Is Intelligent Design a Rational or Irrational belief (Part3)

Con says ""For instance in archeology when they come across some artifact the question is raised, is this the product of some ancient civilisation ? " This is another ridiculous instance of begging the question, of course when we come across an ARTIFACT we must semantically deduce that it came from civilization. " Yep my mistake on that one, I thought artifact could mean something along the lines of a very old object, but yes artifact is defined as being made or used by humans. Considering this me replacing the word artifact with the word object. Con says "Are subatomic particles intelligently designed? Is what we observe to be seemingly random behavior by electrons a designed portion of the universe? Does my opponent answer these claims? Of course not. But to answer these claims are critical. For if they are not designed. .. .. ." Lets break down this hidden argument. 1) If X has undesigned parts, then that means X is not designed 2) Humans have undesigned parts (eg carbon atoms) 3) Therefore Humans are not designed Using an artifact example (and yes this time I want to use that word) imagine declaring some ancient tool, like a rock that this so called tool, is not an artifact. When questioned on what basis you claim this, you claim, well the rock is made of undesigned parts (like atoms) therefore that means this rock its self must be undesigned and thus not an artifact. Con keeps objecting that intelligence has not being defined enough. I did post an explanation before, I think most people will understand the basic concepts of intent, intelligence etc. You can always object to something not being defined enough. Con says "In fact, intelligence, I've argued, is very clear. It's a degree of natural processing, and simple beings like atoms have a very primitive form of intelligence and adaptation" Atoms have intelligence eh, this is news to me, unless your redefining what most people understand as intelligence. Con says "It is a rock solid argument because just like any natural thing in the universe there occur problems - problems in adaptation and development" Con doesn't seem to understand that having a problem, is something that intelligent beings have. Evolution as a process has no capacity to understand nor care there is some "problem" with its adaptation results, its not self aware, its doesn't even know it exists. You might have a problem with the results, but that's because you possess an intelligence, evolution doesn't have this capacity so it doesn't. Con objects by saying "How do can we assert that the universe is hostile to life if we haven't fully explored it. " There are two main reasons I assert this. .. .. 1) The evidence data collected so far (consider it a sample) That is too say of the observed universe there is no life outside of earth. 2) That the universe works the same way in all places (That is too say the laws of physics are constant) Which brings me to Cons justification why we have not seen an abundance of life outside of earth Con says "These simpler organisms are the result of the initial conditions of their environment. That's why on PLUTO, there are no life-forms, because the conditions are too volatile for any life form to ADAPT and DEVELOP into COMPLEX, SEEMINGLY DESIGNED, BEINGS" This I would argue gives a good reason to believe that these initial conditions are rare, even from a universal stand point. I would use this understanding of life being rare to add more weight to my argument that complex life is more plausible to have its origins in intent than absent of intent. Claiming that evolution is a process is one thing, to claim or imply that evolution proves absent of intent in origins is to make a claim that science is not making. Therefore any who claims or implies the absent of intent must give justification for this claim. It should be understood at the end, what I am arguing for in this debate, and also what I am NOT arguing for. I am not arguing that its impossible that humans are the result absent of any intent. I am not arguing that if evolution is proved false in whole or part, that proves humans exist by intent. I am not arguing that even with origins in intent, that means all process are the result of intent. I am not arguing that humans existing by having their origins in intent proves some well defined creation belief (eg six days of creation of genesis, rael aliens, the flying spaghetti monster) I am arguing a very simple concept and proposition, that humans or anything else having multiple working parts working not just in themselves but working in complimentary with other working parts, is more likely due to having its origins in intent, rather than having no intent involved at all, and as such is a intelligent design is a rational position.