Sky, I have dedicated my life, and a LOT of money to science education. My whole goal in life is to try to add whatever I can to the tome of human knowledge.

Positing that we can know no more is not an option for me.

This post makes perfect sense to me Sky. The reason I cannot "accept" what they are telling me is because "it does not work" and it only leaves many questions unanswered compared to my current view.

And my current view is NOT that "God did it." (as has been implied.) That is not an acceptable answer either. People (theists) who tell me that get the question from me: "Well if God did it, how exactly did he do it? I want the details."

But if a person wants to call himself 'a scientist' and prides himself on his rational and reasonable thinking and logic, he may fear to tread into certain areas for fear of being called "theist" and becoming the laughing stalk of his peers. Indeed peer pressure has been known to hinder a bolder look at the possibilities.

(Pardon my confusion. The lack of quoted references resulted in us talking about two different things.) Yes, you’re right. The universe does not have known cause. But that is not a requirement that must be filled. If it were required, then I’d be using syllogism instead of induction.

Well certainly if you name the artist as the only cause. I was assuming you meant art such as Jackson Pollack’s where he just dribbles paint on a canvas. So of course if you simply ignore all things such as air currents, adhesion of paint to brush, inertia of the brush, flow mechanics, etc., etc. then the artist is the only cause. In other words, if you purposely ignore everything but the artist, then there’s nothing left to assign cause to. But I choose to include those other factors as both “cause” and “unknown” – i.e. the exact effects of those combined causes is unpredictable.

And as I said regarding the art example, you have to specifically exclude all relevant interactions with other unknowns in order to say that the cause was known. And I choose not to ignore all those other relevant interactions.

Your attachment to your belief is causing you to miss the obviousness of this.

And no amount of denial trumps actuality Creative.

And I showed how your denying relevant data fails to refute them.

Done. See above regarding “denying relevant data”.

The conflict on this thread seems to be between acceptance of an intelligent designer in place of the unknown and the unwillingness of others to accept that the intelligent designer is an option.

While science cannot advance without, at least, considering all manner of possibility, normally there is some basis from which to begin if a possibility is to be considered at all. On the other hand those who accept the idea of intelligent design have reached the end of research because the idea behind it does not even have a basis for disproving it. Hense there is no way to prove or disprove the idea of intelligent design - therefore it can only be a belief, not even a theory. Unfortunately the nature of belief is that one continue to belief it without proof.

However, I’m going to give it a try to disprove it anyway. Intelligent design is problematic because some important questions are overlooked.
a. What has actually been designed?
b. How much input did this intelligent designer have and how for how long?

Here is my reason for asking those questions – a bit of story if you will.

So some ‘entity’ (used for lack of any better connection for an intelligent designer) is messing around with some elements – sort of an experiment but just playing around – after all this designer has an infinity of space to experiment in.

So this designer gathers up a bunch of hydrogen and a whole lot of helium from some distant sectors of infinite space, and puts it together. And then out of curiosity said designer throws in a trace of lithium. It just sort of sits there and the designer goes somewhere else – far, far away. At some point in another experiment this designer creates a major explosion which causes a rippling energy filled wave effect, that just happens to extend far enough to set the first experiment into motion. At some point the concoction itself gets blown apart - consider it a solar nebula.
All that hydrogen and helium and that trace of lithium are all that exist in that sector of infinite space.

So --- we now have "designer" and we have the beginning of our solar system – nothing else is required for our entire solar system and every in it to becme what it is today.

Hense my questions – see a & b. And then please answer – c.

c. Is said designer still influencing every sub-atomic particle, every element, every movement and every new object that takes shape in our universe? If not, at what point did said designer bow out and nature step in?

First of all my post had nothing to do with fairness. So you’re not even talking about the same thing as I was. But I do see that same “unable to see the obvious” coming from both sides. So I guess we’re even.

Just about the same as any other objection would play out. So I guess we’re all even there too.

I agree and I’ve never denied any of that.

Personal experience as it relates to personal purpose. That’s really all that’s necessary.

And science is not based on the kinds of evidence that those other’s respect. So we’re still even.

I respect many “scientific” conclusions for which I’ve never seen evidence. So would you wish me to start disrespecting all such conclusions? (I can tell you right off there would be precious few left to respect.)

