And that's why I used the scare quotes around the word, to indicate that it didn't really mean what the word really means. Some things that people call science today really aren't, and that applies to more than intelligent design. Pretty much all "science" that deals with the origin of life is scare-quote "science".
As soon as ID "researchers" start engaging in science, then I have no problem with them being paid for that work. But that's not what they do. They engage in speculation and conjecture and take pot shots at evolutionary theory, often demonstrating a serious lack of understanding of the subject. When your ultimate goal is to prove that "God did it", you're putting yourself outside of science, as science, by definition, does not deal with the supernatural. Now you may say that some of them don't specifically claim that "God" did it, but only that some superior intelligence was involved, but even in that case, they still don't apply scientific methods in their work. If they did, I wouldn't have a problem with it.
Actually, there is quite an interesting documentary out about those who are critical of Darwin's theory. In many cases the professors/scientists researching other potentials for "creation" if it be from a higher power, or just some random germ that happened to mutate creating humans are being fired because they are researching what many consider a closed subject.
No, there's a one-sided "documentary" out, in which people claim to have been fired for that. Stein's movie is no better than anything done by Michael Moore. It's ridiculous to take it as the truth.
Biggest question that should be answered by darwinists, is "if evolution created human beings, and all other creatures on the planet, why is there no solid proof of said evolution from animals just a hundred years ago to today?"
Wow. You really have no understanding of evolutionary theory at all, do you?
organic chemistry is all about stuff after the second picosecond (offset by however long it took for organic chemicals to be "invented")
that would be science
So is evolution, so your comment still makes no sense and betrays your complete ignorance of the subject matter you hold such strong opinions about.
The question is not whether or not they engaging in science. The question is how the scientific community is responding to people that will not hold the Theory of Evolution to be true. Presently the Scientific Community tries to ostracize any scientist that will not hold the Theory of Evolution to be true, regardless of how they otherwise engage in the science and the scientific method. That is the issue.
That's a load of garbage though. What alternate theory has more evidence? There isn't one. Therefore the theory of evolution is most evidently correct. We know this also because modern biology is based upon it and it has served quite well. What evidence has been found that is so profound as to invalidate the entire theory of evolution?
Bonus points if you can use triangulation from multiple people to feed back to Predator/Global Hawk drones that can be directed autonomously to the predicted location of the sniper/gunmen is. You'll still want an Air Force office confirming before firing, but you can automate the fark out of this.
I don't think Global Hawks carry any armament. They can provide intelligence to direct fire from other sources though. Reapers are generally the heavy hitters of the unmanned variety.
Who's to say its a deficiency in their knowledge? May be they are looking at it from a different perspective? Or they have an insight that you or other scientists do not?
Then they can demonstrate that through scientific methods, just like every other scientist out there. We use science because it works, and allows us to continually improve our understanding of the world around us. The progress we've made over the past few hundred years is testament to that. If they aren't willing to engage in science, then they shouldn't be taking science classes, and certainly shouldn't be passing them. If they want to debate whether God created the world, they can take religion or philosophy classes.
I am just having a hard time imagining a defense attorney failing to get a juror stricken from the pool for cause on the grounds that he is Facebook friends with the prosecutor's office at all, much less if the reason he became Facebook friends with the prosecuting attorney was to obtain free wireless internet access during the trial. This is just stupid and wrong on so many levels.
The summary says they get access to wifi during jury selection, not during the trial. Most of them won't even be there for that.
Yes, I agree with you about that. I'm not against people doing things to make a statement. If they feel that it's necessary where they live, then sure, go for it. Sometimes it's great to make those who would oppose it have to explain themselves. Sometimes its nice to challenge conventional wisdom and societal biases. Those would certainly be good reasons to band together.
And the first question the other side should ask in jury selection is "Has anyone from either side given you goods or services for free that would normally cost people money?"
If you had to provide your personal information in trade, then it wasn't really free, so I could see people easily answering "no" to that question.
There was a GQ article interviewing Billy Ray Cyrus recently (I read it out of the perverse curiousity you have when you come from the same hometown) and he mentioned there's a sign in LA. Adopt-a-Highway, Atheists United. While Mr. Cyrus' interpretation left something to be desired, I thought it was neat - a group of actual civic minded atheists working together long enough to clean up a highway? Where can I find those people?
Most well-adjusted atheists don't flock together under that banner. Not anymore than they'd flock together over their lack of belief in Santa Claus. They may get together to support or oppose some legislation or incident on that basis though.
