Hektore

You cannot assume motives.

And...you still can't prove there isn't a designer, therefore there could be one.

Which is why this argument will never go away, and there is no such thing as a blow against ID/Creationism.

Until you can prove a negative, the evidence in favour of the alternatives is irrelevant to the discussion. The conclusion is assumed beforehand, and the argument itself is a waste of time.

Kind of depressing really. That people buy into the crap notion that you have to declare any idea that you can't prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is false as being credible

__________________
The advantage law is the best law in rugby, because it lets you ignore all the others for the good of the game.