You see, the problem I’m concerned with is not on of differing evidence/logic/conclusions. The problem I’m concerned with is one of attitude.

I am usually willing to just say “Ok, you conclude one thing, and I conclude something different.” And that’s fine with me. But when I have to start defending myself against accusations that amount to “It’s not fine with me and that’s your fault because you’re not playing by my rules”, then I tend to react – just as anyone does when they are accused of something they don’t believe is their fault.

And the problem there is that it inevitably escalates into a contest of belittling each other’s viewpoints.

And that is what I wish most to avoid. (And why I bristle at people who just “come out swinging”.)

EDIT:
And thank you for giving me the opportunity to remind myself of all this.

Good for you!

And so you search for the proof.

Persaonlly, I think that is a much better choice than walking away.

Sky,

Read Spinoza's Ethics... That is by far the soundest argument I believe exists for the existence of 'God'. You will not get the 'God' of Abraham from it if you understand it. It is very involved though...

Stanford has it available for free.

I can only answer this from by own viewpoint, so don’t take it as an argument for anyone else’s claims.

The “computer game” is a fair analogy of the whole concept.

Now first of all, I don’t think you went back far enough. It doesn’t start with the entity “messing around with some elements”, it starts with entity creating elements. And the same thing goes for “space to experiment in”.

(Computer game analogy: There is no computer so the entity builds/creates one.)

From there, the entity may or may not “experiment”. (Anaolgy: creating and evaluating various different graphics engines)

But at some point, he eventually comes up with a final “design specification” – how all the various parts of the game/universe are going to work after the game is “booted up”. And that “design specification” is what constitutes “the laws of nature”.

So then he creates the “game”, based on the design specifications.

Now we get to the playing of the game.

Once the game is “booted up”, the “laws of nature” take over and begin running through their various subroutines without any influence by the player or the designer.

Now if a player sits in one spot without moving, the game continues to change according to the original design specifications. (Zombies jump out and kill him, or some such.) But the player can originate actions on his own that the game itself cannot. (Shoot the Zombies.) And of course there are limitations built into the game as to exactly what sort of actions the player can originate. (Can’t walk through walls, limited amount of health which goes down when hit and up when food is eaten, etc.)

So the short answert to your questions are:
a) What has actually been designed?
The game

b) How much input did this intelligent designer have and how for how long?
His was the only input into the design and he had input on the design until the design and creation of the game was completely finished.

c) Is said designer still influencing every sub-atomic particle, every element, every movement and every new object that takes shape in our universe? If not, at what point did said designer bow out and nature step in?
During play, all the sub-atomic particles, etc. are not influenced by the creator. They are all automatic functions of the game. Nature (“the programmed instructions/design specification”) stepped in when the game was “booted up”.

Now up to here, I think I’m on at least somewhat common ground with most belief system that include a “creator/designer”.

However, my own personal beliefs diverge a bit from the normal monotheistic and pantheistic view here.

I look at the game as being a MMORPG (Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game). That is, the game is played by multiple players who can interact with each other – according to the game’s programmed instructions/design specification.

Now as to whether the game was designed and created through a collaborative effort that included all the players. Or whether it was created by a small group (or single entity) and others just “joined in” is really irrrelevant.

What is relevant is that there are multiple players, each of which “plays a character” who can “die”. When a character “dies”, the player simply creates a new character and “starts over”(thus the conceptr of reincarnation.)

Anyway, that’s the basic foundation of my view.

To be honest, I don't have any personal questions regarding any spiritual/religious concers that have not been answered to my satisfaction. So I'm not really interested in Spinoza's argument for god.

But I do appreciate the advice and I think that someday I will read some Spinoza if for no other reason than to understand what made hin such a great Philosopher.

That says it all then doesn't it?

Permutation city, by Greg Egan.

That is all I am going to say.

I've got the seemingly infinite patience this requires and I point out fallacies without screeching them so it seems to work pretty well.

It's really hard to interpret what you say as sane.

Imagine a castle made out of legos and then picture it being smashed with a club. Quite a lot of disorder from an identifiable source, no?

Ah.
So if there's no disorder what meaning does order have? If order is such a broad term that it describes everything isn't the word useless?


I already set that up in my argument from ridicule fallacy in the previous post so you're either going along with fallacies because you don't understand that that word basically means "flaw in the argument" or in order to distract people from that to further your own goal.

