1) If the Intelligent Designer is beyond the natural universe then it is
indistinguishable from a supernatural deity. >>
Exactly why Peterson's 4th dimension appears to be 'deus ex machina' rather than a scientific explanation.
Kevin: <<2) The article assumes that design is obvious. However, design is obvious
only if we have prior experience for that design. All the examples of
clear design given in the article were man-made.>>
And are still being made or we have other references to them being made.
Kevin: <<
We have no previous experience of natural design; that is, we cannot point
to any natural object and claim with as much certainty as with a man-made
object that it is clearly designed. All we can say is that it might be
designed, in which case we have to be able to justify any claim of design.>>
Good point
Kevin: <<3) In order to justify a claim of design, we have to be able to describe
what constitutes design and what would not. The question would be very
simple: What would a designed natural object look like and how would that
compare to an undesigned natural object? >>
Another good question
Kevin: <<The only criterion offered by the article is complexity, but that is insufficient, because evolutionists like Dawkins claim that complexity can evolve naturally. So what other criteria
could there be?>>
Complexity is not one of them, neither is irreducibly complexity. So what is left ?