Law School Discussion

Meh.

I think it's generally accepted by all on this thread besides you that your criterion blows

Now there's a smart answer.

If a biochemical process was observed to produce RNA you are committed to saying that RNA is not the product of design. Correct?

I would say that such an event would count as evidence against the proposition: RNA was designed.

"Natural geothermal processes" is no more protected from an argument for intelligent design than anything else.  Your general position therefore becomes unintelligible and trivial.

If a natural geothermal process produces a strand of RNA, for example, then that counts as a reason to think RNA is not the product of design. It is still possible that RNA is designed but mere possibilities do not count as actual evidence and so are excluded when we try to determine whether the preponderance of the evidence says RNA is designed or not.

was G designed?

G has not been introduced yet. If G has qualities B, C, D, and E, and if there are no facts in evidence against G as a product of design, then we are justified in thinking G is designed.