Saturday, 23 April 2016
In a way, there is no such thing as an, "appearance" of design in the way evolutionists use it. Really it is just their way of saying that design is not design, by merely putting the name-tag, "appearance", on design. The true nature, the true FORM of their argument which they hide with the term, "appearance" is of the following form;
"intelligent design is not intelligent design if it is found in life" (special pleading fallacy, for they would consider the same elements of intelligent design in a car, direct evidence of intelligent design and they would not call it appearance. So it is simply discrimination, they have one standard for life because of their erroneous and beloved theory, and another standard for technology.
Am I saying that nothing can ever appear to be designed but actually isn't? No! But the true elements of intelligent design, reveal those things that only appear to be designed.
Think about that sentence again. the true elements of intelligent design, reveal those things that only appear to be designed.
Ok, so now you are thinking, "HOW?"
Here is how; imagine you see in the distance a bridge that APPEARS to be designed. How can we know whether it appears to be designed and is or only appears to be designed but isn't? Well, imagine if we examined the bridge and there were no side-rails so that people couldn't fall over the side. One element of intelligent design is contingency-planning. We know that if it was really designed, the designer would have put rails there. Secondly, the surface is rough, it is not constructed for walking on. Again, this shows there is no real specified complexity. There is no design to the arch either, showing detailed patterns that can't come about by chance. Can you see what is happening yet? We are seeing that our bridge is revealed as something that only appears to be designed but actually isn't because the true elements of intelligent design are missing. Imagine now we see the material the bridge is made from is crumbling away, and the top part is skew-if slightly. A designer would use materials built to last, not crumbly, loose material. One element of design is use of the correct materials.
So if lifeforms only appear to be designed, then the true elements of design will not be there. But as everyone knows, they are there. Not only are they there, they are more superior as proven by biomimetics. (plagiarizing the designs in nature).
So then evolutionists only have one card left to play. They can only muddy-the-water by saying; "but evolution happened so it can only be appearance!" - this of course, is just a statement of faith which is EXTRANEOUS to our evaluation. To find out if a cake is baked you don't need to know someone's theory about the veracity of a particular cake being baked, all you need to do is examine the cake to see if it is baked the same as other cakes. It is the same with intelligent design, we don't need to study evolution to know if lifeforms are designed, all we need to do is examine them and see if they have all of the elements of intelligent design, and if they do, which they do, then like the cake, they qualify as designed.