Intelligent Design

Exactly. The organization of the universe could be the result of the implementation of some cosmic design. Conversely, it could be the result of a plethora of "random" events.

I still have not found an adequate way to articulate this theory in a way that is easily deciphered, so I'll just say it's a very peaceful feeling I get when I relax and get in touch with it.

Deists typically reject most supernatural events (prophecy, miracles) and tend to assert that God (or "The Supreme Architect") has a plan for the universe which that Architect does not alter either by intervening in the affairs of human life or suspending the natural laws of the universe. What organized religions see as divine revelation and holy books, most deists see as interpretations made by other humans, rather than as authoritative sources.

True, I see your point. But to interpret what I said before about acorns and oaks. Creationists believing in microevolution but not macroevolution would be like saying, "There is no way an acorn can become an oak, because they are different."
Think of these new generations of moths as the seeds for moths that will inevitably be different one million years from now because it's environment will always be changing, forcing them to change with it.
To sum that up a bit, since obviously the moths did change once, if there were 1,000 factors(which inevitably there will be)that made them change in miniscule ways...would they not be completely different?

An acorn will only ever be an oak because its plant dna? makes it so. I don't see the link with your analogy between the oak and the acorn. All acorns yeild oaks, not other trees. There is never change, to my knowledge, to other species of trees i.e. Sequoia.

A baby always grows to be an adult. An acorn to an oak is just a (genetic?) system.

You can hope that the moths would be completely different but you can't say they will be unless you can prove it. That is not science to my knowledge.

Creationists are still looking for examples of macro evolution. You haven't shown me any, not to say you can't find any. Yet shouldn't your natural inclination be to learn why you believe what you believe?

I apologize for being unable to articulate my thoughts in a way that makes sense for you. Guess we can chalk this up to you have your opinion, and I have mine.

I don't know if I agree totally with the sentiment that human interpretation is at the root of holy texts. I guess it depends on what you mean exactly. Perhaps all understanding, or communcation, must go through language or some sort of descriptive realm and therefore is humanised and a degree of interpretation. But, if there were an order other than randomness at the root of the universe, then the laws of the universe, expressed in a whole multitude of processes, can be seen as expressing a higher truth, which could then impart themselves on man in an almost passive sense. Kind of like inspiration. But the inspiration is from the laws of the universe at a more complex level than man is at.

For example, a family unit is a higher order than an individual. The individual may be able to comprehend various parts of the higher realm of family, but may not be able to appreciate it fully at any given moment. The order is higher than "one" is. Now, the inspiration that family can give, can be both conscious and, let us say, above consciousness. By being part of a family one may be better at poetry or science or relationships, even though one is not entirely aware of the inspiration the family has had. In the same sense, some religious doctrines, I do believe have been the manifestation of the universal drive, beyond human comprehension, working towards perpetuating the universal force at higher and higher levels. It may or may not have been part of the plan, or it may have been part of the universe's reaction to human progression. The will of the universe is trying to manifest, and humans have a way of learning through words, and hence texts sponsored by this universal force, indeed, essentially authored by this universal force seems plausible.

Or is that just waffle?

You do not prove macro evolution by the truth of micro evolution. You must show evidences of macro evolution. Creationists demand that evidence. You have only referenced factual examples of micro evolution and have theorized about macro evolution but have not yet shown examples of it.

That is one aspect of life that leads to frustration, a lack of understanding of each other.

Though I did try and answer your pondering as to why creationists reject macro evolution in my last post.

You do not prove macro evolution by the truth of micro evolution. You must show evidences of macro evolution. Creationists demand that evidence. You have only referenced factual examples of micro evolution and have theorized about macro evolution but have not yet shown examples of it.

I think one thing important in life is to always question what you believe (to an extent less you go insane) as no one is ever 100% right in what they believe.

Proof of macro evolution: There are no fossil records of modern-day creatures from the Mesozoic period.

I understand your point on why creationists reject macroevolution but I can't accept that because I personally see microevolution as a building block of macroevolution, basically one in the same. I don't like to be abrasive, but it seems to me that using the argument that macroevolution is not plausible means creationists are refusing to see the obvious connection between micro and macroevolution for fear that it would weaken their own position on the matter.

The question of plausability doesn't need to arrise when there is no evidence to even suggest.

You guys and your proof. Be careful you don't get constipated, waiting for the proof you can actually go to the toilet!

Do you expect any less from a creationist?

I can use that same logic to 'disprove' macro evolution: There are no fossil records of transitional forms.

I would like to hear some input on this thought about intelligent design vs science/evolution. And although it seemed interesting to me it might have already been discussed or completely stupid, so be gentle .

It seems to me that the existence of science, evolution, and all other such things actually strongly suggest the existence of intelligent design.

If there is intelligent design then it would make sense that God came first. So, with that in mind, wouldn't science, evolution, and intelligent design all be quite compatible and able to exist simultaneously?

I also like the idea that there was the universe, natural laws, evolution first, and out of all of that evolved what we might see as God in the form of a higher conciousness.