One sure thing that tells you something is designed is to produce a designer. What we get is apologetics that says nothing but, why we should assume a designer.
We recognize creations because most of us, directly or indirectly have seen the process of creation. We don't "understand these things intuitively", we've all experienced creation of a cake by watching someone bake a cake, we've seen cars being made on TV, we've seen images of watchmakers build watches and for the things you've never seen made, you've seen and understood how enough things are made to extrapolate. The rest is really pattern recognition. Humans are literally evolutionarily hardwired to see patterns. Do you see a face here? You know why? Humans see patterns, and while that's incredibly useful it leads us to see human features or anthropomorphize common objects. To see human features where there are none. As far as your claim that we intuitively recognize design when it comes to the universe. We have no experience that would lead us to make that assumption. WE've never seen a universe created nor have we ever seen any process that would lead us to believe that it's possible. You are simply recognizing a pattern and assigning it to your god.
“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.” Daniel J. Boorstin Which framework? What means "additional information"? And how can come something into existence what had no possibility to exist before it "existed"? What's not very important if we call it "biological body plan" or "genetic blueprint". What you call maximum order is maximum disorder. There's absolutely no plan behind the "decision" of a dice to show one of the possible numbers. A dice has no memory. Not so the DNA. It is a kind of biological memory. This idea hurts the third fundamental theorem of thermodynamics. You called disorder "order". Or with other words: Also if we take a look at the theory of biological evolution we are not able not to believe. The only thing the theory of evolution is able to say is: "Who survives is right" (="survival of the fittest"). So a murderer is right and a victim of murder is wrong: Cain is good, Abel is evil. This is "social Darwinism"; Another word for social Darwinism is "Nazism". A problem.
You don't have the credentials to participate, so other than to inform you why I'm going to ignore you, I'm going to ignore you as a waste of time (read previous posts).
Look at that long post. Rather than spend that time actually conversing, you choose to belabor a side issue. Waste of time. Read my previous posts.
Scientists now know the minimum requirements for life to exist. It involves a level of complexity that eliminates natural causes. The number of genes required could not have evolved. The minimum number of components required would have had to evolve separately. There is no way they could have done so because they are interdependent. They all must be in the same place at the same time in order for life to exist. If just one of them was missing, the cell would die.
If you want to make bland assertions that you can't back up you will get called out on it. I suggest that only one of us is whining and, it ant me.
One argument that has been presented is that the information in our genes cannot increase. Down's syndrome is a condition in which a person has more chromosomes than their parents. The amount of information in that persons genome is greater than that of their parents. This example shows that the "information cannot increase" is incorrect. Things come into existence all the time. When I make macaroni and cheese, I take cheese, I take macaroni, I put them together, and "macaroni and cheese" turns up where there was no macaroni and cheese in the past. It seems to me there is no problem with the concept of things coming into existence. I fail to see your point. I don't really care what you call it. I haven't called anything "maximum order". A die has one kind of memory. If you don't pick the die up once it has stopped rolling, it will remain with the same side up. No, the laws of thermodynamics generally hold for closed systems. Biology rarely has closed systems, humans/animals/beings/similar take in energy and entropy (mostly by eating things). I don't think I did. There are several different aspects at play here, some have order, some have not. What you're presenting here was a common line of thought around Nazi times, but it is rarely, if at all, accepted today. Evolution is not a normative idea, it does not say anything about what should be, only about what is. It does not say "who survives is right" it only says "who survives is alive". Whether it is right or wrong, good or bad/evil, evolution says nothing about. Social Darwinism is rejected by the vast majority of people who believe in evolution, it's a bit of a red herring to conflate the two.
That nonsense has been debunked. The building blocks of life are chemicals that have been demonstrated to form by themselves. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/03/researchers-may-have-solved-origin-life-conundrum
What is "information in our genes". The production of proteins? What makes as less sense as to be be born without legs or arms or with three legs or three arms. No. It's the same information. The additional information is only "Chromsom 21 exists 3 times instead 2 times". Our modern world eliminates children with so called "down-syndrome" meanwhile with abortions, but evolution did not eliminate trisomie 21. Only local but not universal. If entropy grows then information (=negative entropy) is not able to grow too. So what? Possibilities are able to become real. ? You fail what? ... It's idiotic what you say here. Good grief. You confused order and disorder and by the way "chaos" is not disorder too - real chaos is a very complex form of order. Yesterday a coin fell out of my purse. It landed exactly on the edge and did not fall to any of both sides. I was very astonished - because this is normally impossible. The universe is a closed system. And now you say something very important: We are a local exception. Entropy grows all around in the universe - but not here. If you eat "things" (=plants or animals) then entropy grows too. So we can say "the growing of entropy means death". So everywhere all around us is death. But we are alive. We are alive because we are "going back". So what was the universe back in former times? Alive? And what are we on our own - because we need the energy of other creatures for our own life? Sinners? I guess now I am not able to take serious any longer what you say.
Religion, even politicised religion, is not just one coherent line of thought. People who haven't had things explained to them in a coherent way are justified in misunderstanding it. Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity, or as I might call it in this case, justified ignorance. I think the misunderstandings are no worse than those you might find in any body of thought.