However, there was no need for a full frontal Dr. Manhattan.
How do you figure that? Seems like that would require a fundamental change in the character. I don't get why people are so averse to a penis in a movie, especially when it's perfectly in line with the story and character.
He was 'lying' in that his account of a certain set of dates recalled from memory differed slightly from someone else's recall of a certain set of dates, also from memory. Moreover, the judge threw out the expert witness that Libby wanted to use who would point out that memory is quite fallible.
Apparently the jury didn't see it as such a little slip-up.
I don't get it though, shows like Supernatural have that sort of stuff in them all the time, and you can do an awful lot by implication, just look at Paranormal activity. I think the direction he was going to take is the problem here, not the basic concept.
Wasn't Paranormal Activity rated R? The game is definitely more adult fare. It's very dark, and certainly has imagery and themes that should probably be covered by an R rating. I don't know that he could make the movie and stay faithful to the game without going that route. Not sure what alternative you're suggesting.
The very first link (February Acts & Facts PDF ) on the very first website (Acts&Facts) on the above referenced page contains an analysis: "Molecular Equidistance: The Echo of Discontinuity?" (page 4) It lays out a methodology, a set of predictions and a proposed metric for testing the hypothosis. You give the impression that you have not examined the first thing about this, but came in with your mind made up. I must say that I really expected better of a Slashdot reader.
So where's their experiment? Where's their data? They just point at one thing, ask a couple of leading questions, and then speculate about what it could mean. They do no investigation. They don't apparently even attempt to answer their own questions. They offer no support for their speculation about what it means. That's what you think is science? Pointing at something you don't understand and then saying it probably means whatever you feel like it should mean? Wow. That guy is either very intellectually lazy, or he actually looked into the questions and didn't like the answers he found, so decided to just imply that he was onto something.
Page 14 presents a theory (new to me) about a second time dilation proposed by Dr. Russel Humphreys to correspond to the period of the flood. (I was familiar with "Starlight and Time, Humphrey's original publication on the subject of time dilation, but not with his later work.)
That second article is pretty lame, and certainly not scientific. He makes so many unsupported assumptions that the whole thing is merely speculation. Take his use of helium diffusion in zircons as a dating method. He offers nothing to justify any of his assumptions about it. Nor does he give any justification for not using an established method, other than that it didn't give him the answer he wanted I guess. His method has also been addressed and found wanting by others. If you're going to put forth a theory on something, you need to be able to explain conflicting evidence, and explain why your theory is better. If you don't directly address evidence that contradicts your theory, you aren't being intellectually honest.
Additionally, his work on quantized redshifts was largely based on very small studies from the 70s, where selection bias seems to be an issue. More current, and much larger studies do not agree with his conclusions. As always, the work is ongoing.
That's true, to an extent. But the reality is, the internet has been pretty much unregulated.
Just put the period after the word "true" and you'd have it right. As it stands, you're wrong.
It's a very bad thing. Just like price controls are bad. just like communism is bad. What is good, is this thing call freedom. Which means freedom for everyone, even those you don't like.
Glenn Beck, is that you? Nice bit of false equivalence there. Regulating ISPs to ensure that they don't start blocking off sections of the net or blocking certain applications or types of traffic, especially in cases where they are a direct competitor or partner to a competitor, is hardly communism. It's not price controls either. It's ensuring that people have freedom to access what they want, which is important, because people have damn few choices when it comes to internet access. If this kind of legislation doesn't happen, they could end up having to choose between one set of sites and services or another set, just based on who their provider is. I guess you consider that freedom. I consider that a severely broken market.
But his character is fabulously successful. So maybe he's got some things figured out.
He has figured out a wonderful way to make money through pandering to a massive audience.
I also say that the character he plays is a douche, but not knowing the guy personally I can't say if he is actually a douche. But if he is really not a douche in real life then he knows it is all an act - which given the stuff he says (and yes I have listened to him) it seems like a douche thing to be doing anyway.
Anyone that makes a living by doing their best to gin up fear and anger in people is a huge douche. I don't see how it could be otherwise.
Wow. All that and you still don't point to a single bit of scientific research that has actually been done. Just your speculation and conjecture. You answered none of my questions, except to once again highlight the fact that neither you, nor apparently anyone else that you could point me to, has done any actual scientific research to support your claims. Please try again when you have some actual evidence.
Surely you meant to say no evolution theories have been put forth by ID supporters.
One thing I can say for sure is that Scientific American will publish no scientific study that calls evolution into question.
http://www.nwcreation.net/journalcreation.html is a list of sources.
