I think you’ve been given sufficient opportunity now to support your original statement, so this will be the final comment on this distraction from the post. You’ll have to reserve any additional straw men, genetic fallacies or misrepresentations of my position for another time.

Sam: “The point of these simulations, however, is to demonstrate how repeated cycles of mutation, combination, and selection will, in the long term, lead to a change in the phenotype of the population to become more fit for the environment.”

Or put another way, repeated cycles of mutation, combination and selection cannot be demonstrated to actually lead to major changes in the phenotype in lab experiments, so we should believe it’s possible on the basis of computer modelling. Whatever floats your boat man, but don’t pretend as though this helps your case by way of Occam.

As it happens, in my industry we use computer modelling to predict the effects of earth faults in a particular environment (the models are tweaked depending on specifics in the environment) and it works quite effectively. So I am not poo-poohing computer simulations per se. I’m poo-poohing Lenski’s model because it does not comport with reality.

“Stop reading and quoting biased sources. You'll notice I haven't quoted anything from Dawkins in this conversation.”

Rejecting an argument or information because of the source is a genetic fallacy. If I were to take your advice seriously, any information supporting evolution that comes from people who already believe evolution is true can be dismissed a priori. Perhaps that’s how you’d like future conversations like this to proceed?

“Stars, solar systems, and galaxies look "designed," but they are purely the results of the laws of physics.”

I thank you for this challenge because I think my position at this point needs further development. However your point is largely moot (i.e. it’s a straw man) because I never claimed that stars, solar systems and galaxies are the kinds of things that:
1. are complex (i.e. show signs of organized complexity, either by the arrangement of parts or by any inherent code that might explain their origin or construction)
2. necessarily survive Occam’s razor in and of themselves

Regarding your last paragraph:

I have never denied that natural selection occurs; another straw man. I deny instead that mutation and natural selection are able to adequately explain complexity in the first place. So it looks like you have to distort or misrepresent my view to keep your objections coherent.

“Life, however, needs no designer, because life is NOT technology.“

I didn’t intend to imply that life is technology. However, living systems are far more complex than man-made technology. So to assert that the former requires no designer in light of what we know about the origin of the latter, is, I think, the ultimate question beg.

Summary

Occam’s razor is not a logical argument, but a pragmatic argument. Eliminating points of view using Occam does not therefore, eliminate the view proper. It merely provides a framework for attempting to discard error via best-fit principles.

Sam claims that the explanation that best fits the evidence for complexity is evolution (i.e. random mutations providing the changes that are selected by nature in a specific environment) over millions of years.

It’s my position that – other than the area under question here – complex systems are always observed to come from an intelligent source. Therefore, a designer of complex living systems is reasonably inferred, and certainly [not] eliminated by some arbitrarily front-loaded naturalistic version of Occam.

So? That's not how the simulations you speak of are actually modeled. Computer simulations of evolution do have arbitrary rules for "fitness," so it would be possible to write a program that evolves monkey images into washing machine images if washing machines were used as the example of perfect fitness. The point of these simulations, however, is to demonstrate how repeated cycles of mutation, combination, and selection will, in the long term, lead to a change in the phenotype of the population to become more fit for the environment.

Stop reading and quoting biased sources. You'll notice I haven't quoted anything from Dawkins in this conversation.

"…my explanation for design is simply that it implies a designer…"

But design so obviously *doesn't* require a designer, even outside of biology! Stars, solar systems, and galaxies look "designed," but they are purely the results of the laws of physics. As I said, the laws of physics themselves seem to naturally lead to designed-looking things. This fact is easy to reconcile with your notion of a designer, if you wish, by contemplating that the designer designed the universe's laws such that they would lead to the universe we observe.

"But as far as I can tell, the power of natural selection to create complex systems is continually asserted, not demonstrated."