I think the first option is more likely here (though feel free to show it is a false dichotomy if there's another significant possibility.)

I don't just understand any of this. I had good science teachers that grabbed my attention and were nice enough to explain when things I had learned before were watered down so little kids could handle learning them.

Some of it has been fun but after more than a decade I was ready to actually start looking at the collection of evidence for many of these things instead of just trusting my teachers when they gave me summaries of it, and now I've spent several years of not just one class a day doing that but three quarters of all of my classes pouring over this stuff while being introduced to innumerable deeper trends.


Now step back for a moment and think about why I rejected what you said. It's certainly frustrating watching people ask questions that we recall having been answered on day one and repeatedly ever since but that doesn't make them lesser people. The advantage we have is probably only how much we decided to value learning about these things and they are probably just as good at us in some of the other divisions of learning.

The only trouble is that they act as if we don't know more about these subjects than them but with how little people are able to give in response to their genuine questions is that any wonder?


That doesn't preclude a person from considering non-default options.

No.
It's the conjecture of "not design" that does not shoulder the burden of proof because as a negative claim it is unprovable.
"There is not an invisible pink unicorn standing in my room," should be the default stance for the presence of a pink horned horse there but you can't provide any evidence that that is the case- if the thing poops invisible sunshine and smells like whatever it's currently smelling and so on there's no way to ever work out that it is not there.

Now, as for evidence for naturalism- the Miller Urey experiment and hundreds of derivatives of it since then, supernovae, planetary accretion, universal common descent, dormant recombinant viral fragments, deep sea hydral vent communities, paleontology, radioactive decay, and basically all of genetics are packed full of evidence for it, and I kept the list horribly short.


Please stop calling it happenstance or anything remotely like "blind luck." People aren't arguing for that and it's a scarecrow argument that akes it look like you refuse to see anything but your own arguments in a positive light.

The things for a naturalistic origin are in place. I can spend forever and a day going over still more of them but as people never seem to quote and object to anything in the parts of my posts where I actually go into those details I suspect it's going over your heads.

I'm sorry you've never picked up the pieces you needed to see how easily it all works without any sort of divine intervention but I assure you it's all there.

I've been a bit skippy in my progress through this thread so I've probably missed a lot of your questions but if you'd like to you can start explaining to me what a naturalistic origin should require and we can build up from there.

The same reason I treat "I forgot to pick up my keys" as the default instead of "there's a doppleganger on the loose and he's started trying to replace me by stealing my keys!"
*Try not to get wrapped up in the argument from ridicule there, it's hard to explain why we don't do things without using it when people already innately understand it's ridiculous to behave otherwise.

When you start saying the designer is all of the designs think these words stop having much meaning.

If I wanted to I could make it make sense to me but I choose not to because I know that the way I would make it work would be different from the way you do it.

So in pursuit of better communication I'm going to try to make you explain the hard stuff~

Only some people are demanding scientific proof. I for one am asking something more like "if I didn't assume any conclusions before I started how could I get to your conclusion in steps?"
With what you've said just now I'd have to "feel it" and that's the only step.

The trouble I have with that is that people feel different things. I'd even bet there are some people in here who "feel" that the thing you feel is all in your head.
So what makes yours better than theirs?
*If you thought that what each person feels should be their own guide it wouldn't make any sense for you to have been sharing what you feel- it would be nothing but static taking up space for the rest of us.

Well for me there's the issue of politics. Unfortunately I know about an alarming number of cases where people didn't say anything against spirituality and then the spirit minded people used that silence to mandate their beliefs into law.

After that people realize what just happened and start fussing about it again and pretty quickly they get it taken back out of law but still, it screws up a grade or two of children when it's educational but even if it's not it is always unjust.

See my earlier post to Creative where I addressed this exact same argument. (Search for “art example”.)

So we do not yet have agreement as to what constitutes “disorder”. But you seem to be saying that what I consider to be disorder is irrelevant and only your view on disorder is valid. Well, that’s fine. It just means we cannot have a meaningful discussion about disorder is all.

Well I don’t know what your “argument from ridicule fallacy” even means. (And to be honest, I don’t even care at this point.) So your logic is lost on me.

But I do know that I wasn’t arguing anything, so logic and fallacy don’t even apply. So I guess you could say I was “furthering my own goal” of expressing my opinion about how I view order and disorder. If you want to consider that distracting, then I plead guilty as charged.