Scientific American is a pop-sci magazine, not a scientific journal. You need actual scientific evidence to support your claims, and then you need to have that evidence peer-reviewed. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to find in that list. It seems to be a list of sites containing rants of various levels of competency published by people who can't figure out how to create even a halfway decent website. Even the ones with "science" in the name don't seem to be scientific, as they seem to rant against practicing science rather than just starting with your conclusion and working backwards.
I didn't find anything actually scientific so far, but given the mess that most of those sites are, I wouldn't know where to begin to look for what you're saying is there either. So, since you seem to think there's some value tucked away in there, could you please point me to the particular needles in this haystack that are relevant to this particular discussion? I would really like to see what it is that modern science is conspiring to cover up.
It is the usual sort of argument, couched in the usual terms "I get tired of explaining this, but, ONE MORE TIME:" Since they haven't listened in the first place, the explanation misses the point of what the creationist was saying, or is deliberately misleading.
Actually, the claim that evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics has been made numerous times by numerous creationist groups, so yes, it's had to be explained so many times to so many people that those terms are probably inevitable.
The fallacy propounded in the probability article is that order is the same thing as information. They bury the fallacy in a great irrelevant discussion of thermodynamic entropy, which is irrelevant to entropy applied to information. Information theory uses the term entropy because of the similarity between the dissipation of heat and the dissipation of information in the presence of noise.
Since we're obviously not on the same page here, maybe you could point me to the scientific theory that explains exactly how you believe information theory can be applied in biology in the way that supports your idea. You seem to be making claims about both evolution and the link between information theory and evolutionary processes, but I don't know what you're basing these on.
For instance, you say this:
I would propose a measure of information that can be readily measured
But you don't actually do the work of determining what that measure is in biological terms, let alone providing evidence for why that particular measure would be sound for the types of measurements you are saying could be done. If you don't do the work, there's nothing for the scientific community to evaluate, and you can't claim that you're being ignored. You also say this:
Evolution predicts that a given line of organism will get better over time, given random inputs.
I don't know of any part of evolutionary theory that supports that statement. Maybe you can clarify?
Information theory is quite independent of the creation/evolution debate, and has well accepted definitions for every other use, but when those are applied to evolution, using the exact same definitions, evolutionists cry foul, because they clearly contradict evolution assumptions.
No, they cry foul because no scientific study of the issue has been done by those who put forth the argument, and they have yet to offer so much as a testable hypothesis. Analogies don't cut it in science. Assumptions don't cut it in science. You think you're right? Do the work and support it. Until you're willing to engage in actual science, you can't really blame scientists for not listening to you.
On the question of sin, it's Gods call how he wants to deal with it.
On the question of science, I think we may have more work to do. "God did it" may explain the question of where all this complexity came from, but there is also the question of "Why does this not work better?
I could just rail at God for not doing a better job, or I could get busy and fix the things I can fix. After all, I have hands and a mind, and it is clear that the world can be improved. It makes good sense to me to investigate how things work, or better yet, how they could work with a bit of a nudge.
Your insistence on making everything fit into the "God did it" paradigm, no matter how little sense it makes, seems like the biggest problem you have in understanding why the world works the way it does. You're not going to advance your understanding much without science, as I think history clearly shows. So by starting from a conclusion, and then throwing out anything that doesn't support that conclusion, you're never going to find real answers.
If there is a design behind the whole thing that means there is the possibility of success in investigating how things work. If what is behind the universe is random than science is ultimately doomed.
I don't think that anyone is saying that the universe is random. The lack of an intelligent creator doesn't imply randomness. There is obviously a lot of consistency, and we are just beginning in our efforts to understand it. Modern science, using the scientific method as we understand it today has only been practiced for a few hundred years or so. The proverbial eye-blink in time. We've made amazing strides in our understanding just in the past 100 years. If you want to pursue a theory of design, then do so using the methods that we've seen work time and time again. No scientific theory has been put forth by ID supporters so far. Taking the lazy way out and not doing all the basic supporting work, and not having it tested by others, is not doing anything to advance the idea.
Slashdot Mirror
And that's why I used the scare quotes around the word, to indicate that it didn't really mean what the word really means. Some things that people call science today really aren't, and that applies to more than intelligent design. Pretty much all "science" that deals with the origin of life is scare-quote "science".
