Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

"Duane Bozarth"
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

"Duane Bozarth"

...

But how did that intelligent agent implement the design is the
problem...

We don't know how things would have happened naturally and
if we can't understand how it could have happened supernaturally
we have a problem? A bias is like a backpack, you can't see your own.

There are pretty good theories of how some things happened naturally and
continuing development of areas for which it isn't certain---that's what
science is about.

Science is clueless about origins and guesswork does abound. Why are
wild theories more impressive to you than a creator?

It's not about being "impressed" or not, it's about finding a rational,
natural causation that works in all times and places to explain what we
see. That there might have been a creator who set something in motion
is one philosphical choice one can make, but it is truly immaterial
after that point. It doesn't make a whit of difference in the evolution
of the universe since. If that isn't the assertion, then you have the
supernatural intervention again and the conclusion that there is no way
to ever understand the actual universe.

That you bring in some supernatural agent is simply saying it's
unknowable and there is no point in studying it further

You've said that a number of times now and I've responded that
your assertion isn't true, I've quoted leading scientists, linking to more,
that did and do study more than you will ever know. At this point you are
deliberately misrepresenting any opposing belief.

No, I'm simply illustrating a fallacy in the argument. I'll say it yet
again--if there _was/is_ supernatural intervention, then by the
definition of supernatural there is no way to have a natural, scientific
methodology that satisfies the cosmological principle.

as you simply
say the external agent did it. There had to have been a mechanism by
which it was done imo is the only bias I have.

No one has argued about there not being a mechanism.

Then what role does the ID'er play? If he/she/it is munging about doing
all sorts of things, then the basis for the mechanism must be, to
paraphrase Flip Wilson, "the whoever made me do it". If not, and there
is a well-defined mechanism that is knowable (whether it is known yet or
not), then there is no need for the ID'er other than this philosophical
choice of prime progenitor.

My whole difficulty in this discussion is that bringing in the
supernatural simply removes the subject from the realm of science
entirely.

Science isn't a set of dogma, it consists of fields of study. "Science"
doesn't include or exclude the supernatural.

Science does exclude the supernatural, _by definition_ because if it
is supernatural there is no scienfific basis for the explanation of any
phenomenon that relies on the supernatural--a tautology.

As I've noted before, if it turns out we can't ever figure it
out,

When would that be? Just before the last human dies?

Whenever...it's a description of the position with respect to how
science will/can advance--either it can continue to do so or it can't:
so far, it has been able to continue but there's no guarantee (although
I certainly don't think that will happen). However, from the viewpoint
of requiring a supernatural intervening force to provide the
explanation, it is inevitable that at some point that becomes the only
explanation.

then that's the same conclusion it seems to me the ID'ers have
already reached except they gave up the search by accepting the
supernatural, unknowable alternative.

Please name one scientist that gave up on research because
of ID. Maybe this will help you get started, it's a pdf page
that takes about 15 seconds with a dialup ...

See above...it's the end game.

I'm done...finis. If you care to answer the question of the role of the
ID'er in all this, fine.