Demostrate the logical progression which leads to the conclusion that the universe is a design... however you feel like doing it. You say I am not taking into consideration what you are. Save me the guesswork and lay it out.

"non-default"? That's the fallacy right there. There is no 'default' conclusion. Happenstance does not quality as a 'default explanation' because it fails to explain. (much more about this to follow)



There's no such thing as a legitimate "conjecture" of a "non-explanation". If you don't have an explanation then you don't have a conjecture. To even call that a "conjecture" is a total abuse of the concept.

Moreover, your example of an "invisible anything" is a bogus example, and quite misleading. Something that has no observable qualities requires no explanation at all. To even talk about such a thing would be a farce.

However, the universe is the object in question and it's hardly 'invisible', it has plenty of observables that need to be explained.

Going back to the previous quote above, "happenstance" does not explain the observables that we see. I realize that you're about to claim that happenstance (or "random naturalism" as you call it) does work in your next quote, but I'll show why that's a total fallacy as well.



I fully understand all of those processes. I fully understand the theory of evolution and I don't argue with it one iota. Don't kid yourself.

You're missing the point.

We're talking about the creation of the universe here. Not processes that the going on within universe after it had been created. The question is whether or not the universe is by design or random chance.

What I'm saying is that this universe itself was designed to evolve into complex living things.

You can't take the Miller Urey experiment and say, "See! If we take 'dirt' from this universe and we set it up in the proper conditions it will 'automatically' form amino acids, which can then can go on to form DNA, which can then go on to program itself to create living beings, etc."

Even the Christians have a comeback for that silly argument: "If you're going to create life by happenstance start with you own dirt! Don't be using God's dirt!"

If an intelligent designer designed this universe that entity designed it before the big bang. And it was indeed designed to unfold in ways that now appear to be 'happenstance' (or natural processes) within this universe.

You seem to be entirely missing my argument here. You're looking at the question form a point of view after the fact. You're looking at processes that are occurring within the universe way beyond the moment of creation.

If you want to exam the question of whether or not this universe is happenstance or design you need to look at the moment of creation (or even before that if possible).

You need to ask the following questions:

Why are there only 100 differnet kinds of elements in this universe?
Why do those extremely few atoms just happen to be in the abundances they are?
Why do they naturally form molecules that automatically become self-programming? Why is that digital information driven to form complex living being with brains?
Why did they come together so quickly on this planet after it had cooled?


If that was truly a happenstance event then why did it occur in such a timely fashion on planet Earth? Life began to unfold almost immediately, as soon as conditions were ripe on Earth. And you call that happenstance?

No wait! You call it a 'natural process'. But what does that mean? Natural with respect to what? Natural with respect to the construction and content of this universe.

But that's what's in question here. Was this universe designed to do this? Or did this universe just come into being by happenstance. That is the question being asked here. Not whether we can explain evolution in terms of being a 'natural process within this universe'. Clearly it is. That's a given.

The real question is why does this universe have that nature?



No, of course not. It doesn't look like "blind luck" from your vantage point because you're already accepting all the things that would require "blind luck" as a given. You've already accepted that the "nature" of this universe is to naturally evolve into living conscious beings.

In other words, you're already starting with "God's dirt" and you're saying, "Hey look, this stuff naturally evolves into living beings! Cool! And that's the only 'explanation' we need!"

But I say, "Whoa! Let's take a closer look at where that dirt came from! Let's ask if this magickal dirt itself appears to be "blind luck".

So where does the 'dirt' come from? It came from the Big Bang.

What does the 'dirt' look like up close? Well, it appears to be made of about 100 very unique and precise atoms.

Just a hundred?

Yep?

Do you mean to tell me that in this vast universe filled with infinitely many atoms there are only 100 distinctly differnet kinds?

And out of those mere 100 atoms, they can form, stars, planets, and very special molecules that can become self-programming computers that can build sophisticated biological 'robots' that can grow manipulators and sensors to find their way around to find other molecules which they know enough to devour and disassembled to use as energy? And on top of that they can even program themselves to procreate to reproduce precise copies of themselves with just enough error in the process to allow them to grow, but not deteriorate?

And that's not "blind luck"

It looks to me like there something more going on around here than mere happenstance with these few 100 atoms.