No, you're just covering your hears shouting "I can't hear you!!1!" whenever someone mentions something contrary to your pre-conceived religious beliefs. It's amazing how much you have to distort your view of reality just to keep it coherent. Even when natural selection is demonstrated, you refuse to accept the evidence. "Lenski? The bacteria didn't 'change,' so it's not evolution!" (Never mind the fact that E. coli have historically been distinguished from other kinds of bacteria by the fact that they grow slowly in the presence of citric acid, yet the Lenski experiment has produced citric-acid-loving E. coli because the environment they were in favored organisms which could digest citric acid.) "Computer simulations? They only do what they're programmed to do!" (Yes, they were programmed to *simulate natural selection and evolution*, and by God, they did alright!) And you still give examples of inanimate, designed objects, ignoring the fact that OF COURSE WE WOULD CONCLUDE THEY WERE DESIGNED, BECAUSE THERE IS NO OTHER MECHANISM WE KNOW OF THE PRODUCE TECHNOLOGY OTHER THAN DESIGN. Life, however, needs no designer, because life is NOT technology.

It would be possible to write a computer program to demonstrate how purple monkeys can evolve from washing machines if the person who wrote the code intended it to do exactly that to begin with. First law of computer modelling: garbage in, garbage out.

“According to biology professor Dr Scott Minnich, the evolutionary researcher Dr Richard Lenski bred bacteria for more than 20,000 generations with all sorts of selective environments in the hope of getting a spontaneous increase in complexity – i.e. real evolution in the lab.
He showed that they adapted to their environment, but the experiment failed to demonstrate the emergence of true novelty or spontaneous complexity. The bacteria were not only still bacteria, they were the same types of bacteria. So, says Minnich, he decided to work on digital organisms instead – computer simulations, which gave him the result he wanted in 15,000 generations.
The lesson is clear: the real world of biology is very different from the carefully set up and manipulated world of electronic on-screen simulations.”

Ref: Wieland, C., Giving up un reality, Creation 30(3): p.31[inset], 2008

To your main point, my explanation for design is simply that it implies a designer – nothing more, nothing less. And designers are not exactly the kinds of things that are alien to us. The same basic principle would apply if we found complex machines on Mars without knowing anything about who created them. The mere discovery of the machines would imply that someone created them. As far as I’m concerned, your attempts to defeat this fairly straight-forward point [are] extremely underwhelming.

I guess readers can ultimately decide for themselves. But as far as I can tell, the power of natural selection to create complex systems is continually asserted, not demonstrated.

Your explanation is eliminated by Occam's razor because it asserts the existence of a designer, a claim which is unfalsifiable. Further, the power of natural selection has been experimentally confirmed.[1] In fact, the basics of evolution (mutation, combination, and selection) are used as the basis of a whole new class of computer algorithms called "evolutionary algorithms."[2] Clearly, the power of natural selection has been demonstrated quite clearly. Since the evolutionary explanation for complexity does not rely on unfalsifiable claims, and, indeed, many of its claims have been repeatedly verified, I submit that it's a more reasonable one than the designer hypothesis.

References
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_ev…
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_algorit…

Although my previous comment did not make an explicit statement regarding Occam, it employed the same principles, appealing to what I think is the most obvious and the simplest explanation for design, i.e. designers. How anyone can come up with a simpler explanation to design, than a designer, is really the epitome of committed, dyed-in-the-wool evolutionary thinking. So what I am curious about is how the statement, “designs have designers” is defeated by Occam’s razor without front-loading it with naturalism a priori? Further, your explanation for design is far more complicated than mine, so how does Occam eliminate my view, while leaving yours untouched? If we both agree that complexity exists, and the two proposed scenarios by which this complexity came about is (1) an intelligent agent, or (2) evolution by means of mutation and natural selection, how is it the economy of Occam’s razor demonstrated by selecting blind chance over intelligent causation?

