Whatever his level of satisfaction, he looked for mathematical ways to explain and predict the behavior of energy and matter. He didn't just figure it was part of an unknowable designer's plan and go to the beach.

DWA: Clearly, then, the temperature of your quiche is more important to you than the stunning possibilities of open-ended scientific inquiry. No absent-minded dreamy preoccupied-with-dreams professor, you.

You missed the religious allusion. Go back and read it again while waiting for Elijah to arrive.

I said: You'll need to be more specific. Just because it is so complex that you don't get it, doesn't mean that GOD did it.

DWA: We are free to specify the credentials of our various "G-Ds", yes? In any case, the "definition" of "G-D" is not uniformly outlined, or even AFAICS, entirely definable.

Perhaps not, but if you want to include Him in your scientific process, He has to act in a predictable and testable manner.

I asked: Which observations are explained better by ID than by natural processes?

DWA: (Chuckle) All of the things that are not yet observable, and observations that are not yet fully described? You seem to think that just because something is invisible, it categorically doesn't exist at all.

Don't project and don't misrepresent me. I don't deny radio, magnetism or UV, but I do how how they behave in predictable and testable manners. What about your Designer(s)? Which observations in the real world were the result of that entities input and how do you know?

I asked: The same thing as will happen to your Designer unless you can find a much better reason to predict His behavior and a way to get him on film.

DWA: Perhaps you are over-reaching. On film?

It was a metaphor. Even if there is no film in your camera, when He makes his will known, you have to know where to point and when to hit the shutter as well as knowing what the resulting image is supposed to look like.

DWA: Second guess the designer? Logically, feeble human capacities may not ever reach "that" far. Compare: A fairly automatic "robot" lunar lander/diamond miner ever figuring out "why" it is there.

You don't think your abilities for figuring things out are any better than an automatic "robot" lunar lander/diamond miner? Pretty sad. If such powers are indeed beyond our comprehension, much less our measurement and analysis, then they are not part of science and remain irrelevant to this discussion.

DWA: The current science populariz-ating literature does seem to allow a lot of what you seem to be disposed to disparage/attack. Are you aware of the possibility that YOU are in the non-exploring, not thought-experimenting tenured minority?

Not at all, but I recognize where the lines are drawn.

DWA: Maybe your "science" is the fantasy, and *your* entire universe is merely just comparable to an old celluloid reel of film in a Hollywood archive?