.The appearance of design is best explained by what is observable rather than by what has yet to be shown to exist.
Right, the design is observable. The origin of the design is not, and will never be observable. Therefore, the conventional scientific method cannot fully study this question. Thankfully, people like Isaac Newton outlined a way to compare the competing hypothesis to explain historical events. We should look at what we are trying to explain, and look to see what the causal link that leads to it. This is where design is concluded to account for the genetic code and intricate workings of the cell. Based on our experience, these qualities come from a designing intelligence, therefore we should assume intelligent design unless an alternative can present itself.