Somehow, you’ve come to the conclusion that it must have escaped my attention that houses don’t reproduce (etc) and that this demonstrates a lack of understanding of evolution on my part? The thing is I agree with many of things you’ve said about the complexities of life, reproduction and the crap shoot that is mutation, selection and the struggle for life and death. I agree that the universe contains many amazing things. But none of this provides a better explanation for complexity in the first place. In fact mutation and selection have no creative power whatsoever, as argued by the likes of Michael Behe (Edge of Evolution) and Phillip Johnson (Darwin on Trial):

“Darwinian theory insists that natural selection is a creative force of immense power … We have already seen that the hypothesis of creative natural selection lacks experimental support” [chapters 2 and 3] “and that it is disconfirmed by the fossil record. The molecular evidence adds further doubt … The hypothesis that natural selection has the degree of creative power required by Darwinist theory remains unsupported by empirical evidence … [But] Darwinists know that the mutation-selection mechanism can produce wings, eyes, and brains not because the mechanism can be observed to do anything of the kind, but because their guiding philosophy assures them that no other power is available to do the job. The absence from the cosmos of any Creator is therefore the essential starting point for Darwinism.” – Johnson, P.E., Darwin On Trial, (Inter Varsity Press 1993, 2nd edition), p. 95, 98, 117.

So I might ask in a similar vein as you did Sam, why muddle the explanation for these things with a phenomenon that cannot be demonstrated (i.e. evolution by mutation and selection), when a simpler demonstrable mechanism can achieve the same ends (i.e. a designer, an intelligent agent)? By this, I am not saying that I personally observed an intelligent agent create the universe and the life within. I am merely saying that based on what we know about things such as cause and effect, the laws of nature, and the ability of intelligent agents by comparison to non-intelligent random events, it is more reasonable to conclude that the complexity to which you refer is best explained by a designer. Occam’s razor works in my favour, not yours.

It is indeed complicated to propose a designer as an explanation for a phenomenon, when there is an alternative explanation that works exceedingly well without one. This is Occam's razor. Your analogy is faulty, and shows a misunderstanding of evolution. Houses can't reproduce, nor do they have a metabolism. They needn't compete with each other for resources to produce a new generation of baby houses. Therefore, they are not subject to mutation and selection, and therefore cannot evolve. Life, on the other hand, is extremely adapt at reproduction, and requires consumption of energy to maintain its processes. Because life must compete with other life for finite resources, not all will "win" the chance to pass along their genetic material.

However, if a mutation in an organism gives that individual a better chance at survival, or a chance to reproduce more often than before, then that individual has a better chance of passing along that mutation to the next generation. This continues until the mutation spreads throughout the population, and becomes commonplace. Evolution is the combination of random mutation with non-random selection, repeated in all life for eons.

Now, evolution doesn't explain the origin of life, only how complexity can arise in living organisms. The field for finding life's origin is called "abiogenesis," and although we don't have an fully-accepted explanation for this origin, we have plenty of good ideas to explore, and many indications that lead us to believe that it's very possible for life to have arisen spontaneously.

The universe seems to have a natural propensity for finding, maintaining, and recreating stable physical phenomena, whether they be planets, stars, galaxies, or even life itself. Perhaps you can reconcile your faith with this knowledge, maybe saying that the repeated manifestation of these stable patterns demonstrates that the very laws of physics themselves were set up by some outside force to allow these patterns to occur. Don't, however, be tempted to think that this outside force had a direct hand in shaping what we are, as the best we could hope to be are the products of its infinite mathematical and physical wisdom.

First, there is nothing inherently complicated (and therefore, certainly not "needlessly complicated") in concluding that designs have designers.

Second, your assertion that evolution provides a simpler and natural explanation for design is based on an unfounded assumption concerning the supposed power of evolution to do anything of the sort. Suggesting that evolution (blind natural processes) is a more sensible explanation for design in living things is like suggesting that a more sensible explanation for the apparent design of a house is the result of an explosion in a brick factory. It does not follow that merely having a natural explanation for an objects' origin is to have the best possible explanation. And you've certainly not done so on this occasion.

Perhaps though, instead of selecting some random person you trawl the internet looking for you could tackle an argument by an actual scholar or philosopher arguing for atheism? Just a thought, but I suppose that would be difficult. So enjoy picking up on random people to hate instead.