.

[awesomepossum]

That actually made me laugh.  Good job.

[S.A.]

Suppose further that we have no facts at all that say F is not designed.

What would such a fact look like?

Suppose we discover that F is on occasion formed in hydro-thermal vents on the ocean floor, a natural process. This fact would count as a reason to think F was not designed.

You just threw your baby out with that explanation, didn't you?

No, he didn't at all, because:

If every designed object we know of bears qualities B, C, D and E and if object F bears these qualities then it is more reasonable than not to think F is designed until and unless we obtain countervailing evidence to the contrary.

Suppose every designed object we know of bears qualities B, C, D and E. Suppose object F bears all these qualities. Suppose further that we have no facts at all that say F is not designed. In this case we are justified in thinking F is designed since the preponderance of the evidence says F is designed.

Don't you get it?

[babyeatsdingo]

You just threw your baby out with that explanation, didn't you?

No. Please explain if you think otherwise.

[babyeatsdingo]

"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.

[babyeatsdingo]

What in particular do you not understand?

[babyeatsdingo]

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.

[babyeatsdingo]

Well then, it's hard to figure out the basis of your defense of design as the organizing principle of the natural world.

Defense of design? I put forth a general criterion for detecting the probable existence of design in nature as part of a conversation I had with another on Hume. But on that point I don't see how his reading of Hume relates to said criterion which is why I asked him to give me a syllogism to respond to.

[S.A.]

Well then, it's hard to figure out the basis of your defense of design as the organizing principle of the natural world.

Defense of design? I put forth a general criterion for detecting the probable existence of design in nature as part of a conversation I had with another on Hume. But on that point I don't see how his reading of Hume relates to said criterion which is why I asked him to give me a syllogism to respond to.

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

[babyeatsdingo]

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

Now there's a smart answer.

[S.A.]

::bows::