timberlandko says:
Quote:Tele, injecting an imaginary non-supernatural extraterrestrial contractor into the equation serves only to needlessly clutter the equation, it in no way changes the outcome.
I'm not injecting a non-supernatural extraterrestrial designer into the equation. I'm not focused on a designer at all, you are. I observe things in nature (such as the cell) that cause me to suspect that advanced bioengineering was behind their origin. Am I suppose to dismiss my suspicion because I don't know who the designer is?
But what evidence does the ID critic need to merely suspect the cell originated via bioengineering? Well, some of them have told me they need to find a very old alien spacecraft with bioengineering facilities on board. But why look for such a bioengineering facility unless one suspects something is designed? But the ID critic can't suspect something is designed unless they first know things about the designer. Sounds like a circular argument designed to slam the door shut on any investigation into design.
The ID approach is to first focus on tentatively scoring something in nature as ?'designed.' There is no reason to go searching for intelligent designers without first having good reasons to suspect something was intelligently designed. After tentatively scoring something in nature as ?'designed' the design theorist might want to research these questions next:
1. If X is designed, what else is designed?
2. Is there something that connects the things that are designed?
3. How has the design of X (or whatever) influenced evolution and is
that itself design?
It would seem to me that steps 1-3 could take a lifetime to research. And if such questions could be addressed (and answered to the satisfaction of many), then, and only then, would it be time to consider the possiblity of non-supernatural extraterrestrial designers.
