[deletions]
>
> So suppose that some design theorist did think that everything was in
> fact designed, and was unable to specify conditions of something being
> undesignable by God. Exactly what is supposed to follow?
The question is, "what good is it?" In a naturalistic framwork, you can
recognize design by pattern and appearance _coupled_ with process. That
is an important point that people often forget (process). You just point
point to something and say "that's designed." You have to do much more
than that. For example, the only way we know that Glenn's flutes are
designed is because 1) it has patterns consistant with tools - testable,
2) the design patterns are similar to objects we know are designed, i.e.
modern flutes, etc. - testable, 3) we have evidence of the possible
designer - testable, 4etc. With supernatural explanations, do you have
any kind of rigor at all? For example, do we have evidence of the
designer - that's religion dependant. Do we have evidence of "tools?"
no. Do we have anything other than pattern or appearance? No. As I
mentioned to Jim, appearance by itself is an extremely bad guide.
So, is it scientifically useful?
Tom