As soon as ID "researchers" start engaging in science, then I have no problem with them being paid for that work. But that's not what they do. They engage in speculation and conjecture and take pot shots at evolutionary theory, often demonstrating a serious lack of understanding of the subject. When your ultimate goal is to prove that "God did it", you're putting yourself outside of science, as science, by definition, does not deal with the supernatural. Now you may say that some of them don't specifically claim that "God" did it, but only that some superior intelligence was involved, but even in that case, they still don't apply scientific methods in their work. If they did, I wouldn't have a problem with it.
Actually, there is quite an interesting documentary out about those who are critical of Darwin's theory. In many cases the professors/scientists researching other potentials for "creation" if it be from a higher power, or just some random germ that happened to mutate creating humans are being fired because they are researching what many consider a closed subject.
No, there's a one-sided "documentary" out, in which people claim to have been fired for that. Stein's movie is no better than anything done by Michael Moore. It's ridiculous to take it as the truth.
Biggest question that should be answered by darwinists, is "if evolution created human beings, and all other creatures on the planet, why is there no solid proof of said evolution from animals just a hundred years ago to today?"
Wow. You really have no understanding of evolutionary theory at all, do you?
organic chemistry is all about stuff after the second picosecond (offset by however long it took for organic chemicals to be "invented") that would be science
So is evolution, so your comment still makes no sense and betrays your complete ignorance of the subject matter you hold such strong opinions about.
The question is not whether or not they engaging in science. The question is how the scientific community is responding to people that will not hold the Theory of Evolution to be true. Presently the Scientific Community tries to ostracize any scientist that will not hold the Theory of Evolution to be true, regardless of how they otherwise engage in the science and the scientific method. That is the issue.
That's a load of garbage though. What alternate theory has more evidence? There isn't one. Therefore the theory of evolution is most evidently correct. We know this also because modern biology is based upon it and it has served quite well. What evidence has been found that is so profound as to invalidate the entire theory of evolution?
Bonus points if you can use triangulation from multiple people to feed back to Predator/Global Hawk drones that can be directed autonomously to the predicted location of the sniper/gunmen is. You'll still want an Air Force office confirming before firing, but you can automate the fark out of this.
I don't think Global Hawks carry any armament. They can provide intelligence to direct fire from other sources though. Reapers are generally the heavy hitters of the unmanned variety.
We hope the enemy miss the first shot.
We already do that. Now we just might be able to make sure they don't get a second shot.
Who's to say its a deficiency in their knowledge? May be they are looking at it from a different perspective? Or they have an insight that you or other scientists do not?
Then they can demonstrate that through scientific methods, just like every other scientist out there. We use science because it works, and allows us to continually improve our understanding of the world around us. The progress we've made over the past few hundred years is testament to that. If they aren't willing to engage in science, then they shouldn't be taking science classes, and certainly shouldn't be passing them. If they want to debate whether God created the world, they can take religion or philosophy classes.
I am just having a hard time imagining a defense attorney failing to get a juror stricken from the pool for cause on the grounds that he is Facebook friends with the prosecutor's office at all, much less if the reason he became Facebook friends with the prosecuting attorney was to obtain free wireless internet access during the trial. This is just stupid and wrong on so many levels.
The summary says they get access to wifi during jury selection, not during the trial. Most of them won't even be there for that.
Yes, I agree with you about that. I'm not against people doing things to make a statement. If they feel that it's necessary where they live, then sure, go for it. Sometimes it's great to make those who would oppose it have to explain themselves. Sometimes its nice to challenge conventional wisdom and societal biases. Those would certainly be good reasons to band together.
And the first question the other side should ask in jury selection is "Has anyone from either side given you goods or services for free that would normally cost people money?"
If you had to provide your personal information in trade, then it wasn't really free, so I could see people easily answering "no" to that question.
There was a GQ article interviewing Billy Ray Cyrus recently (I read it out of the perverse curiousity you have when you come from the same hometown) and he mentioned there's a sign in LA. Adopt-a-Highway, Atheists United. While Mr. Cyrus' interpretation left something to be desired, I thought it was neat - a group of actual civic minded atheists working together long enough to clean up a highway? Where can I find those people?
Most well-adjusted atheists don't flock together under that banner. Not anymore than they'd flock together over their lack of belief in Santa Claus. They may get together to support or oppose some legislation or incident on that basis though.
I won't bother with a list of anecdotes.. they're easily searchable. you are wrong.
I love it. The old "my argument is so good, I don't even have to make it" argument.
However, there was no need for a full frontal Dr. Manhattan.
