hooberus
I think that a lot of your problem is that you misunderstand the creationist/ID "design argument".
Who says you can't teach an old Creationist new tricks! Having been told for years (with clear evidence to support it) that Creationists don;t understand evlutionary theory, you're now going to have a go at doing the same.
You say;
The design argument is not that any type of complexity or intelligence in existence would also "require" a designer for its existence.
So, ID doesn't say any type of complex design requires a designer.
And then you say;
Rather instead the design argument is that the design (design as in mechanical complexity) found in certain objects (such as watches, photoreceptors, etc) that have an origin is best explained as being the result of an intelligent designer and/ or is evidence of intelligent design, requires a designer, etc.
So, you ARE claiming that complex designs require an intelligent designer! You just (as I have pointed out TWICE, at least) use what is called special pleading by inserting 'that have an origin'.
There is no requirement that in order to assert that mechanically complex objects that have an origin (e.g. photoreceptor) would have required a designer, that a person must also "show how the designer came about" in order not to be "self-refuting".
Until one DOES show "how the designer came about", it IS self-refuting. You might want the freedom to make wild claims free of responsibility for the logical extrapolation of those claims, but such a stance is patently ludicrous. You are conjuring the tooth fairy out of thin air based on teeth left under pillows by children magically turning into money! And then saying you don't have to prove how the tooth fairy came into being!
PLEASE, do carry on explaining the 'design argument'. Without your assistence it wouldn't look nearly so ridculous and contradictory
For example if a complex alien structure (such as a spacecraft, masonry building, etc.) were found, such a complex object would surely by many scientists be said to have required a designer, yet this would not be a "self-refuting hypothesis".
Because they would not be embedding in the claim that these artifacts required a designer a claim that the designer was eternal and had no origin, which is what ID-ots do.
And answer a straight question for once; are you now a proponent of Intelligent Design, as in a warmed-over version of OEC, having given up on the insanity of YEC? Or are you arguing to support a theory you don't believe in? As ID really requires acceptence of standard chronologies to avoid slipping down the slippery slope it has crawled up from the quagmire that is YEC, the two positons are not inclusive.
This is true even if they were not able to also show "how the designer came about." Furthermore, there is no requirement in arguments for design for the designer to have even "come about" at all - perhaps he has always been.
See? I'm right. Accept you are so blind to reason you can't see it. Let the reader use discernment, eh?
It would only be "special pleading" if creationists/ ID proponets taught that the designer has 1). a mechanical type of complexity
Oh a NEW ID-ot weasel word; mechanical; so non-mechanical complexity requires no designer? Please give me a full definiton of what you think you mean by mechanical complexity and why equally complex non-mechanical entities are exempt from the rule you apply to mechanical ones.
and 2). an origin, and then also taught that he "required no designer".
You seem to think by re-stating it the way you like to re-state it removes the hideous flaws in the argument. It doesn't. They are still there even with the re-statement.
Since neither creationists nor ID proponets teach this there is no "special pleading". (ID proponets don't usually specify the charcteristics of the designer, and creationists for centuries have generally taught that God has no origin and is not composed of mechanical parts.)
No, but god is supposedly complex (the use of 'mechanical' to muddy the water is largely tired and cynical, as even with it the ID argument doesn't fly) so what you see as an explanation for the illogicity of your stance isn't, as just re-stating your argument doesn't reduce the idoicy of it. And special pleading does STILL take place, as "God has no origin" is STILL special pleading.
My "postulation" was simply that it is logically valid to make statements such as: "something without an origin needs no designer" and "something that has always been there doesn't require a designer"
Neither of which can be proved, which is what I said. What's happening here hooberus? Even with all the points you bring out ID is still a hypothesis with severe problems with the logic and evidence for the claims it makes.
I see, as per bloody normal, you try and make ground where you think you can (although you didn't), and ignore the fact one of the biggest proponents of ID has admitted in court that ID is a hypothesis. Still no comment on that? To difficult to deal with?
Essentially the demands of Creationists and ID-ots to have their beliefs taught in class are as reasonable as those who want flat-Earthism, Astrology or the superiority of one race over another taught in schools. At the very best kids should know that people used to believe that the Earth was the centre of the Universe, and flat, but we know better now, just as people once believed the Earth was made in six days, or made out of bits of dismembered gods, but know better now, just as people once taught some races were superior to others, but we know better than that now, just as some people still believe burning balls of gas trillions of kilometers away influence whether they have a ood day or not, even though we know better now.
Oh, another question that the Creationist or ID-ot brigade have failed to answer is; if suplhur-breast-plated locusts are figurative (they must be as there is no evidence for them), how come the Creation account and the Flood account (which there is no evidence for) are regarded as literal?