What happens if we try to smash these atoms? Can we destroy them or create happenstance atoms?

Well, in modern science we can actually do experiments like this. And the answer seems to be, no. We can only momentarily smash them, but they keep coming back precisely they way they were before (not necessarily in an individual experiment, but overall). These atoms appear to be popping into and out of existence with precise consistency. We never see a 'happenstance' atom that doesn't belong to this very unique collection of pre-designed forms.

Is that happenstance? Clearly not! These atoms only come in "pre-designed forms". They aren't happenstance at all.

So all of the things that you've listed from the Miller Urey experiment onward don't even apply. All of those things are totally dependent up on the universe being made up of about 100 very special atoms that don't appear to be happenstance at all.

In other words, all the examples you gave already assume a universe that can do this. You're already assuming the naturalism of the universe.

But that's not the question. The question is, "Why is the universe like this?"

Only about 100 atoms that could create this entire sophisticated universe complete with living sentient beings? And you say that's not "blind luck"?

Well, if it's not "blind luck" then what is it? Design?

Sure looks like design to me.

All of your examples of 'natural evolution' or 'natural processes' don't mean a thing in the face of the question of whether or not the universe itself was designed. All of your so-called "explanations" are already relying on the nature of the universe as a given.

I tried to make it clear from the very beginning that I'm in complete agreement that whoever designed this universe designed it to unfold on it's own without the need for a baby-sitter. So we would expect to see all the processes that you've described taking place within it "naturally" because that the "nature" of this universe!

That's not the question. The question is, "Is the nature of the universe happenstance, or by design?"

You can't point to the natural of the universe as an answer and say, "See look, it's natural"

That just shows that you didn't even understand the original question under consideration.

The real question is asking why are those processes "natural"? Who programmed atoms to form self-programming molecules of DNA? Who programmed the atoms to collect into stars and form planets to create nice little long-lasting habitats where this miraculous molecules of DNA can have time to self-program into little egotistical robots?

I'm looking at the BIG PICTURE.

All of your explanations are looking at the universe after the fact of creation. The miracles that you see as being "natural" were already designed into it long before the processes you're looking at ever occurred.

You're looking at what has already been designed into the fundamental elements of the universe and just calling that "natural". You're failing to ask the really hard question of why they this universe has the "nature" it has.

Perhaps because you feel that we can't answer this, so you view it as a non-question?

But isn't that just a cop-out? Besides, even if that is your stance then why assume a default of 'happenstance' (or "natural processes")? Why not assume a default of "We just don't know why the universe has this nature"?

This crap of holding science up as though it support a conclusion of happenstance over design is simply false. It does no such things.

If science can't answer the question of design, then let's just say so. Holding out the idea that happenstance or, (it's just "natural processes"), should be the default conclusion until we know better, is just a personal opinion that has no logical or scientific value.

It would be just as equally "correct" to assume a default conclusion of design at this point. (I mean, if we're going to just assume something)

I confess that I'm agnostic (i.e. I don't know the answer)

But I do hold out the observation that based on what I see, there is more evidence for design than there is for happenstance. So I lean toward design as being the most likely conjecture at this point in time. It seems more likely than to conjecture happenstance. I don't see where happenstance fits the observations, and the reason is quite simple. We see more structure and order than we'd expect to see from pure happenstance. Therefore, happenstance does not explain the order and structure we see.

Thus, if I had to put my money on a conjecture, I would conjecture that it was by design. And we're not talking about invisible entities here. The actual conjecture of design, is based on observable phenomena, it's not just a random guess.

I arrive at this conjecture from purely scientific observations, and strict logical reasoning.

So as far as I'm concerned it's rock solid as a valid "conjecture".

Proof? No.

But I hold that there is more evidence for design than there is for happenstance. And that's my only position at this point in time.

Your argument that processes within this universe are 'natural processes' within this universe is totally meaningless and circular. Of course they are! That's a given. I'm in complete agreement with that!

But that's not the question. The question is whether or not the universe itself is by design, or whether it's a freak happenstance event. That's the question.

For whatever it's worth, I too at vehemently against certain religions. Especially the ones that claim to have books that contain the commandments, threats, and directives, of jealous gods that lust to be the King of Kings and Lord of Lords over all humanity.

