No, I'm saying that there is no sign of intent in the design of the universe.  We know that complex designs can evolve under the combination of three conditions:
1) Self-replication--a copying process
2) Variation--some deviation in the fidelity of the copying process
3) Competition--conditions that favor the selection of some processes over others

Actually we do not know this as fact as they have never been shown. Even the programming to form words from letters fails as it self-evidently requires a intelligent programmer.

Designs of that sort tend to evolve slowly and produce very rich, complex structures.  Intelligently designed things tend to have much cleaner, simpler features.  That is because intelligent designers tend to remove unnecessary clutter, where unguided designs tend to leave such clutter around.  Serendipity guides unintelligent design, whereas purpose drives intelligent design.  Both methods give rise to new function. 

Also needless presupposition. "Clutter" can not in itself disprove intent and design if something that was perfectly designed but was allowed to fall into decay (God's curse on creation) would equally account for such "clutter".

The universe is such that most of what we encounter in it seems to have been created by chaotic systems in which evolutionary design has created function and order.  There is no evidence of intelligent design anywhere beyond the artifacts that we and other evolved beings create.

The fact that the universe appears designed is itself evidence of intelligent design. As such your arguement doesn't offer disproof so much as escapism.

EB, try to get with the program.  Nobody denies that evolution works in the abstract.  The debate has moved on to the question of whether such design principles, which everyone acknowledges work, can lead to speciation or "macroevolution" in biological process of self-replication.  You don't understand the point of the word-generation program, which was not to demonstrate the lack of intelligent intervention in evolutionary design, but the way that natural selection works.

That would be true if there was any "intervention". Unfortunately the intelligent agent's role in the program was more "causation" which is the entire issue of what was the design caused by.

It is a hallmark of intelligent design that designs tend to get simplified rather quickly.  We see no evidence of this in evolution.  Features that become dysfunctional may hang around for many generations simply because they have no selectional effect.  That is why whales still have remnants of the pelvic structures that their land-dwelling ancestors needed for hind legs.

I love how your arguement is shown to be question begging. Especially since the "whales having legs" arguement has been summarily debunked.

Design comes in two varieties:  guided by intelligence and guided by environmental pressures.  The apparent existence of design does not prove that it is of the kind produced by intelligent guidance.  There is simply no evidence of that.

Well there is, but it is admittedly not the scientific kind. The fact that no environmental pressures existed before the Big Bang seems to put a cramp in such an arguement. What is even more laughable is that you would admit a calculator is self-evidently a product of intelligent design, but when it comes to something even more complex like the universe or the human body you try to come up with speculation of random events because you don't like the implication. This is why I laugh myself silly when you bring up Occam's Razor Cop.

It is clear that you are never going to understand or acknowledge the point of that exercise.  It was irrelevant whether the selection was made by an intelligent being or some randomly existing environmental factor.  The process by which design emerged was completely automatic, not intelligent.  That was the point.  Breeding programs are a type of evolution.

No, because the fact that the process only comes about by an intelligent agent creating such a process with an intended purpose completely undermines the arguement of it being through "unguided randomization".

Right.  Along with gravity and the theory that the Earth is round.   

Aw yes. The typical Dawkin's equivocation response. Utterly failing to realise that gravity and the curviture of the Earth is something we can reaffirm threw observation and experimentation, while that's clearly not the case for "millions of years of evolution".

How could you possibly know what did or did not exist before the "Big Bang"?

Simple reasoning. You should try it sometime.

If matter, time, and space did not exist before they were created then clearly such "environmental processes" can't be the cause. Or even if we allowed the fact that "environmental conditions" could allow for such a thing to occur naturally the issue of time not being created means everything would stay in stasis and thus never produce the "Big Bang" as an effect.

 

As for complexity, I have already made the point that unguided evolutionary design tends to produce far more complex designs than artificial ones, but it seems useless to try to make any point with you.  And I'm glad to see that you can laugh at things that you don't understand.  It would be worse if your ignorance depressed you as much as it depresses others.

Actually I find it's my intelligence that frustrates you. But then I'm biased. But then pointing out that "evolution" is a purely biological process that doesn't have much to do with the issue of the universe itself appearing to be designed and so you're forced to simply rely on "the environment" the whole way through, simply reaffirms my confidence that I've made the right self-analysis.

Sadly this just goes back to the point that you can only believe unguided evolutionary design produces more complex designs, by question begging that both evolution is true and produced them in the first place. That complexity equally implys a more complex (omnipotent and omniscient) Designer does not occur to you because as stated the implication is one you've already decided isn't true a priori. As such your arguement doesn't win any points if it's equally explained by the other model. The fact that the other model is far more simpler and plausable just goes to show your contradicting attitude and selective rationality.

Once again you put words in my mouth that I did not use.  The expression "unguided randomization" is your misquote of what I said, and it implies falsely that natural selection is random.  Moreover, you beg the question by assuming that the process was guided by intelligent purpose.

And you split hairs between "quoting" and "paraphrasing". And obviously I can't beg the question if the entire purpose of the arguement was so atheists like Dawkins can demonstrate how design can occur by a "random" process, and thus completely undermines the point in such an arguement.

We can reaffirm evolution through both observation (e.g. of the fossil record, which is continually growing) and experimentation.  You keep forgetting that nobody really disputes evolution as a design process.  The dispute is whether it could bring about speciation (macroevolution), a claim that has been satisfactorily proven to the vast majority of scientists and others who have studied the matter.

