[Right Wing Professor]

Which is to say, we have an innate sense of how design might have caused this or that biological feature, and it often makes a lot of intuitive sense to think that way.

Can you give me another example of an 'intuitive sense' which has scientific validity, but yet can't be expressed algorithmically?

And when you're done, explain to me why the putative designer so often made completely independent designs for functionally very similar parts in different groups of animals, while simultaneously using similar designs for functionally very different parts within the same group.

[r9etb]

Can you give me another example of an 'intuitive sense' which has scientific validity, but yet can't be expressed algorithmically?

It's possible that you misunderstood my point, which is simply that we humans (designers ourselves) tend to think of things in terms of how we might design them.

What is certain, however, is that I don't understand your question.

And when you're done, explain to me why the putative designer so often made completely independent designs for functionally very similar parts in different groups of animals, while simultaneously using similar designs for functionally very different parts within the same group.

You probably make things, right? If so, haven't you ever achieved the same functionality with a different design? I know I have. Likewise, I have also used a similar design feature to perform very different tasks -- just as you probably have.

At root, your questions reduce to quibbles about design choices, rather than an argument against the possibility of a designer.