One can go on to test how it was designed and constructed and exactly what each component does.
Ahhh, do you mean we can see how things are put together (how they evolved) and what each part does?
Isn't that what evolutionary biologists already do?
Evolutionary biologists focus on how things might have changed to fit their preconceived notions.
You just want to call the whole thing designed but get a free pass on not identifying the designer.
Whereas, evolutionary biologists have not only defined and recognized the "biology" part, but also the "evolutionary" part.
If this were the case you could tell me what rate evolutionary processes generate biological information. You could also provide even one evolutionary pathway greater than three steps.
For example, RF. I can produce many examples of things evolving. I think you even admit they do. WE KNOW they evolve.
Provide even one example of an evolutionary pathway greater that two steps. I suspect you can't do that either. Because evolution has not been observed to build in the stepwise fashion the narrative predicts. Evolutionary theory does not match reality.
Please present ONE thing you know was designed by your designer. ONE thing. Not something that COULD HAVE been, or that the whole "pathway" hasn't been discovered, but ONE thing that you can point to on this planet that was designed, and that we can agree was designed, by your designer.
When you can do the same for evolutionary processes I will admit my premise is not elevated over yours. As it stands, observations are consistent with the ID premise but contradict the evolutionary premise. You cannot provide even one example of an evolutionary pathway more than three steps long and yet the narrative claims pathways in the millions of steps.
(I don't want a regurgitation of Genesis - I want science).
Name ONE thing designed by this designer you claim has desinged the universe (and himself, apparently, which would be the biggest miracle of all!)
You purposely ask questions that you know cannot be answered by scientific processes. Science cannot demonstrate a historical singularities. Past designs are all singularities. Science can show repeatably and consistently that design processes are capable of generating biological change and can add new form and function quickly. Design can account for observed diversity and this fact is repeatable and testable. On the other hand science shows that evolutionary processes cannot add new form and function and cannot account for observed diversity. Yet for some reason you cling to the explanation that cannot account for what we observe and you ridicule the explanation that does account for what we observe.
RF claims that a complex thing can only come from intelligence, but how did the designer design himself? how did he design his intelligence in the first place to know he wanted to design?
It amazes me that you don't see how materialism has the same problem with regression. You accept on faith that "material is".
At this point I predict RF will a)ignore this post, b)give a long winded explanation on how that is not the purpose of ID, or that the numbers aren't crunched yet, or some other such evasion, or c) attack the questioner (me). (I imagine another way out is to say "life" or name some other thing and then hem and haw about the evil Materialist conspriaracy).
The correct answer is that there is NOTHING.
Evolutionary theorists cannot and will not ever identify anything that evolutionary processes produced for the same reason that these events are historical events that will not reoccur.
There is no evidence of something designed by the designer because it is impossible to determine. It is theology, not science.
Wrong. There is an abundance of evidence that things were designed. More significantly, scientists are successfully demonstrating that design accounts for biological diversity and design accounts for self-replicating biopolymers. Science is also explaining why materialistic processes do not account for the rather clear markers for design.