How do you figure that? Seems like that would require a fundamental change in the character. I don't get why people are so averse to a penis in a movie, especially when it's perfectly in line with the story and character.
He was 'lying' in that his account of a certain set of dates recalled from memory differed slightly from someone else's recall of a certain set of dates, also from memory. Moreover, the judge threw out the expert witness that Libby wanted to use who would point out that memory is quite fallible.
Apparently the jury didn't see it as such a little slip-up.
I don't get it though, shows like Supernatural have that sort of stuff in them all the time, and you can do an awful lot by implication, just look at Paranormal activity. I think the direction he was going to take is the problem here, not the basic concept.
Wasn't Paranormal Activity rated R? The game is definitely more adult fare. It's very dark, and certainly has imagery and themes that should probably be covered by an R rating. I don't know that he could make the movie and stay faithful to the game without going that route. Not sure what alternative you're suggesting.
The very first link (February Acts & Facts PDF ) on the very first website (Acts&Facts) on the above referenced page contains an analysis: "Molecular Equidistance: The Echo of Discontinuity?" (page 4) It lays out a methodology, a set of predictions and a proposed metric for testing the hypothosis. You give the impression that you have not examined the first thing about this, but came in with your mind made up. I must say that I really expected better of a Slashdot reader.
So where's their experiment? Where's their data? They just point at one thing, ask a couple of leading questions, and then speculate about what it could mean. They do no investigation. They don't apparently even attempt to answer their own questions. They offer no support for their speculation about what it means. That's what you think is science? Pointing at something you don't understand and then saying it probably means whatever you feel like it should mean? Wow. That guy is either very intellectually lazy, or he actually looked into the questions and didn't like the answers he found, so decided to just imply that he was onto something.
Page 14 presents a theory (new to me) about a second time dilation proposed by Dr. Russel Humphreys to correspond to the period of the flood. (I was familiar with "Starlight and Time, Humphrey's original publication on the subject of time dilation, but not with his later work.)
That second article is pretty lame, and certainly not scientific. He makes so many unsupported assumptions that the whole thing is merely speculation. Take his use of helium diffusion in zircons as a dating method. He offers nothing to justify any of his assumptions about it. Nor does he give any justification for not using an established method, other than that it didn't give him the answer he wanted I guess. His method has also been addressed and found wanting by others. If you're going to put forth a theory on something, you need to be able to explain conflicting evidence, and explain why your theory is better. If you don't directly address evidence that contradicts your theory, you aren't being intellectually honest.
Additionally, his work on quantized redshifts was largely based on very small studies from the 70s, where selection bias seems to be an issue. More current, and much larger studies do not agree with his conclusions. As always, the work is ongoing.
It's been done. Glenn didn't like it. What a hypocrite.
That's true, to an extent. But the reality is, the internet has been pretty much unregulated.
Just put the period after the word "true" and you'd have it right. As it stands, you're wrong.
It's a very bad thing. Just like price controls are bad. just like communism is bad. What is good, is this thing call freedom. Which means freedom for everyone, even those you don't like.
Glenn Beck, is that you? Nice bit of false equivalence there. Regulating ISPs to ensure that they don't start blocking off sections of the net or blocking certain applications or types of traffic, especially in cases where they are a direct competitor or partner to a competitor, is hardly communism. It's not price controls either. It's ensuring that people have freedom to access what they want, which is important, because people have damn few choices when it comes to internet access. If this kind of legislation doesn't happen, they could end up having to choose between one set of sites and services or another set, just based on who their provider is. I guess you consider that freedom. I consider that a severely broken market.
I'm not claiming you're right or wrong, but I'd be interested to see the data on this demographic.
It also could be interesting to see data on people who follow MSNBC or Air America commentators religiously for the sake of comparison.
Does Air America still exist? I heard some of their stuff once. Sounded about as crazy as Beck.
Don't you mean Stephen Colbert?
Jon Stewart does a pretty good Glenn Beck impression.
But his character is fabulously successful. So maybe he's got some things figured out.
He has figured out a wonderful way to make money through pandering to a massive audience.
I also say that the character he plays is a douche, but not knowing the guy personally I can't say if he is actually a douche. But if he is really not a douche in real life then he knows it is all an act - which given the stuff he says (and yes I have listened to him) it seems like a douche thing to be doing anyway.
Anyone that makes a living by doing their best to gin up fear and anger in people is a huge douche. I don't see how it could be otherwise.