Actually people do dispute evolution as a design process. I believe you've done plenty of arguements with Cimics and such about natural selection's "limits" to know such a statement is blatantly false. And you obviously forget that your claims of observation threw the fossil record has been utterly refuted as question begging (your claims of "fullfilling expectation" reveals it to be circular reasoning), and there is indeed no experimentation for "macroevolution" over millions of years. Once again it's typical equivocation between "microevolution" which no one disputes but does not show as a design process as it's variation for what is already designed, and "macroevolution" which is neither demonstrated nor proven.

You misspelled "simplistic".

No the reasoning is quite "simple", though I see it's too much for you to handle.

Ignorance of the conditions that existed before the "Big Bang" does not entitle you to draw the conclusion that a supernatural intelligent agent must have caused it.

Good thing it's not "ignorance" then, as much as logical reasoning. What do you have? A "Because I say so" arguement? If you are admitting ignorance to the conditions than it seems you are not entitled to dismiss the conclusion that a supernatural intelligent agent did indeed cause it.

 

Wrong again.  Evolution is a "substrateless" process.  It applies to any process where there is replication, mutation, and competition.  We even have computer programs that use the evolutionary process to produce designs of objects that we manufacture.  It works so well, that we can use computers to "evolve" new designs of products for us.  Biological evolution is just the process as it applies to DNA-based self-replication in nature.

Putting aside another equivocation, what exactly are the "replication, mutation, and competition" mechanisms in the case of the universe appearing designed?

I hate to burst your bubble, but genetic programming has been around for a while now.  The invention of computers made it possible, and it has an established track record at producing designs that would take too long for humans to come up with through trial and error.  See this Wikipedia article on Evolutionary Algorithm. 

Shame then that it's the fact that such "genetic programming" would indeed equate to an Intelligent Designer programming in biology as compared to a computer technician designing computers and the programming in it, that shows you to be the one in the bubble. Genetic programming simply reaffirms ID, as it shows we are made with a specific intent to how our bodies look and function. Again you face the same problem of it being equally explained by the far more simple and plausable alternate model.

Paraphrasing does not call for quotes.  Quoting does.  Nor are the only proponents of atheists like Dawkins.  Nor does any evolutionist argue that the process is completely random.  It is guided by the principle of natural selection. 

Which is unguided random events according to a century of condescension on the subject. Don't try this nonsensical double talk. Nor the fact that atheists disagreeing with Dawkins on some points because  it has nothing to do with the point of the arguement. The only thing you could have said that would be more useless is that not all atheists were men like Dawkins is (I assume).

So, you disagree with those such as Behe and Dembski, who readily concede that evolution works to explain certain types of design, but not all?  The argument on the table is not whether evolution can design changes, but whether it can design a new species.  Try to keep up with your own side on this.

That is the side of the arguement. Natural selection (not evolution) can work to explain certain types of design within kind, but it's inherent "limit" makes it ill suited as an explanation for design of a new species. That you can attribute natural selection to explain a feature like the resistance of bacteria does not make natural selection the automatic answer for the feature of the thumb, eye, and/or brain. Such reasoning is like saying a storm may be responsible for giving a car's paint job a rusty color, but that's not the same as random pieces flying in place to form an engine.

You are confused.  Nobody disputes that the use of antibiotics can select for strains of bacteria that can resist the antibiotics and therefore "design" a new "superbug".

Which is equivocation as what isn't being "designed" isn't bacteria but a feature within the bacteria that allows it to be resistent.

The evidence from the fossil record has not only never been refuted, it stands as continual confirmation of common descent for well over a century now.  It has been corroborated by completely different types of evidence such as genetics and DNA, observation of ring species, and human animal and plant breeding programs.  Have a glass of grapefruit juice and think about it.

It has been refuted continuously. It's just never been "disproven" as it's inherently unfalsifiable. So called "corroboration" by genetics and DNA only further shows that the problem is not evidence, but interpretation on evidence brought on by an a priori belief. You already decide there is no ID where genetics and DNA is concerned and thus that "corroborates" evolution  and your circular fossil record evidence. It's even further laughable when "species" is revealed to be a word with a selected definition for evolutionists, and such "breeding programs" only confirm microevolution which is a nonissue. Perhaps you just haven't had enough mercury. ;P

Really?  What caused the supernatural intelligent agent?  Nothing?

That would be the obvious conclusion when it comes to an Immovable Mover, wouldn't it? The only thing we can conclude is that the singularity had a cause. It would be an infinite regress if it didn't stop with uncaused cause at some point.

Then it is unnecessary to jump to the conclusion that it is needed to provide a cause for physical reality.  If a complex superbeing could just always have existed, then so can physical reality.

So if you believe the sun is "millions of years old" that automatically makes you conclude a ham sandwich is "millions of years old"? 

No, it's very necessary when one wants answers. What's telling is that you wave it off when the answer isn't what you like. Physical reality has been proven to have a starting point, and infinite regress as a logical fallacy. You don't like it then you're free to live with your own irrationality. Just don't be shocked when that irrationality makes others dismiss you on such arguements like evolution.

The universe does not appear designed.  Self-replicating physical processes are observed everywhere in nature, and the theory of evolution shows clearly how simple processes can produce complexity.

So now you are disagreeing with those like Dawkins that concede that the universe at least appears designed. All those IDers would disagree with you as well. Nice job on not answering my question and just giving me a reassertion. Let me guess you mixed up the mercury with the heoine, didn't you?

Evolutionary designs are not the same as intelligent design.  Evolutionary designs are unplanned.   They adapt themselves to conditions automatically, not through the intervention of intelligent intent.

I love how you think assertions and reassertions constitute a rebuttal. It's the fact that an Intelligent Designer can have the foresight (especially if He's omniscient) to create His creation with the ability to adapt and allow for variation within kind that really hurts this. An omniscient Designer would then have it all "planned".