seigneur wrote:

Miguel wrote:

And as far as intelligent design controversies go, I frankly don't know enough to comment on it.

Intelligent design is just a controversy. It does not reach the level of a coherent theory. The idea is that "design" (in their specific sense) is mathematically measurable or inferrable ("design inference") by means of some probability calculation.

As far as I have looked into it, the intelligent design idea is ludicrous. Hypothetically, would it be possible that for example doctors could examine Lazarus after Jesus raised him from the dead and determine something like, "Yup, the finger of God right there. A miracle detected!"? In my opinion, they would see an ordinary healthy man in front of them, no traces of a miracle.

The general principle is that when God creates, things look absolutely natural. When man creates, things tend to look artificial or at least less than natural. They are qualitatively different kinds of creation that cannot be covered with the same concept of "design", especially when your aim is to put a number on it.

 
I don't know about the miracle issue. Isn't ID just about how there's irreducible complexity in biological systems that cannot be plausibly accounted for by random mechanistic processes? Design could therefore be an inference to the best explanation, etc.

In a way there certainly are biological features that cannot be explained mechanistically, but they don't require us to jump to a designer; rather we can use formal and final causation, for instance. But ID theorists think there is an irreducible complexity in certain things (e.g. cells, I think) that is best explained by a design inference. I just don't know enough about "irreducible complexity" and this darwinian controversy to comment much.

Most people don't truly understand the concept of a scientific or mathematical theory.  It carried much more weight than the conventional definition of the term and often trying to explain that to a layperson is a waste of time.