Wow. All that and you still don't point to a single bit of scientific research that has actually been done. Just your speculation and conjecture. You answered none of my questions, except to once again highlight the fact that neither you, nor apparently anyone else that you could point me to, has done any actual scientific research to support your claims. Please try again when you have some actual evidence.
Surely you meant to say no evolution theories have been put forth by ID supporters. One thing I can say for sure is that Scientific American will publish no scientific study that calls evolution into question. http://www.nwcreation.net/journalcreation.html is a list of sources.
Scientific American is a pop-sci magazine, not a scientific journal. You need actual scientific evidence to support your claims, and then you need to have that evidence peer-reviewed. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to find in that list. It seems to be a list of sites containing rants of various levels of competency published by people who can't figure out how to create even a halfway decent website. Even the ones with "science" in the name don't seem to be scientific, as they seem to rant against practicing science rather than just starting with your conclusion and working backwards.
I didn't find anything actually scientific so far, but given the mess that most of those sites are, I wouldn't know where to begin to look for what you're saying is there either. So, since you seem to think there's some value tucked away in there, could you please point me to the particular needles in this haystack that are relevant to this particular discussion? I would really like to see what it is that modern science is conspiring to cover up.
It is the usual sort of argument, couched in the usual terms "I get tired of explaining this, but, ONE MORE TIME:" Since they haven't listened in the first place, the explanation misses the point of what the creationist was saying, or is deliberately misleading.
Actually, the claim that evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics has been made numerous times by numerous creationist groups, so yes, it's had to be explained so many times to so many people that those terms are probably inevitable.
The fallacy propounded in the probability article is that order is the same thing as information. They bury the fallacy in a great irrelevant discussion of thermodynamic entropy, which is irrelevant to entropy applied to information. Information theory uses the term entropy because of the similarity between the dissipation of heat and the dissipation of information in the presence of noise.
Since we're obviously not on the same page here, maybe you could point me to the scientific theory that explains exactly how you believe information theory can be applied in biology in the way that supports your idea. You seem to be making claims about both evolution and the link between information theory and evolutionary processes, but I don't know what you're basing these on.
For instance, you say this:
I would propose a measure of information that can be readily measured
But you don't actually do the work of determining what that measure is in biological terms, let alone providing evidence for why that particular measure would be sound for the types of measurements you are saying could be done. If you don't do the work, there's nothing for the scientific community to evaluate, and you can't claim that you're being ignored. You also say this:
Evolution predicts that a given line of organism will get better over time, given random inputs.
I don't know of any part of evolutionary theory that supports that statement. Maybe you can clarify?
Information theory is quite independent of the creation/evolution debate, and has well accepted definitions for every other use, but when those are applied to evolution, using the exact same definitions, evolutionists cry foul, because they clearly contradict evolution assumptions.
No, they cry foul because no scientific study of the issue has been done by those who put forth the argument, and they have yet to offer so much as a testable hypothesis. Analogies don't cut it in science. Assumptions don't cut it in science. You think you're right? Do the work and support it. Until you're willing to engage in actual science, you can't really blame scientists for not listening to you.
On the question of sin, it's Gods call how he wants to deal with it.
On the question of science, I think we may have more work to do. "God did it" may explain the question of where all this complexity came from, but there is also the question of "Why does this not work better?
I could just rail at God for not doing a better job, or I could get busy and fix the things I can fix. After all, I have hands and a mind, and it is clear that the world can be improved. It makes good sense to me to investigate how things work, or better yet, how they could work with a bit of a nudge.
Your insistence on making everything fit into the "God did it" paradigm, no matter how little sense it makes, seems like the biggest problem you have in understanding why the world works the way it does. You're not going to advance your understanding much without science, as I think history clearly shows. So by starting from a conclusion, and then throwing out anything that doesn't support that conclusion, you're never going to find real answers.
If there is a design behind the whole thing that means there is the possibility of success in investigating how things work. If what is behind the universe is random than science is ultimately doomed.
I don't think that anyone is saying that the universe is random. The lack of an intelligent creator doesn't imply randomness. There is obviously a lot of consistency, and we are just beginning in our efforts to understand it. Modern science, using the scientific method as we understand it today has only been practiced for a few hundred years or so. The proverbial eye-blink in time. We've made amazing strides in our understanding just in the past 100 years. If you want to pursue a theory of design, then do so using the methods that we've seen work time and time again. No scientific theory has been put forth by ID supporters so far. Taking the lazy way out and not doing all the basic supporting work, and not having it tested by others, is not doing anything to advance the idea.