Those kinds of dogmatic religions that claim to be the word of God should indeed be outlawed as "hate crimes" and there is a "Burden of Proof" invovled there. After all the claim is that a book is the word of God, then there should be a "Burden of Proof" to prove that claim.

However, just because what you say about some religions if quite true, is no reason to take that over into science and use it as an excuse to claim that science supports ahtheism.

That's just an over-reaction that doesn't do anyone any good.

If we're going to seek truth we need to keep an open mind and not allow hateful dogmatic religions to fill us with fear, anger, and resentment toward the very idea of an potential cosmic or supernatural intelligence.

The recognition that an intelligence may have been responsible for creating this universe does not automatically loan credence to mythologies that have jealous angry gods that instruct people to provide them with blood sacrifices for repentance. Such gods can hardly be called "intelligent" anyway. So if there is an intelligent creator of the universe that would automatically rule out all those utterly stupid religions with blood-thirsty gods who solve all their problems using hostile bloody violent means.

There's nothing intelligent about that!

We can't allow religions to be the guiding factor in our intellectual pursuit of truth.

If the evidence for design exist, we must pursue it in spite of the fact that the people who worship horrid religions will try to use that information to bolster their hateful mythological dogmas.

No fallacies and it's fine. Basically going by the Greek tradition.


If it's "just what I believe" I don't share it with people. Why do you?

I generally avoid using this subject in arguments but do you think Jewish people shouldn't have objected to Nazi eugenics practices?

If objection is what creates conflict then conflict is not a meaningful stage of interactions to look at.

But pretending for a moment that objecting is the important step people should avoid. This thread was started by someone who has made it clear enough that she thinks there is no evidence of an original intelligent designer. Wouldn't this mean that you are in the wrong for having objected to that?

**Did I really say that? The designer IS all of the designs? I don't think I did, but that is one way of looking at it. You may be identifying with YOUR BODY which you are calling THE DESIGN and also THE DESIGNER.

You are assuming the common religious premise. It states that we are our bodies and some God "created" us (our body.) Is this where you are coming from and what you object to?**

I said:


**If you are choosing "not to understand" from the very beginning, then what is the purpose of this conversation? **



**
The hard stuff? Do you then presume that I know all of the answers to "the hard stuff?" I have used this same approach myself on Christians, so I understand the approach. But I do it because they INSIST that they have the truth and everyone else is probably going to hell if they don't submit and agree or "understand." Is that how you view me? Is this where you are coming from? If so, then I can relate to your position because I have been in that same position with debates with Christians.**

I said:


**
But you DO and already HAVE assumed all of your conclusions and you have made the choice "not to understand" the reasons for my conclusions. I have many reasons and I could not possibly convey all of them to you. You would have to live my life, and experience everything I have experienced and learn everything I have learned. I'm not sure if I am ready to write an auto-biography, nor do I have the time to do this at this time in this post.**





**I don't know if mine is 'better' than theirs. (I am not them.) I also don't know what 'theirs' is or why. That is why I engage in this kind of conversation. To learn more and understand more about their beliefs. My beliefs and conclusions are all I have at this point. I share them so people can know where I am.**




**I only speak for myself when it comes to feeling your way to the truth. I am not trying to tell anyone else how to do it. Each person will find their own way. I share what I feel and believe so that you may know where I am.**



It sounds like you are talking about religion and politics here and that you are fighting that battle. Good for you, keep up the good work. But don't mistake me for a politician or a religious fanatic just because I see things from a spiritual point of view.

Abra wrote:

You need to ask the following questions:

Why are there only 100 differnet kinds of elements in this universe?
Why do those extremely few atoms just happen to be in the abundances they are?
Why do they naturally form molecules that automatically become self-programming? Why is that digital information driven to form complex living being with brains?
Why did they come together so quickly on this planet after it had cooled?



But I hold that there is more evidence for design than there is for happenstance. And that's my only position at this point in time.




But of course you hold that position it is your position without any evidence of any kind.

I removed from your post all of the non proof you included with exception of this list of questions which the answers prove the opposite of what you imply they do.

Of course there is a similarity at a molecular level in the universe. I wouldn't be surprised to find that at a smaller than atomic level we are almost exactly the same composition. That makes sense for a natural event.

Abra, you claim all this scientific knowledge and yet you do not take scientific view to this subject. You are clouded by your desire that there be a designer.